What is "time"

[paddoboy]

I just heard a Big Bang, if you'll pardon the expression. It was the sound of you stepping on a landmine of sorts. Of course, I don't want to derail this great thread or even wander slightly off topic. So I will start a new thread here on your false step.

It's not a false step...scientific theories are just that theories...always open for addition [such as Inflation with the BB] modification and/or just plain scrapping.
But also as I have said many times, scientific theories do gain in certainty over time...
Some that are "near certain" and in the top echelon of certainties are the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution, SR, GR, Evolution of life and Abiogenesis.

 

[paddoboy]

Is time just a perception of our mind, time indeed does not exist?

The reality or otherwise of time is hotly disputed and often debated.
I take the positive stand for reasons already given as does the reputable physicist Sean Carroll.
Here's a nice little 10 minute video..why not take the time and watch it...
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

 

[paddoboy]

double post:

 

[tashja]

Lee Smolin also thinks time is real, so real he states that everything – even the supposedly timeless laws of physics – is subject to it...something that I see as quite logically correct...
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/sep/23/lee-smolin-on-the-nature-of-time

Prof. Smolin's new collaboration with Roberto Mangabeira, ''The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time,'' to be released by the end of this month should be interesting. Here are some of the topics the book will cover which I think are very relevant to this thread:

THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME

A book in draft with Roberto Mangabeira Unger.

Synopsis

This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature. We argue for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the mutability of the laws of nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning into natural philosophy –- a form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries between science and philosophy.

The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as to scientists and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither does it use a technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized readers. The subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to people in many disciplines outside cosmology and physics.

In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the idea of an unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, they maintained the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This second idea must now also be attacked and replaced. What results is a new picture of the agenda of physics and cosmology as well as of the methods of fundamental science.

The book develops four inter-related themes:

1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.

2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs.

3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs that they govern..

4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism) in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in science.

We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as well as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way theoretical cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner that is scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable experiments.

The book is in two parts: the first part by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and the second, shorter part by Lee Smolin. Unger presents the argument of the book first in comprehensive philosophical form. Smolin goes on to develop it in the context of contemporary physics and cosmology. Thus, the two parts of the book connect organically, building on each other. They have begun to be discussed by scientists and philosophers.. These two parts of the work are preceded by a joint introduction by both of us. These texts represent the product of five years of intense collaboration between the authors.

http://leesmolin.com/writings/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/

 

[tashja]

Speaking of Sean Carroll... listen to what he says about time in the last part of the hangout. Fast-forward to 1:22:10

 

[Farsight]

Thanks tashja. I have to say that I think guys like Smolin and Carroll make things too complicated. How anybody can write a whole book about time beats me.

 

[MattMars]

Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime.

Hi Pad,

Thank you for your replies, I understand how from our typical pov it will look as if time exists, and i am very familiar with the theory of time, (as I say here's my research list https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/bib )

The production of my book represents a tremendous amount of work, the kindle version is 500 sides, and throughout every page I have to try to carefully bring people back to systematic thought, in the face of an audience that almost certainly think there is no need to be systematic, becasue they are sure they dont have confirmation bias... becasue they are right.

The main reason for the books existence is becasue I found many comments like the one you quoted above...

Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime

here, with respect, you are accepting and duplicating an opinion about Relativity, from someone else who has accepted and duplicated the opinion, and many people do this.

But, I can tell from your posts that you have not actually checked "On The electrodynamics of moving bodies", yourself, and that neither has John D Norton.
( https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...lativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies )

It was in realising how many people were, not being systematic, failing to check their most basic assumptions, and duplicating other peoples conclusions without checking the most basic sources of information that inspired me to put in the effort to produce the book, videos live talks and website.

if you examine just section one ( yes, so many people dont eve read section 1!) of Einsteins "Electrodynamics" , "Kinematics", you will find that in fact SR does not show that a thing called time exists, or "passes", as things exist and move, but in fact Relativity only gives and example that shows things move, and we can compare examples of motion.

Specifically In Einsteins own example he clearly just compares two examples of motion, and "calls" one of them "time". If the ramifications of this are understood, it's a real game changer showing for example that you, John D Norton, and anyone else who relies on Relativity to back up a view on "time", may be wrong to do so.

SR does show us that moving oscillators are oscillating more slowly than expected, but that is not evidence that a thing called time exists and passes, between a past and future, or that there is a fourth dimension. the leap from moving oscillators running slow to...

[ melding] space and time together to form a four-dimensional space time

is massive, and i think you will find, invalid.
mm

I've tried to link to a specific part of this talk that explains this

as I say, time may exist, or we may be wrong from the outset top make such an assumption... and even Einstein, Minkowski's, Georges Lemaîtres , and Hubbles, work ( et al) , may contain that false assumption, unless checked, just quoting them will only add false certainty...

imo, as i said in my first post,

it's worth really asking oneself the question

"If matter JUST exists, moves, changes and interacts... Would this be enough to *mislead* us into "wrongly assuming", that there is a 'past', 'future' and thing called 'time' "?

( and watch out for that confirmation bias )

 

[MattMars]

Sorry , cant link to specific start point of video.

the bit on Relativity , ( "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies") , possibly not being evidence or support of time is at 1:19

normally youtube url and watch?v=ii3gxxn2reA&t=1m19s
works

(anyone know how to do it here?)

mm

 

[danshawen]

The Sean Carroll video was one I haven't seen, but I have read both of his most recent books. Thanks.

In his book, Sean seems makes a lot of the idea of a block universe (multiverses without time modeled after sequences of frames of a movie). In a recent book on the same subject, Lee Smolin relates time more closely to entropy increase on larger scales.

But in this video, Carroll backpedals and seems to say that time may be simply comparing the rates of how a reference (such as the hands of an analog clock) move as compared to the rate at which anything else that is moving.

That quantum foam "moves". It would move whether or not there were any matter with which to compare its movement with.

In your mind you could compare the way the vacuum foam moves to the way that bound energy moves (3D grids of tunable laser beams propagating in a small enough space before they de-cohere, for instance). Such an energy grid would also be defined as "bound". It would be like creating matter with which to compare the movement of the quantum foam.

The virtual energy in the quantum foam would interfere with the photons in the 3D grid. If you moved the grid sufficiently close together, it would interfere just like a double slit interferes, and you would have created a clock out of nothing but energy.

 

[MattMars]

Speaking of Sean Carroll... listen to what he says about time in the last part of the hangout. Fast-forward to 1:22:10

Thanks tashja (great name)
Professor caroll says (perhaps) "time is just what clocks measure" ( and the hosts say "scary")

I sincerely think that is on the right track, but not quite right, and not necessarily scary.

What people don't seem to consider, before they rush of to imagine a thing called time exists, is that perhaps the universe is just as it appears to be. I.e. Perhaps it is just filled with matter, moving and interacting at different speeds in all directions.

(in which case a 'clock' doesn't 'measure' anything, it is just a very useful example of a hand rotating at a steady speed, that we can usefully compare to other moving things)

We get the idea there may be a thing called time, because we say we can "remember the past", and so we assume there is a "past", and thus maybe a future, and a thing called time with a direction (or arrow as the professor says).

But consider, for the patterns in our minds (we call memories of "the" "past") to form, all that is required is for matter, and light etc, to interact with ourselves so as to be changing the organisation of the contents of our minds.

In other words, rather than just speculating and endlessly churning over the same staid set of quotes and opinions, it seems sensible to me to ask a few exploratory questions, and to check the actual answers (e.g. experimentally) to come up with some new avenues of thought, e.g.

"Although we suspect there is a past, are we really valid in assuming this?"
And, imo, very importantly...

"If matter just exists and interacts, would this be enough to mislead us in to thinking there is a past, future, and 'time' ?"

It all comes down , I think, to a key question,

"Is there a past, or is there not, a past"

Because: if there is not a past, then there is not a past. Period.

And if, as things move and change no "temporal past" is actually created, or stored or existing, then we actually have no reason to suspect a thing called time, real or emergent, exists in any way at all. (Or is merged as space time, or actually has a direction etc).

so, "time" may not be real, or emergent... we may just be wrong from the outset to assume such a thing exists, becasue we have not even checked, ( let alone checked and legitimately dismissed if possible the most obvious possible explanation that explains all that we actually observe )

Matthew Marsden

 

[MattMars]

Thanks tashja. I have to say that I think guys like Smolin and Carroll make things too complicated. How anybody can write a whole book about time beats me.

hi Farsight,

I have written 'a whole book about time'... or rather the possibility of "timelessness", and it nearly beat me
you just have to get your head down and realise - you can talk about it all you want, but, if you're not typing, the book isn't getting written

mm
("A Brief History of Timelessness")

 

[Farsight]

hi Farsight,

I have written 'a whole book about time'... or rather the possibility of "timelessness", and it nearly beat me
you just have to get your head down and realise - you can talk about it all you want, but, if you're not typing, the book isn't getting written

Hi Matt. Your book looks interesting. I see you did an Amazon review of Lee Smolin's book too. I broadly share you views, see for example Time Explained or Time Travel is Science Fiction. I'm John Duffield by the way, I wrote a book in 2009. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

 

[Billy T]

In post 28, after giving proof & example (Day / 360 degree rotation of earth was 48 inches burning of standard candle) that time could be eliminated from all equations describing the universe, I said: Time, t, is just a very convenient parameter in equations - it could be eliminated from a complete (classical at least) description of every thing that occurs in the universe.
The existence of something with no observable quantities, like mass, volume, extent, etc. is very questionable - most likely a fiction - time does not exist, except as a convenient parameter that can "decouple" equations" but in truth, we don't decouple pairs of phenomenon. Instead we couple all others to the small set of phenomenon listed below.

While true, it is however to couple all the equations describing the universe to a small set of other phenomena:
One trip of earth around the sun: a phenomena called a year
One trip of moon back to same over head spot: month
One 360 rotation of Earth: day
One complete fall of sand from top to bottom of glass with narrow passage between: hour
One swing of pendulum (half cycle) with length 49.7cm: second
One oscillation of quart crystal of Timex type watch: No name but many are a second.*
* "Second" in line above is just short for: one swing of pendulum two lines above. Although
that "one swing" is OK for most needs, it varies with strength of local earth's gravity, so for precise
use a "second" is instead: 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

All of the above are not "times" but just convenient names for an above physical process that is
often coupled with another with another in a description of it that makes no use of non-existing time.

SUMMARY: To avoid speaking fiction, like max speed of a unicorn or time "passing," we do for the simplicity that
results couple all observable phenomenon to one of the above list physical processes, with reference to it short name.
Doing this does misleads some to think unicorns and or time is some real existing thing.

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks tashja. I have to say that I think guys like Smolin and Carroll make things too complicated. How anybody can write a whole book about time beats me.

You believe they make things too complicated? Funny I see there explanations as to why time is real, as ignoring all the unnecessary baggage in favour of simple facts...Like if time did not exist, the BB would not have taken place and we wouldn't be here.
Or the simple fact that the non absolute nature of time shows it to be real, just as is space, space time, gravity, matter and energy.
To doubt one, is to doubt all in my opinion.

 

[MattMars]

Hi Matt. Your book looks interesting. I see you did an Amazon review of Lee Smolin's book too. I broadly share you views, see for example Time Explained or Time Travel is Science Fiction. I'm John Duffield by the way, I wrote a book in 2009. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Hi John,

Very nice to hear from you, thanks for the links, i posted a reply on time travel, (are there are some images missing in http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/9308-time-explained-v21/ )

is this your book here... can I get a kindle version?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804

looking forward to chatting.
mm

ps dont worry re kindle, i just ordered the paperback (how come some editions cost £101 !!?, i'm selling mine way to cheap - but it needs a better edit )

 

[MattMars]

You believe they make things too complicated? Funny I see there explanations as to why time is real, as ignoring all the unnecessary baggage in favour of simple facts...Like if time did not exist, the BB would not have taken place and we wouldn't be here.
Or the simple fact that the non absolute nature of time shows it to be real, just as is space, space time, gravity, matter and energy.
To doubt one, is to doubt all in my opinion.

Hi Pad,
to be clear, i have a very firm opinion about timelessness, but, to be scientific I am also open minded. I posted you a couple of replies about "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies", i know a lot of people assume it is evidence of space-"time", but i think it may just show warped space, and rate dilation ( very different to 4d spacetime for reasons i explained ).

I am familiar with a lot of forums on "time", e.g.

> https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/home/time-forums-and-sites

And have a lot of conversations like this, about it at my "timelessness" talks,

one thing i have learnt is that they go round in circles, if people just 'state and defend' an opinion, without actually considering other points of view, and, another is that it can be very important if searching for a truth to check out what you hear for yourself.

So can i ask have you read OEMB?
> https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

only

I. KINEMATICAL PART § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

Only is needed for this part of the analysis, no maths ( except for a bit of Pythagoras ).

Does that section make sense to you, or can you see what may be an observational oversight in Einstein's description of "time".
mm

ps , again so we dont go round in circles, could you post the simplest definition of "time" that you think is valid.

also, i can incorporate the Big Bang into what I am suggesting, but it's important to consider our most basic observations initially.
thanks mm

 

[RJBeery]

MattMars, I just realized that your profile pic is not just some random QR code!

Anyway, quick question regarding your thoughts on time: do you believe there is a "now"? For example, given some definition of "existence", do you think that there is a special existence attributable to us now as opposed to humans at other points in history (past and future)?

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Pad,
Thank you for your replies, I understand how from our typical pov it will look as if time exists, and i am very familiar with the theory of time, (as I say here's my research list https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/bib )

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many a lot smarter than I, time looks as though it exists, simply because it does exist.
And, I have read a few of those books in your research list.

The production of my book represents a tremendous amount of work, the kindle version is 500 sides, and throughout every page I have to try to carefully bring people back to systematic thought, in the face of an audience that almost certainly think there is no need to be systematic, becasue they are sure they dont have confirmation bias... becasue they are right.

The main reason for the books existence is becasue I found many comments like the one you quoted above...

Great stuff, and obviously why you are so adamant and enthusiastic re your opinion on time.
Quite understandable with all the effort you have put in.
But by the same token, other reputable professionals like Carroll and Smolin, see things differently. And likewise it is also understandable why blokes such as Smolin, who has also written a book, is just as enthusiastic and just as adamant about the existence of time.
Which makes it that much harder for a lay person such as myself to work through the excess baggage and get down to the nitty gritty.
I believe I have done that without fear nor favour.

here, with respect, you are accepting and duplicating an opinion about Relativity, from someone else who has accepted and duplicated the opinion, and many people do this.

Sure I have....and as a layman I need to sort out the wheat from the chaff from a myriad of "opinions" about relativity. And I believe I have done that rather successfully with help from a astronomer and a professional GR physicist on another forum in Australia...two very reputable blokes in whom I have a great deal of respect for.
And of course all of us, you me and them, have all at one time or another, taken on faith and reputation, the opinions of others of reputable quality.

But, I can tell from your posts that you have not actually checked "On The electrodynamics of moving bodies", yourself, and that neither has John D Norton.
( https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...lativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies )

It was in realising how many people were, not being systematic, failing to check their most basic assumptions, and duplicating other peoples conclusions without checking the most basic sources of information that inspired me to put in the effort to produce the book, videos live talks and website.

I don't outright duplicate other people's conclusions. I read all I can, take into account many facts and form an opinion...In other words sorting the wheat from the chaff. eg: like claims by some that the speed of light is not a constant, or that time and light is seen to "stop" in all FoR's at a point on and just outside the EH of a BH. All obviously false claims.
Again, we all at one time or another must take on faith what someone else has said or written.
Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

if you examine just section one ( yes, so many people dont eve read section 1!) of Einsteins "Electrodynamics" , "Kinematics", you will find that in fact SR does not show that a thing called time exists, or "passes", as things exist and move, but in fact Relativity only gives and example that shows things move, and we can compare examples of motion.

Specifically In Einsteins own example he clearly just compares two examples of motion, and "calls" one of them "time". If the ramifications of this are understood, it's a real game changer showing for example that you, John D Norton, and anyone else who relies on Relativity to back up a view on "time", may be wrong to do so.

SR does show us that moving oscillators are oscillating more slowly than expected, but that is not evidence that a thing called time exists and passes, between a past and future, or that there is a fourth dimension. the leap from moving oscillators running slow to...

What Einstein has said, has been misquoted, misunderstood, and misinterpreted many times on this forum.
The great man also said....
"Time is an illusion: Albeit a stubborn one"

as I say, time may exist, or we may be wrong from the outset top make such an assumption... and even Einstein, Minkowski's, Georges Lemaîtres , and Hubbles, work ( et al) , may contain that false assumption, unless checked, just quoting them will only add false certainty...

imo, as i said in my first post,

it's worth really asking oneself the question



( and watch out for that confirmation bias )

Well, yes I am forced to agree that the existence or otherwise of time, is debatable, and I have said that a few times, but really, with all due respect, any confirmation bias could also reveal itself as a negative bias.
And as I said, I understand perfectly well, that your enthusiasm and opinion on time, is naturally driven by your book.
As an illustrative point of Interest, and as an avid supporter of the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution according to the observational evidence, I have also read a book entitled "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner, to broaden my view on the evolution of the Universe, and with the help of the two professionals I mentioned earlier, was reasonably certain, most of the claims were just not observed or consistent with what we do know.

 

[MattMars]

Hi Matt. Your book looks interesting. I see you did an Amazon review of Lee Smolin's book too. I broadly share you views, see for example Time Explained or Time Travel is Science Fiction. I'm John Duffield by the way, I wrote a book in 2009. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Hi FS, ps, here's what i posted ( so things dont get bifurcated )

Hi farsight,
Thanks for the link from "what is time?"
Great post, and I very much agree with your principles, though I would go slightly further,

You can read more about this stuff in A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It’s a book featuring philosophy and relativity and what Einstein and Godel used to talk about in Princeton. It doesn’t say time does not exist, it’s more like time exists like heat exists. And just as you can’t literally climb to a higher temperature, you can’t literally travel forward in time. Or backwards. No way, no how.
We always seem to want to hold on to a last residue of 'time',

"It doesn’t say time does not exist, it’s more like time exists like heat exists. "
(E.g. Emergent)

I would suggest, in fact, matter/energy seems to just exist, move change and interact. Period.

And if that's all there is, then to be completely clear and logical, we should not then mix things up again, and describe this as "time".
We should perhaps just leave it at that.

Otherwise we get right to the point of clarifying things.... Then pollute our understanding again, by pulling in a word that has numerous implications that habitually spring back into the laypersons or scientists mind, inducing more opened speculation etc.

IMO "time" seems to be nothing more that the undoubtedly very useful system of comparing examples of motion. Typically one example of simple regular motion (eg a hand specifically designed to rotate smoothly on a numbered dial) to more complex motion we are trying to understand, (e.g a ball accelerating down a ramp, or comet moving in the solar system).

Speak to u on "what is time." Forum
MM

ps : V interested to read your book, found it on amazon, you can try my sample, but if you are interested please check out the youtubes,
I wont keep pasting links, but search youtube for...

Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

it gives the best outline of all the areas of the possibility of timelessness that I'm proposing, and it is not "eternalism", "static block time" etc etc etc
mm

 

[paddoboy]

one thing i have learnt is that they go round in circles, if people just 'state and defend' an opinion, without actually considering other points of view, and, another is that it can be very important if searching for a truth to check out what you hear for yourself.

So can i ask have you read OEMB?
> https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

No I havn't, but rest assured I will when I have time. Thanks.

ps , again so we dont go round in circles, could you post the simplest definition of "time" that you think is valid.

also, i can incorporate the Big Bang into what I am suggesting, but it's important to consider our most basic observations initially.
thanks mm

My own view on time???
In simple Occam's razor terminology, if we didn't have time, everything would happen together.
In fact, if time didn't exist, the BB would not have happened, know that the BB was an evolution of space and time in the first instant.
I asked a question earlier in the thread, Can some one show me, or illustrate to me a realistic world, a realm, a Universe, where time does not exist?