It was 20 years ago when I first suggested that time doesn’t exist and was nothing more than an illusion. It was 3 or so years ago when I put this idea to the forum members and subsequently received a mixed response, the stronger responses coming from those members who were more “established” and experienced physicists.

I was interested to read page 26 of The New Scientist last week where they published and interesting article “The Time Illusion” and possible consequences for future Physics.

An interesting read for you non-believers out there.

It was 20 years ago when I first suggested that time doesn’t exist and was nothing more than an illusion. Nearly sprayed my coffee on the screen due to the irony in this statement. OTOH, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so".

Yes, a legend in his own lunchtime.

One extreme cannot answer the other. Does time exist? Ever study Chaos?
We are in the middle...time appears to our senses to exist. But do we even know what time is? It is easy to assume we do.

Imagine a coin (metaphoric), on one side there is time, and the other is without time. We are the coin. If everything already happened...then how can we say time existed. Yet here we are...watching the seconds go by.

Anything that can be mapped as a function (of time) will map a spiral. Why?
The answer is already there (it's been proven), but I want to see if there is anyone who already knows it.

Nearly sprayed my coffee on the screen due to the irony in this statement. OTOH, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so".

Verrry funny - smartarse!

Links to an article, please?

Links to an article, please?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19726391.500-is-time-an-illusion.html

But I think you may have to buy the mag if you're not a subscriber.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19726391.500-is-time-an-illusion.html

But I think you may have to buy the mag if you're not a subscriber.

Well, I am quite skeptical. From reading the first few paragraphs (which is what I can get for free), it seems to fall victim to the usuall problems of scientific journalism. For example, the first few lines gives the impression that this is a majority opinion among physicists:

You are not alone. Physicists have long struggled to understand what time really is.

The fact is, most physicists (since Einstein) know EXACTLY what time is.

I wouldn't take this article too seriously, which is (sadly) what I say about most science writing.

To BentheMan,

First,
I would like to apologize for snapping at you earlier. I can say strange things sometimes. You have every right to your opinion. I certainly have unusual thoughts sometimes.

Second,
Since you apparently know EXACTLY what time is, can you give an EXACT definition?

Thanx,
Jozen

Well, I admit that the link I gave you has a rather "naff" tone to it. But reading the actual article does get a little more scientific and provides an interesting read.

Regardless, I still maintain that time is nothing more than a mathematical description of the relative behaviour of matter and energy. It certainly doesn't "exist" in the sense that most people think. That's my view but I don't expect you to agree with it.

I just wanted to point out that "real" physicists are contemplating this notion and getting a place in a respected journal.

I still think that it deserves a read if you can get your hands on the mag.

Since you apparently know EXACTLY what time is, can you give an EXACT definition?

General Relativity tells us that time is on the same footing as space---this is the way that it enters physical laws. So I don't understand how people can claim that it is only a derived effect of motion, say. If you begin to treat time differently than space, you would have to reformulate most of physics that has been done in the last 100 years or so, I think.

Some researchers increasingly suspect that time is not a fundamental feature of nature, but rather an artefact of our perception. One group has recently found a way to do quantum physics without invoking time, which could help pave a path to a time-free "theory of everything". If correct, the approach suggests that time really is an illusion, and that we may need to rethink how the universe at large works.

Fascinating - From what i can pick up, it bypasses the problem why one dimension has to be temporal. They all are spatial.

ie time is on the same footing as space

”General Relativity tells us that time is on the same footing as space---this is the way that it enters physical laws. So I don't understand how people can claim that it is only a derived effect of motion, say. If you begin to treat time differently than space, you would have to reformulate most of physics that has been done in the last 100 years or so, I think."

I see no reason to disagree. It has to be. I also can't seem to separate it from other footings. Space has within it the features of a plane and a range or distance. Time has a distinct pattern when mapped out. It's basically always the same, an attractor. Different observations measure different attractors. I must wonder that if it enters physical laws, then it came from timelessness, maybe.

Its as if it stretches out of nowhere. If we could map it totally, the map would vanish with it into a non existent state. This non existence would be the center of everything, everywhere and nowhere, defying the laws of physics. Don't they break down before the big bang?

If we take this stretched out map it will look like the universe, each second overlapping the other in a constant state, vector paths when followed will spiral out of nowhere. It is a difficult model to map, because everything is
spinning around everything, there are densities and open areas, an overwhelming number of factors. I won't even get into the thought vectors.

It might be possible that this nonexistence from which time comes into physical laws exerts other folds in other directions, of duplicate patterns. Not the same, but drifting at angles from close to totally different. Then we would have parallel universes crossing and wrapping through the time vector path ways of this one.

In the book the Immortality of Physics the author describes an amazing discovery (for me). Time blinks in and out approximately 18 to the 43 power times per a second, all reality does it simultaneously. We annhilate completely
and come back slightly displaced from our former position. I found it hard to believe, I'm not in a position to say he is wrong.

Somehow everything has to be related. The Unification Theory is not the aim, its the Unification of it's Knowledge at work. It probably is possible to avoid reformation and instead find where everything fits into each other. There is the great difficulty of the science of how different realms of study intermix. That is, how different subjects come together to make a clear picture. Science has become so specialized these days, it is over compartmentalized.

The signs indicate that it once again is moving away from compartmentalization.
Not only science but a huge interloping mixture of observation is exposing itself unprecented. We are all getting exposed to vast differences of knowledge.

Though this is still time we are talking about, (the changing times of science), I do believe I have digressed a little.



“Some researchers increasingly suspect that time is not a fundamental feature of nature, but rather an artefact of our perception. One group has recently found a way to do quantum physics without invoking time, which could help pave a path to a time-free "theory of everything". If correct, the approach suggests that time really is an illusion, and that we may need to rethink how the universe at large works.
”
Fascinating - From what i can pick up, it bypasses the problem why one dimension has to be temporal. They all are spatial.


This is no surprise for me. Ben already indirectly mentioned the fundamental feature "it enters physical laws". We cannot have time in the foundation.
Still, what you got there sounds very interesting. Can you provide a link?

Space/time is a derived effect of energy/matter motion. To be is to be in motion.

See there is this fundmental essence we call energy. Its motion (including vibration) is the basis for all observed phenomena - including space/time.

fadingCaptian,

Isn't the sum state of Energy 0?

Not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean that energy cannot be created or destroyed? If so, then yes correct. This has no bearing on my comments as it is the motion of this energy that is the nature of all phenomena.

The paper arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213 gives an explanation which reconciles Einstein curved spacetime with the notion of non-existence of time. The critical point is the Big Bang assumption! See also lighttale.com

The fact is, most physicists (since Einstein) know EXACTLY what time is.


I've always felt that the needs of industrial society (organization and control of matter and people) have created the ubiquitous nature of the thing we call 'time'.

Einstein's thought experiments always seemed to involve machines like trains, cars, elevators and electric torches. Indicating that in some way his work is more a product of what we have created rather than something 'natural'.

:shrug:

Indicating that in some way his work is more a product of what we have created rather than something 'natural'.

Interesting. Perhaps a good topic for another thread?


So,
does anyone know if they are saying that time doesn't exist because it actually a spatial dimension, or they are saying that like `depth` in a hologram, it is an illusion?...
(either way would be cool)

So,
does anyone know if they are saying that time doesn't exist because it actually a spatial dimension, or they are saying that like `depth` in a hologram, it is an illusion?...
(either way would be cool)

Perhaps if they give some names or something we could find a scientific paper online.

To be perfectly honest, I have never heard of a professional scientist understanding time in any other way than within the context of special relativity. Most of this ``derived effect of motion'' nonsense pops up in physics discussion boards.

Perhaps if they give some names or something we could find a scientific paper online.

To be perfectly honest, I have never heard of a professional scientist understanding time in any other way than within the context of special relativity. Most of this ``derived effect of motion'' nonsense pops up in physics discussion boards.
Perhaps you might want to think that statement relating 'time' only within the context of Special Relativity a little more deeply.

'Time' is a measurement, just like speed is a measurement, defined by science. The original scientific definition of a second was 1/86,400th of a mean solar day, based on motion (the rotation of the Earth). Because the rotation of the Earth can vary from day to day by minute amounts, the SI definition based on a cesium-133 clock was adopted in 1960. However, that definition was still based on the original duration of a second defined by Earth's rotation.

Special Relativity cannot describe the variability of that atomic clock due to gravitational potential. General Relativity is necessary to describe why an atomic clock on a GPS satellite beats faster than a similar clock at sealevel, even though the satellite clock is moving much faster through the vacuum. I tend to refer to 'time' as measured by an atomic clock as relative time. Why? Because we also measure time by an absolute standard, called Universal Time Coordinated, or UTC time.

GPS time is UTC time, the same standard we use in our everyday lives and for most precise scientific measurements. The clocks on GPS satellites are all synchronized to measure the duration of a second as identical by any satellite in the constellation or by any clock on the Earth. All clocks synchronized with UTC time will measure the duration of any event anywhere as identical. The pulsation rate of a distant pulsar will be identical by UTC synchronized clocks whether measured by a surface clock or one traveling through space. The synchronized clock on a GPS satellite will measure one rotation of the Earth as an identical duration as one located at sealevel. Unsynchronized locks on a GPS satellite left beat at their natural frequency would measure a longer duration for one Earth rotation than a clock at sealevel. Unsynchronized GPS clocks would also count more pulses from the distant pulsar in one second than a clock on the surface. It is a different method of measuring time than the 'relative' time of relativity theory.

An extreme example would be an atomic clock in an accretion disk near the event horizon of a black hole. Such an atomic clock would be in an extreme gravitational area, as well as moving close to the speed of light. It would essentially stop from our frame of reference, but we see such objects moving at near the speed of light. 'Relative' time stops in such enviroments, but Universal time does not. Earlier in the history of relativity, black holes were sometimes referred to as 'frozen' stars, because all motion was assumed to stop at the event horizon from the perspective of an outside observer. We now know that to be untrue. Atomic clocks may stop, but motion doesn't, thus the two methods of 'counting time'.

fading captian

"Not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean that energy cannot be created or destroyed? If so, then yes correct. This has no bearing on my comments as it is the motion of this energy that is the nature of all phenomena."

I mean that for every negative there is a positive or every up there is a down, every space there is a form, every value there is a counter value, etc). If you add them together you get nothing. No, I agree energy can't be created or destroyed. I question the last sentence. I believe it would make more sense to say "This has no bearing on my comments as it is the motion of this energy that is the nature of all OBSERVABLE phenomena."

2inquisitive---

I thought the context was clear enough. If the connection between time in the special relativity sense and the general relativity sense was not implied, it was inteded. Time is treated the same in both theories, with the Lorentz transformations differing---this is why you can get strange effects in strong gravitational fields. Typically the easiest way to understand these things is to ignore the effects of strong grav. fields so that the physics is clear---time is to be treated on the same footing as space in both theories.

As to blobrana's comment, again I would ask for some name or some scientific article that I can read. Quantum mechanics (before Dirac) doesn't really care about special relativity. The time evolution can be caused by an operator, and it enters the equations (i.e. Schroedinger Equation) differently---the SE has only one time derivative, but two space derivatives. So in this sense I can understand time as nothing more than an artefact of the ``evolution operator'' I mentioned above.

This theory is sick, in a way, because it doesn't describe fermions. And we understand WHY it doesn't include fermions---they are a relativistic effect! Why? Dirac found in 1920's that by including the effects of Special Relativity in quantum mechanics, he AUTOMATICALLY gets a theory with fermions. The prediction he made was that there would also be positrons, which was confirmed. The Dirac equation is fully Lorentz Invariant, which can only be the case if time and space are treated equally---the Dirac equation has one derivative of time and one derivative of space, and so it is consistent with the Lorentz Transformations, which mix up space and time.

So long story short, I don't buy a word of what these scientists are saying. They would have to reformulate quantum mechanics since Dirac (who's theory has had many predictions confirmed), and gravity since Einstein. THEN they would have to explain why we were fooled so badly.

To BentheMan,

I have 3 questions for you.

Are you a physicist? (My guess is that you are...your quote has me wondering)

Is that Mr. Towel there getting high on pot in your Avatar symbol?

Ok...So I have one good question really.

Have you ever heard about this?

"In the book 'the Immortality of Physics' the author (Frank J. Tipler) describes an amazing discovery (for me). Time blinks in and out approximately 18 to the 43 power times per a second, all reality does it simultaneously. We annhilate completely and come back slightly displaced from our former position. Though I found it hard to believe, I'm not in a position to say he is wrong."

And if so, could you eleborate...or point me to a good link?

Perhaps you might want to think that statement relating 'time' only within the context of Special Relativity a little more deeply. [...........] Special Relativity cannot describe the variability of that atomic clock due to gravitational potential. In fact, maybe you should think a little more deeply. General Relatively models spacetime as a 4-manifold that is locally pseudo-Euclidean (i.e. Minkowskian); in the absence of mass it is also globally Minkowskian.

But in the presence of mass, there are still, by the definition of a 4-manifold, Minkowskian neighbourhoods where the Special Theory applies. It's just that these neighbourhoods may be rather small - hence the colloquial use of the term "warped spacetime".

The General Theory in no way re-interprets the familiar interpretation of time, locally, as established by the Special Theory, rather it sought to describe how these local Minkowskian neighbourhoods connect, and hence how "global time" can be connected to "local time".

Ben,
Interesting stuff about the Dirac equation.

If you don't mind I'd like to take a step back and ask an elementary question:
Was space/time created at the big bang? If so, doesn't that suggest space/time is not fundamental but a result of the expansion of energy?

Movement creates the illusion of time and motion is another illusion because nothing has time to move because only this moment exists. The past and future are in our mind, so they are illusions/mental. Without memory and predictions of future events, the feeling of time would not exist. Nothing would exist because nothing has time to exist in this moment.

Music does not exist in the present moment, it exists in the mind (time). It is music because we can remember and predict the notes, otherwise it's just sounds.

Yorda

your approach is philosophical. Ben's is scientific. Both of you have good points. Maybe reality is what we see it as, since no one else is there to see it?

To BentheMan,

I have 3 questions for you.

Are you a physicist? (My guess is that you are...your quote has me wondering)

Yes.

Is that Mr. Towel there getting high on pot in your Avatar symbol?

TowlIE. From South Park?

Ok...So I have one good question really.

Have you ever heard about this?

"In the book 'the Immortality of Physics' the author (Frank J. Tipler) describes an amazing discovery (for me). Time blinks in and out approximately 18 to the 43 power times per a second, all reality does it simultaneously. We annhilate completely and come back slightly displaced from our former position. Though I found it hard to believe, I'm not in a position to say he is wrong."

And if so, could you eleborate...or point me to a good link?

Well, yes, I've heard about this. I talked to Tipler a few years ago before he started writing these nutty books---he gave a talk at Baylor using physics to prove Jesus's miracles. The walking on water was aparently caused by the spontaneous creation of protons from the vacuum, or some such. (This should tell you a little about the man.) I don't take anything that he says about this kind of thing too seriously, nor do any people in the field. I THINK I understand what he's trying to say, and I don't understand how it would work.

So, in short, I would say to always take quotes like this with a grain of salt. Tipler is extrapolating things from physics that just isn't understood to make such claims.

Was space/time created at the big bang? If so, doesn't that suggest space/time is not fundamental but a result of the expansion of energy?

Notice that by your argument, neither is space...

It was 20 years ago when I first suggested that time doesn’t exist and was nothing more than an illusion.


If time is an illusion, then it doesn't make any sense to say that you thought it 20 years ago, does it?

You along with all copenhaginsts.

Without the mind, time is an illusion. The past, present and future would occur simultaneously.

It is the mind which gives rise to anything...

Time is a way for us to feel in control and to organize things better. What is certain is that things are constantly changing, changing, changing......changing......, because even the mind that think of time, is one of the infinite expressions of those changing things that are constantly changing and changing. Because "change" is all what it is.

So long as things change, and there is a mind present to say it did, then it is obvious that we initiate time into exist. In fact, Fred Hoyle, amazing astrophysicist who died in 2001 believed, as many scientists do today that the mind is what we call time.

Hello all
Time is a rate governed/affected by mass, energy, and motion through space.
:)

To Ben

"Well, yes, I've heard about this. I talked to Tipler a few years ago before he started writing these nutty books---he gave a talk at Baylor using physics to prove Jesus's miracles. The walking on water was aparently caused by the spontaneous creation of protons from the vacuum, or some such. (This should tell you a little about the man.) I don't take anything that he says about this kind of thing too seriously, nor do any people in the field. I THINK I understand what he's trying to say, and I don't understand how it would work."

I read the book. I certianly took it with a grain of salt. The idea was way too delicate and seemed as if it could not possibly fit in sequence. That we would make God using Von-Neuman probes seems rather absurd. It wasn't what he was saying that I found interesting, but the Science he was referring to and the putting peices of physics discoverys together.
The Annhilition in Time is not his work, he borrowed it from elsewhere. Most of the stuff he wrote is not based on his own work, but how he put other people's work together. The idea is right (of seeing how the discoverys fit together), the result is off (God is a computer?..Doubtful.). Aside from that, where does this source (about flickering matter) really come from? Is it still thoeritical or is it by now an essential part of the study of physics?


Oh yeah...
That is Towlie from South Park getting high isn't it?

Time is one of space-time dimensions, i.e. the directions, by which are gradients of mass/energy density of environment are defined.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/time_dimension.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/time_dimension_foam1.gif

Note that the life on particularly stable spacetime brane implies the existence of pair conjugated time dimensions (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-theory), 2 (http://science.propeller.com/story/2007/05/15/does-time-have-2-dimensions/), 3 (http://www.physorg.com/news96027669.html), 4 (http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html)).

To Ben

"Well, yes, I've heard about this. I talked to Tipler a few years ago before he started writing these nutty books---he gave a talk at Baylor using physics to prove Jesus's miracles. The walking on water was aparently caused by the spontaneous creation of protons from the vacuum, or some such. (This should tell you a little about the man.) I don't take anything that he says about this kind of thing too seriously, nor do any people in the field. I THINK I understand what he's trying to say, and I don't understand how it would work."

I read the book. I certianly took it with a grain of salt. The idea was way too delicate and seemed as if it could not possibly fit in sequence. That we would make God using Von-Neuman probes seems rather absurd. It wasn't what he was saying that I found interesting, but the Science he was referring to and the putting peices of physics discoverys together.
The Annhilition in Time is not his work, he borrowed it from elsewhere. Most of the stuff he wrote is not based on his own work, but how he put other people's work together. The idea is right (of seeing how the discoverys fit together), the result is off (God is a computer?..Doubtful.). Aside from that, where does this source (about flickering matter) really come from? Is it still thoeritical or is it by now an essential part of the study of physics?


Oh yeah...
That is Towlie from South Park getting high isn't it?

Jo

Time could theoretically crush out of existence and back into existence. It's just that we always assume it is a linear and smooth composition, when rather time is non-linear, and very bumpy.
It does in some strange sense do what you have described. It travels through everything at the speed of light, and excites everything towards its bidding.