Does time exist?

[paddoboy]

Time is not a natural aspect of Universe. Universe is all there is. It is All That Is. And it all exists right here, right now, all at once. There is no before or after Universe. All That Is exists Now.

The following articles may be of some interest.........
http://www.askamathematician.com/20...d-what-does-that-mean-for-quantum-randomness/
Q: Do the past and future exist? If they do, is the future determined and what does that mean for quantum randomness?
Physicist: This is a difficult question to even ask, because the word “exist” carries with it some “time-based assumptions”. For example, if you ask “does the Colossus of Rhodesexist?” the correct answer should be “it did, but it doesn’t now.

The problem with the way the word “exists” is used is that it implies “now”. So, in thatsense: no, the past and future don’t exist (by definition). But big issues start coming into play when you consider that in relativity (which has given us a much more solid and nuanced understanding of time and space) what “now” is depends on how you’re physically moving. There’s a post here that goes into exactly why.


“Here and now” is the center of this picture. Everything in the bottom blue triangle is definitely in the past, and everything in the top red triangle is definitely in the future. But things in the purple triangles can be either in the past or future or present, depending on how fast you’re moving. The dashed lines are examples of different “nows”. In this diagram time points up and space points left/right.

Here’s what’s interesting with that: if we can say that the present and all those things that are happening now exist (regardless of who’s “now” we’re using), then we can show that the past and future exist in the exact same sense.


By moving fast, and in different directions, Alice and Bob have different “nows”. In this diagram Bob’s now includes Alice at some particular moment, but for Alice that moment happens at the same time (same “now”) as a time in Bob’s future. Like in the last diagram, time is up and space is left/right.

Again, if we define things that are can be found “right now” as existing, and we don’t care whose notion of “right now”we use, then the future and past exist in exactly the same way that the present exists.

It seems as though what’s going on in the present is somehow important and “more real” than what happened in the past. But consider this; we never interact with other things in the present. Because no effect can travel faster than light the best we can hope for is to interact with the recent past of other things. For example, since light travels about 1 foot per nanosecond, the screen you’re seeing now is really the screen as it was a nanosecond or two ago. Hard to notice. In relativity everything (all the laws, cause and effect, that sort of thing) is “local”, which means that the only thing that matters to what’s happening here and now is everything in the “past light cone” of here and now. That’s the blue bottom triangle of the top picture.

What’s happening now in other places is totally disconnected. For example, Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years away, and while things are certainly happening there “right now”, it won’t matter to us at all for another four years. Even though those events are happening now, they’re exactly as indeterminate and hard to guess as the things that will happen in the future. The point is that “now” does extend throughout the universe, but that doesn’t physically mean anything, or have an actual effect on anything.

So if things in the past and future exist in the exact same way that things in the present exist, then doesn’t that mean that they’re fixed? If my future is the past for someone else who’s around right now (and necessarily moving very fast like in the last diagram), then does that somehow determine the future? The answer to that question is: it doesn’t matter, but for two interesting reasons.

First, if you consider someone else who’s around “now”, then they’re not in your past light cone and they’re not in your’s (in the top diagram the “nows” are always in the purple regions). That means that, for example, some of Bob’s future will be in Alice’s past, but neither of them can know what that future holds until they wait a while. Bob has to wait until he’s “in the future”, and Alice has to wait for the signal delay before she can know anything. Either way, the events of Bob’s future are unknowable regardless of who (in Bob’s present) is asking. The future is a lock and the only key is patience.
Answer gravy:
The second reason it doesn’t matter if the future exists involves a quick jump into quantum mechanics (and arguably should have involved a jump into a new, separate post). There could be an issue with the future existing (and thus being predetermined) because that flies in the face of quantum randomness which basically says (and this is glossing over a lot) that the result of an experiment doesn’t exist until after that experiment is done. This is embodied by Bell’s theorem, which is a little difficult to grasp. So Schrödinger’s Cat is both alive and dead until its box is opened. But if, in the future, the box has already been opened and the Cat is found to be alive, then the Cat was always alive. Things like superposition and all of the usual awesomeness of quantum mechanics go away.

But, before you stress out and start researching to try to really understand the problem in that last paragraph: don’t. Turns out there isn’t an issue. Even if the future does exist, it doesn’t mean that events are set in stone in any useful or important way. In the (poorly named) Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every thing that can happen does, and those many ways for things to happen are described by a (fantastically complicated) quantum wave function. That wave function is set in stone by an extant future, but that doesn’t tell you exactly what will happen. In the case of Schrödinger’s Cat, the Cat is in a super-position of both alive and dead before the box is opened, and afterward it’s still alive and dead but the observer is “caught up” in the super-position.


The super-position of states after the box is opened: Schrödinger sad about his dead cat and Schrödinger happy about his still living cat.

Before the box is opened we can say that, in the future, we will definitely be in a particular super-position of both happy (because of the cute living cat) and horrified (because of the gross dead cat). However, that doesn’t actually predict which result you’ll experience. Technically you’ll experience both.

 

[ForrestDean]

Here is a way I like to analogize experiential realities of Universe from my perspective:

Imagine yourself in a library surrounded by countless books. You find a book you like and then you read it. You then put the book back onto the shelf. Most would say that the story in that book now exists in the past. But the book is still there on the shelf. It still exists right now. If you wanted to read the book again would you now consider the story in that book to be in the future as well as the past? Would one normally say that WWI and WWII exists in the future as well as the past? Would you find anyone to say that 911 exists in the future as well as the past? What I am saying is that those moments still exist now. It's just that we are no longer personally experiencing those particular moments now because based upon the nature of the reality we are in now, we continue to perceivably "move" in a linear sequential fashion, one moment upon another, upon another, which by the way is entirely necessary and appropriate considering our current level of advancement.

Basically what I'm saying is that Universe is infinite - contrary to what most traditional scientists are bound to believe, and that there are infinite potential experiential realities, or what many would refer to as alternate realities. And what I am saying is that these infinite realities all exist at this very moment - not scattered across a "timeline" where we are located at some point along that line. However, again, considering the nature of the reality we are in now as compared to those realities where energy vibrates at much higher frequencies, we continue to move in a perceivably linear direction giving us the illusion of a "past" and a "future". We are just constantly moving through a sea of infinite alternate realities - each one almost entirely identical to the next, only changing so slightly from one reality to the next to the next ad infinitum.

 

[ForrestDean]

The following articles may be of some interest.........
http://www.askamathematician.com/20...d-what-does-that-mean-for-quantum-randomness/
Q: Do the past and future exist? If they do, is the future determined and what does that mean for quantum randomness?
Physicist: This is a difficult question to even ask, because the word “exist” carries with it some “time-based assumptions”. For example, if you ask “does the Colossus of Rhodesexist?” the correct answer should be “it did, but it doesn’t now.

The problem with the way the word “exists” is used is that it implies “now”. So, in thatsense: no, the past and future don’t exist (by definition). But big issues start coming into play when you consider that in relativity (which has given us a much more solid and nuanced understanding of time and space) what “now” is depends on how you’re physically moving. There’s a post here that goes into exactly why.


“Here and now” is the center of this picture. Everything in the bottom blue triangle is definitely in the past, and everything in the top red triangle is definitely in the future. But things in the purple triangles can be either in the past or future or present, depending on how fast you’re moving. The dashed lines are examples of different “nows”. In this diagram time points up and space points left/right.

Here’s what’s interesting with that: if we can say that the present and all those things that are happening now exist (regardless of who’s “now” we’re using), then we can show that the past and future exist in the exact same sense.


By moving fast, and in different directions, Alice and Bob have different “nows”. In this diagram Bob’s now includes Alice at some particular moment, but for Alice that moment happens at the same time (same “now”) as a time in Bob’s future. Like in the last diagram, time is up and space is left/right.

Again, if we define things that are can be found “right now” as existing, and we don’t care whose notion of “right now”we use, then the future and past exist in exactly the same way that the present exists.

It seems as though what’s going on in the present is somehow important and “more real” than what happened in the past. But consider this; we never interact with other things in the present. Because no effect can travel faster than light the best we can hope for is to interact with the recent past of other things. For example, since light travels about 1 foot per nanosecond, the screen you’re seeing now is really the screen as it was a nanosecond or two ago. Hard to notice. In relativity everything (all the laws, cause and effect, that sort of thing) is “local”, which means that the only thing that matters to what’s happening here and now is everything in the “past light cone” of here and now. That’s the blue bottom triangle of the top picture.

What’s happening now in other places is totally disconnected. For example, Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years away, and while things are certainly happening there “right now”, it won’t matter to us at all for another four years. Even though those events are happening now, they’re exactly as indeterminate and hard to guess as the things that will happen in the future. The point is that “now” does extend throughout the universe, but that doesn’t physically mean anything, or have an actual effect on anything.

So if things in the past and future exist in the exact same way that things in the present exist, then doesn’t that mean that they’re fixed? If my future is the past for someone else who’s around right now (and necessarily moving very fast like in the last diagram), then does that somehow determine the future? The answer to that question is: it doesn’t matter, but for two interesting reasons.

First, if you consider someone else who’s around “now”, then they’re not in your past light cone and they’re not in your’s (in the top diagram the “nows” are always in the purple regions). That means that, for example, some of Bob’s future will be in Alice’s past, but neither of them can know what that future holds until they wait a while. Bob has to wait until he’s “in the future”, and Alice has to wait for the signal delay before she can know anything. Either way, the events of Bob’s future are unknowable regardless of who (in Bob’s present) is asking. The future is a lock and the only key is patience.
Answer gravy:
The second reason it doesn’t matter if the future exists involves a quick jump into quantum mechanics (and arguably should have involved a jump into a new, separate post). There could be an issue with the future existing (and thus being predetermined) because that flies in the face of quantum randomness which basically says (and this is glossing over a lot) that the result of an experiment doesn’t exist until after that experiment is done. This is embodied by Bell’s theorem, which is a little difficult to grasp. So Schrödinger’s Cat is both alive and dead until its box is opened. But if, in the future, the box has already been opened and the Cat is found to be alive, then the Cat was always alive. Things like superposition and all of the usual awesomeness of quantum mechanics go away.

But, before you stress out and start researching to try to really understand the problem in that last paragraph: don’t. Turns out there isn’t an issue. Even if the future does exist, it doesn’t mean that events are set in stone in any useful or important way. In the (poorly named) Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every thing that can happen does, and those many ways for things to happen are described by a (fantastically complicated) quantum wave function. That wave function is set in stone by an extant future, but that doesn’t tell you exactly what will happen. In the case of Schrödinger’s Cat, the Cat is in a super-position of both alive and dead before the box is opened, and afterward it’s still alive and dead but the observer is “caught up” in the super-position.


The super-position of states after the box is opened: Schrödinger sad about his dead cat and Schrödinger happy about his still living cat.

Before the box is opened we can say that, in the future, we will definitely be in a particular super-position of both happy (because of the cute living cat) and horrified (because of the gross dead cat). However, that doesn’t actually predict which result you’ll experience. Technically you’ll experience both.

Interesting article. And what's so interesting is that the information in this article can be perceived in different ways depending upon the perspective of the individual reading it. From my perspective this article is actually inadvertently describing what I have been saying - that all realities exist, and that what we anticipate to happen or not to happen would appear to only happen at some point in the "future", and that is because it takes what we perceive as "time" for anything to happen, which is due to the nature of this reality.

When I keep referring to the "nature of this reality" what I am referring to is that this particular reality, the physical Universe of matter, we are experiencing now is at an extremely low vibratory frequency. Everything occurs or happens at an extremely slow process we call change that we measure with the concept of "time". Quantum physicist, David Bohm most appropriately described the physical Universe of matter as "frozen light". Beyond the physical Universe everything consists of subtle energy in the form of vibration vibrating at much higher frequencies. It's kind of similar to an ice cube. It would appear that everything within the ice cube is not moving, but it is, just at a very slow rate. Increase the vibration and the ice cube becomes water where the molecules move faster. Increase the vibration further and the water becomes steam where the molecules move even faster.

 

[paddoboy]

Here is a way I like to analogize experiential realities of Universe from my perspective:

The best I can say is that the subject about the reality or otherwise of time, does appear to be debatable among professional academics at this time.
Obviously I have linked to three or four that agree with my position.

Imagine yourself in a library surrounded by countless books. You find a book you like and then you read it. You then put the book back onto the shelf. Most would say that the story in that book now exists in the past. But the book is still there on the shelf. It still exists right now.

While I accept analogies are useful concepts [I use them myself particularly in describing the expansion of spacetime/universe] they inevitably all have limitations.

Basically what I'm saying is that Universe is infinite - contrary to what most traditional scientists are bound to believe, and that there are infinite potential experiential realities, or what many would refer to as alternate realities. .

Cosmologists are not certain about the infinite nature or otherwise of the universe, although latest data does indicate the universe/spacetime is flat on larg scales. That data from WMAP of course is given with a tiny possible error range, which may mean that what we measure as "flat", is simply a small part of an overall larger curvature. If this were the case, the universe would be finite although without boudaries, as in a global geometry.
So this value is consistent with the universe being flat but it cannot be excluded that the universe could have a very slight positive curvature, but a flat universe still stands as the best bet.

 

[Michael 345]

Do you accept magnetic fields exist and are real?
Likewise time, space, spacetime; All are real and all have measurable effects.

Yes I accept magnetic fields exist.

I can detect them with a sheet of paper and some iron fillings.

I can see them in action pushing and pulling other magnetic fields.

Don't see any interaction between two clocks.

In fact one clock has a new battery and comparing it to the built in clock within the TV they both indicate the show I just watched was half hour in existence.

However another clock outside of the TV has a weak battery tells me the program was in existence for 15 minutes.

I don't have a fourth clock outside of the Universe to synchronise my 3 clocks.

 

[Michael 345]

that all realities exist

I would rephrase as 'have the potential to exist'.

I would also contend much of that potential is lost due to events in the past.

If you have a object on your kitchen table there are a quadrillion events which may affect that object.

Suddenly the object is totally destroyed, down to the very atoms of its composition being ripped apart.

This was one of the potential quadrillion events. But from this moment the potential for the reminder of the quadrillion vanished.

Extreme? Yes.

But any event automatically excludes the remaining quadrillion BUT automatically resets to another quadrillion.

Not everything can happen. Except for those who wish to drag up 'alternative universe/time lines etc'.

Personally don't believe in except within fiction (science fiction if you will but still fiction).

 

[Michael 345]

For example, since light travels about 1 foot per nanosecond, the screen you’re seeing now is really the screen as it was a nanosecond or two ago.

Agreed.

And because I am taking a selfie the camera on my phone is seeing me a nanosecond ago.

So what?

I'm looking at my mate in the Alpha Centauri complex knowing he is 4 years older to how I am seeing him.

Repeat. So what?

dead

So Schrödinger’s Cat is both alive and dead until its box is opened

Bloody Schrödinger’s cat. Wish he never got the bloody thing. Scrambled his brain.

No it is not both dead and alive. Even to contemplate such an impossibility is stupid.

At best it can be said that state of the bloody cat is indeterminate with 2 main options DEAD or ALIVE (no reward for either).

I can expand this part of my post if someone can give me a good reason but right now I am taking the cat to the animal shelter and when I get back will make Mr Schrödinger a nice cup of tea.

 

[paddoboy]

Yes I accept magnetic fields exist.

I can detect them with a sheet of paper and some iron fillings.

I can see them in action pushing and pulling other magnetic fields.

And the different potential geometries of spacetime have been measured with GP-B and the recent aLIGO gravitational wave discovery: They are both examples of spacetime being affected by matter.

Don't see any interaction between two clocks.

In fact one clock has a new battery and comparing it to the built in clock within the TV they both indicate the show I just watched was half hour in existence.

I hope it wasn't one of them boring, oh so fake reality TV shows. [I can't f%$#^#@ stand them!]
Humour aside, put both them clocks in different frames of references though and what one clock sees of that half hour is greatly dilated, as I believe I illustrated yesterday. In other words the passage of time is not fixed, but variable, as is space.

However another clock outside of the TV has a weak battery tells me the program was in existence for 15 minutes.

'That's not the same as time dilation, and is simply an illustration of the driving of the mechanics of the clock/s.

I don't have a fourth clock outside of the Universe to synchronise my 3 clocks.

The practical validation everyday of the observation of time dilation, says that we don't need to.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm looking at my mate in the Alpha Centauri complex knowing he is 4 years older to how I am seeing him.

And he sees you as 4 years older also; But each of you within your own frame, remain as x-4 years, and more importantly, both situations are equally justified and real, that is, you and he see each other as 4 years older, and each sees yourself as x-4 years old.

 

[Michael 345]

And he sees you as 4 years older also; But each of you within your own frame, remain as x-4 years, and more importantly, both situations are equally justified and real, that is, you and he see each other as 4 years older, and each sees yourself as x-4 years old.

I agree.

But as I interpret this situation, understanding as I do the speed limit of light and the distance between us, I don't see evidence of time.

 

[Confused2]

I agree.

But as I interpret this situation, understanding as I do the speed limit of light and the distance between us, I don't see evidence of time.

Imagine a spaceship is traveling towards you at (say) half the speed of light. The light from the other spaceship leaves (obviously) at the speed of light. The light from the other spaceship arrives (obviously) at the speed of light. This is difficult to come to terms with both conceptually and mathematically and yet it is true. To keep the laws of physics (in this case the speed of light) the same for both spaceships (frames) 'something' is happening. The 'something' is known as Special Relativity. It isn't difficult but you would have to see there is something to look for before you could start to understand what is going on.

 

[Michael 345]

Imagine a spaceship is traveling towards you at (say) half the speed of light. The light from the other spaceship leaves (obviously) at the speed of light. The light from the other spaceship arrives (obviously) at the speed of light. This is difficult to come to terms with both conceptually and mathematically and yet it is true. To keep the laws of physics (in this case the speed of light) the same for both spaceships (frames) 'something' is happening. The 'something' is known as Special Relativity. It isn't difficult but you would have to see there is something to look for before you could start to understand what is going on.

1. I accept the shortening of the space ship along its axis of travel.
2. I accept the gain of mass.
3. I accept the twin who travels very fast and very far away, comes back at speed has aged slower because of living within a different reality frame.

I don't understand the maths involved (still trying to understand logarithms) but I'm willing to go along with all three.

Here is my disconnect

1. You can't buy a kilogram of metres
2. You can't buy a metre of mass
3. The difference in 'age' as (think you and I can agree) is a result of the different frames. Which also applies to 1 and 2.

My thinking goes along the line of

"Well if metres and mass and time are so flexible I don't think they exist as absolutes"

We make them as absolutes (setting standards).

But like (I hate to say it as so many post argue about meanings not the subject) words in a dictionary we have something to anchor our agreed meanings to.

The standard metre, kilogram, second are all agreed to constructs.

We don't have an outside absolute to measure (judge) them against.

Mr Humpty Dumpty has spoken

 

[Confused2]

1. I accept the shortening of the space ship along its axis of travel.
2. I accept the gain of mass.
3. I accept the twin who travels very fast and very far away, comes back at speed has aged slower because of living within a different reality frame.

I don't understand the maths involved (still trying to understand logarithms) but I'm willing to go along with all three.

Here is my disconnect

1. You can't buy a kilogram of metres
2. You can't buy a metre of mass
3. The difference in 'age' as (think you and I can agree) is a result of the different frames. Which also applies to 1 and 2.

My thinking goes along the line of

"Well if metres and mass and time are so flexible I don't think they exist as absolutes"

We make them as absolutes (setting standards).

But like (I hate to say it as so many post argue about meanings not the subject) words in a dictionary we have something to anchor our agreed meanings to.

The standard metre, kilogram, second are all agreed to constructs.

We don't have an outside absolute to measure (judge) them against.

Mr Humpty Dumpty has spoken

Do you know Pythagoras's thing ... for right angle triangles the square on the hypoteneuse is the sum of the squares on the other two sides? That would be sufficient.

 

[Michael 345]

Do you know Pythagoras's thing ... for right angle triangles the square on the hypoteneuse is the sum of the squares on the other two sides? That would be sufficient.

I know Pythagoras.

He was my senior tutor.

Spent hours scratching triangles in sand.

Was trying to call him but his mobile is off/out of range etc. Left message but he's not got back.

Soooo

That would be sufficient.

How?

Humpty

 

[Confused2]

I have to go to work. Later I'll get the VW Microbus out and we can do some physics. Anyone asks say its joss sticks.

 

[Michael 345]

I have to go to work. Later I'll get the VW Microbus out and we can do some physics. Anyone asks say its joss sticks.

You do the exercises in fragrant van.

I'll sit with Pythagie on the beach.

More sand scratching coming up.

 

[hansda]

And see, you said it yourself. The "concept of time exists", which is all it really is - a concept, a perception.

By the term concept, i mean the way time is defined in Physics, it exists.

The clocks we use are used to measure what we perceive and what we experience as individual moments in linear progression.

Individual moments are part of time only. If individual moment exists, time also exists.

This perception of time is truly relative to the individual. It is a subjective experience.

This is also true for any other perception.

Time in and of itself is not a constant, and there is no proof anywhere of it being constant as it appears to be perceived differently relative to the observer or group consensus observers at the location or instance from whence the perception of it is being observed, and from which would be perceived differently in some other foreign world or situation. Time is just a label we invented to put upon the changes we experience so that we can function appropriately in this world and within the world society. Seasons come and go, the sun rises and sets, it takes "time" for an object to fall to the ground, we constantly have to wait for things to happen, etc. Change is constant and this measuring of change called "time" would appear to make time itself a constant, but nowhere is time shown to exist outside of change.

Things dont change because of time. Things change due laws of inertia. Time gives the idea of "rate of change". If change is real, rate of change is real; so is time.

 

[river]

By the term concept, i mean the way time is defined in Physics, it exists.


Individual moments are part of time only. If individual moment exists, time also exists.



This is also true for any other perception.

Things dont change because of time. Things change due laws of inertia. Time gives the idea of "rate of change". If change is real, rate of change is real; so is time.

 

[river]

Things dont change because of time. Things change due laws of inertia. Time gives the idea of "rate of change". If change is real, rate of change is real; so is time.

You make sense until ; If change is real , rate of change is real ; So is time .

You confused your own logic .

 

[Confused2]

The object of this little exercise is to show 'something' about time. I was going to follow up with spacetime intervals where time is very obviously a dimension but I drifted outside my comfort zone. I suspect what follows will cause enough controversy for the immediate future.

We need a flagpole by the side of the road. If there isn't one we have to find one and put it there. The flagpole needs to be vertical. The road needs to be horizontal. If the road isn't horizontal and the flagpole isn't vertical then Pythagoras won't be able to do his thing so we need to get that right to start with.
We have the lovely Alice on the beach - we'll say she is in the 'beach frame'. We have the microbus which we'll refer to as the 'microbus frame' because it can move in the beach frame. Crazy Carlos drives the microbus and Bob sits in the back watching what happens. Alice has some of the light show stuff from the microbus and is sitting at the bottom of the vertical pole with it. Coupla beers from the osokool and we're ready to go.

Here is what is going to happen. Crazy Carlos is going to drive the Microbus past the flagpole and as it passes Alice is going to send a single pulse of light up the flagpole from point A so it hits a thing (say) 5 metres up at point B. We'll call this vertical distance travelled by the pulse y.

Here we go. Microbus thunders towards the flagpole. As it passes there's the pulse going up the flagpole. Bob sees that the flagpole is moving backwards as he passes so for him when the pulse hits the top the flagpole it isn't at a point vertically above the bottom its at a point we'll call C.

The distance the flagpole travels in the microbus frame (edited here) is going to be 'how long the pulse takes to travel in the microbus frame' (call this t) times the speed of the microbus (call that v).

So in your triangle (you are drawing one aren't you?) you have x and y at right angles where y is the height of the pole and x is the distance the microbus moved while the pulse travelled. Using Pythag we see the distance the pulse actually travelled in the microbus frame (call it z) is given by z²=x²+y² (1).

Knowing the speed of light is always c...
Using T for the time in the beach frame we have:
y=cT
Using t for the time in the microbus frame we have:
x=vt and
t=z/c or z=ct
substituting x,y and z into (1)
c²t² = v²t² + c²T²
or
c²T² = c²t²- v²t²
or
c²T² = t²(c²- v²)
or
T² = t²(1- v²/c²)
or
T = t √(1- v²/c²)
Since (1- v²/c²) < 1 when v > 0 Bob concludes the elapsed time on the beach is less than the elapsed time in the microbus. Note that Bob is stationary in the microbus frame and he sees the flagpole and beach frame moving past at velocity v.