Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[jeryst]

Distance is the relationship between the relative locations of multiple objects. Time is the relationship between the relative locations of multiple events. Both only exist as a means for interested parties to use, explain and/or convey those relationships. Therefore they are both nothing but concepts.

 

[MeJennifer]

Distance is the relationship between the locations of multiple objects. Time is the relationship between the locations of multiple events. Both only exist as a means for interested parties to use, explain and/or convey those relationships. Therefore they are both nothing but concepts.

The theory of relativity shows us that there is no absolute sense of a location. Something is only a location relative to something else. And the same with time, there is no absolute sense of time as well.

 

[SF]

If time is an illusion, what is it an illusion of?
Even if it _is_ an illusion, there must be something it's mimicking, 'cause it's doing such a darn good job at it!:)

 

[onycho]

An Infinity of Timelessness

Is it possible for gravity to be so great at one point or the speed at which one travels so fast as time to become infinite?

The following video (on YouTube no less) gives one something to think about concerning our consciousness' point of reference of reality. I believe that this short video comes very close to that which explains so many enigmas in today's physics.

[MEDIA=youtube]fg5us8isW7M[/MEDIA][/URL]

 

[moving finger]

If time is an illusion, what is it an illusion of?
Even if it _is_ an illusion, there must be something it's mimicking, 'cause it's doing such a darn good job at it!:)

that's like the question "if time is flowing, what is it flowing relative to?"

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

The following video (on YouTube no less) gives one something to think about concerning our consciousness' point of reference of reality. I believe that this short video comes very close to that which explains so many enigmas in today's physics.

[MEDIA=youtube]fg5us8isW7M[/MEDIA][/URL][/QUOTE]
questionably pretty images of flowers plus some cheap psychadelic effects - but so what?

Best Regards

 

[jeryst]

What happens to the Theory of Relativity if there is no such thing as time?

 

[SF]

that's like the question "if time is flowing, what is it flowing relative to?"

No it isn't, and analogies are illogical, members of this forum should know better :)

The word illusion implies a slight-of-hand, trickery, etc, whereas the fact that time "flows" is a fundamental property of time.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No it isn't, and analogies are illogical, members of this forum should know better :)

The word illusion implies a slight-of-hand, trickery, etc, whereas the fact that time "flows" is a fundamental property of time.

But there are models ("Block Universe") in which time - past future and all - is a static background and our worldlines twine into it, making the changes that we see and feel. Just asserting something as a fact because it seems obvious to you is less "logical" than a prudent use of analogy!

 

[SF]

For once, I'd like someone to explain what they mean when they say that "time = illusion".

 

[selfAdjoint]

For once, I'd like someone to explain what they mean when they say that "time = illusion".

I will try, no guarantees.

We have a sense of change in our lives that feels continuous. The idea of time being an illusion is that this sense is in some way false, illusional or mistaken. There is no sense of deliberate deception implied by the word in this usage.

Different people will give different reasons for asserting that time is an illusion, but IMHO they always come down to that.

 

[SF]

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

I quite see where you are coming from. Your position is a perfectly respectible one.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think people confuse 'time is not absolute' with 'time doesn't exist'

From what I understand from laymen author Brian Green, spacetime IS absolute, but neither space or time is absolute. They're relative to each other.

The point is that events don't happen instantaneously. Things are moving at once. Things moving have a velocity, which is defined as a the distanc something travels over the time it takes to get there. This is where the phenomena of time comes from. What doesn't exist, is fantasy ideas of time that tend to personify it... that doesn't mean that time itself doesn't exist, it's just a name for something that's much simpler concept, it's a way to explain rates of change (which has everything to with physics).

So Time as you thought it was before this OP, doesn't exist. You just have to redefine your definition of time to its fundamental significance of why we even care about it... because we can't instantaneously get to work... we can go towards work with a certain velocity, which time and space are both a part of, but we can't just teleport to work because we have a mass (and not many people really understand what mass is... we can only measure mass with distance (and maybe time), like every other unit, they can all be broken down to time and space).

disclaimer: I have not studied relativity in-depth yet, I'm a third year physics major.

 

[RAD4921]

The illusion of time

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

People have been contemplating whether time is real for thousands of years. Both Plato and St Augustine questioned whether time is real or only in the mind of man, long before the New Age movement or the movie the Matrix.
By the way I have never seen the Matrix because I usually don't watch fictiona; televsion. What is it about?

 

[RAD4921]

The illusion of time

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

People have been contemplating whether time is real for thousands of years. Both Plato and St Augustine questioned whether time is real or only in the mind of man, long before the New Age movement or the movie the Matrix.
By the way I have never seen the Matrix because I usually don't watch fictiona; televsion. What is it about?

 

[AnssiH]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind.

This is happening to me too. I just posted a message about time vs motion to another thread. It is not given whether it is time or motion that exists fundamentally, but it certainly seems like an easier road to assume it really is motion that exists. If you assume it is time that exists, ontological understand of reality becomes incomprehensible sooner or later.

I hate to repeat myself, so;
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1100575&postcount=130

 

[ptalar]

Isn't time just a tool man has created to analytically measure the world around him? Time as we measure it is based on how our planet and solar system work. If different civilizations exist on different planets their definition of time may change depending on the motion of their planets.

Life in the rainforest does not use a watch to keep track of time. Their motions are dictated by the revolution of the Earth into night and day and the position of the Earth around the sun as well as the weather.

So my premise is that time is an artificial tool created by man.

 

[DxDT]

you know I think that to be fair to time we can not say it doesn't exist but it is just a single variable among many. That variable itself changes with respect to other factors. For example, small animals such as insects 'feel' time differently from elephants for example due to our biological clock. so maybe the volume of space one is filled can contribute in a miniscule way- no scientific evidence supports that but it may be a fictional possibility. we've grown to understand time as the ticking of a clock.. if the clock stops time does not so we know it's independent of universal occurences in our own dimension. what of other diemensions? i believe, but have no evidence to support, that time is a variable that is a combination of several variables in some universal equation independent from current string theories and not related to any of einsteins theorems.. however it would agree with the time dilation we see when we approach C and all of it's similar and related effects...

my 2 cents

 

[AnssiH]

Well, the thing is that relativity strongly implies that time does not tick away but that future and the past exist all the time. So that's what I was talking about in the other thread.

So the question is, is it conceivable that there really is not any universal "now", but that any notion of "now" is relative to whatever direction you are moving? I.e. by changing direction, then beyond your sight the "now" changes in such ways that things can, as judged by your "now", even move backwards in time. (And note how this always necessarily happens beyond your observations, and cannot be directly observed)

Note also that if you consider "time" as if its a sheet which is expressing the motion of all the objects, it makes no difference to any "time experience" whether the sheet is moving or not, or which way or at what speed. So it is nonsensical to say that we experience motion because time moves. Any time experience exists only when the motion of two different physical things can be compared to each others.

In the case they are identical things, we can place them into different environments (like the other one in inertial acceleration and the other one in free fall) and observe that the other one has moved more than the other. To say this is "time dilation" is already making an assumption about time dimension that may be unnecessary and even false.

 

[kvantti]

Let it be said that when one tries to quantize general relativity, you get the Wheeler-De Witt equation that basically states that the universe doesn't change in respect to time:

In fact, the principle of general covariance in general relativity implies that global evolution per se does not exist; t is just a label we assign to one of the coordinate axes. Thus, what we think about as time evolution of any physical system is just a gauge transformation.

 

[RAD4921]

Well, the thing is that relativity strongly implies that time does not tick away but that future and the past exist all the time. So that's what I was talking about in the other thread.

I have heard people talking about how everything is happening at once. That is interesting. Do you know where I can ontain more information about this
RAD

 

[octelcogopod]

If we were able to 'freeze' a person in a room, and that the most fundamental entity/particle that exists would stop moving, in the whole room and the person, would time stop?

If the whole universe was frozen like this, on every scale there was no movement or change, would time stop?

I'm pretty sure I hear a reassuring 'YES' right now.
So what does that tell us?
IMO it tells us that time isn't a dimension in itself, but rather a phenomena of how the laws of physics guide the way matter and light moves.
If we can imagine that all part of reality is deterministic, then there are strict and unbreakable laws happening on the fundamental scale, that propagate through the entire system..

 

[kvantti]

Stopping particles from moving is impossible, even in theory. It's called http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu433-1.htm :

According to quantum mechanics, objects cooled to absolute zero do not freeze to a complete standstill; instead they jiggle around by some minimum amount. MIT researchers (Wolfgang Ketterle, 617-253-6815) measured such "zero-point motion" in a sodium BEC, a collection of gas atoms that are collectively in the lowest possible energy state.

So what you're suggesting is meaningles. Sorry for being a spoiler.

 

[octelcogopod]

I'm sorry for being so unclear, what I posted was a thought experiment, not one to try in the lab.

edit: I also want to mention that I was speaking about the fundamental particle, not atoms or molecules physically frozen.

 

[kvantti]

I'm sorry for being so unclear, what I posted was a thought experiment, not one to try in the lab.

Well, I don't know what would happen if it were possible to stop every particle from moving... probably there wouldn't be any motion at all and the entropy of the system wouldn't increase. But that doesn't mean that time ceases to exist; just that there is no energy in a particular system. But in the real physical world, this is impossible: even in the lowest possible energy state there is zero point energy present.

edit: I also want to mention that I was speaking about the fundamental particle, not atoms or molecules physically frozen.

The zero point motion applies to every quantum system, especially to fundamental particles.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well that is beside the point, HYPOTHETICALLY if /everything/ stopped moving, as if it were frozen, would time stop?

That is the thought experiment.

You mentioned something about how time doesn't necessarily cease to exist in such a situation, would you elaborate a bit on that?

 

[kvantti]

You mentioned something about how time doesn't necessarily cease to exist in such a situation, would you elaborate a bit on that?

Time wouldn't stop proceeding, it is a property of the universe ("4th dimension"), but the subjective experience of time would stop. For example, if everything in my whole body (including my brains) would suddenly just "freeze" in place, as you suggested, and then after one hour it would become normal again, I wouldn't notice anything. Subjectively I just didn't experience the one hour time interval between "frozing" and "de-frozing". So I would think that "I leaped one hour to the future".

 

[-Job-]

Well that is beside the point, HYPOTHETICALLY if /everything/ stopped moving, as if it were frozen, would time stop?

That is the thought experiment.

You mentioned something about how time doesn't necessarily cease to exist in such a situation, would you elaborate a bit on that?

That's the same question as: "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum, would time stop?"

 

[Doctordick]

Yes, time is a figment of your imagination!

That's the same question as: "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum, would time stop?"

And the answer is YES! The problem here is that most all of you have made no real effort to understand what "time" is all about (and I include most all scientists in that category). Our personal knowledge changes: i.e., what we knew (or thought we knew) is not a universal unchanging thing. "Time" is a concept introduced to make sense of those changes themselves. All you really know is, "what you know changes". Your personal state of being as an entity changes. The "past is what you know (or think you know)", which changes continually, and the "future is what you do not know", even when you think you do. The present is the boundary between the two and consists exactly of those "changes in what you know".

Some changes are repetitive and, as they occur over and over and over ... (like the phenomena we call sunrise or ticking of a clock), we attach a parameter to express this repetitiveness called "t". When we discuss what we know, we reference these changes with that t. And that is all there is to it. The past can not change because all changes occur in the present. The concept of a time machine is nothing more than a consequence of faulty thinking.

In the same vein, causality is a figment of your imagination. That fact is right in front of you embedded in the origin of the English language if you only took the time to look. The word "cause" is no more than another word for the concept "explanation". Why does something happen? The answer is, "[that] be [for the] cause ...". And explanations change from time to time as people think of better reasons. Why does the sun rise in the morning? Why, be [the] cause, [that] the God Helios wants to ride from East to West in his golden chariot. To think that everything has a cause is to believe that an acceptable explanation exists for everything. Well, maybe so, but that doesn't mean that "cause" is correct!

And speaking of time, a scientist in California performed an interesting experiment the other day involving the perception of time. People regularly report time seeming to slow in dangerous and fast moving circumstances. As bungy jumping seemed to be such a circumstance, this scientist decided to test the thing. He set a wrist watch type digital display to flash through a set of random numbers when started. He set the flash rate just above what people were able to read and then had them attempt to read the numbers on a bungy jump. Apparently all of his subjects had no trouble reading the numbers when they were bungy jumping indicating that the perception of slow time passage in dangerous situations was a real measurable phenomena. The article also commented that there were drugs which could cause the same effects. Anybody want to get high?

So I say, time is an imaginary construct we use to denote changes in what we know. If what we know ceases to change in any way, time will clearly serve no purpose. Another way to say that is to understand that the time between changes is a figment of your imagination.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Paul Martin]

So I say, time is an imaginary construct we use to denote changes in what we know.

I agree. ... And I think you gave a convincing "explanation".

Now, the next thing that I think needs explaining is what you mean by "we". From "my" point of view, being one of "us", it seems that "I" know about a world. It also seems that "my" world also includes the rest of "you". And from "your" reports, it seems as if "our" worlds are one and the same even though "we" don't all know it in exactly the same way.

So how do we explain the multiplicity of "us" in a singular world? Could it be that "we" are actually one, and that what seem to be individual consciousnesses are that one traversing different world lines? If not, why not?

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[-Job-]

And the answer is YES! The problem here is that most all of you have made no real effort to understand what "time" is all about (and I include most all scientists in that category). Our personal knowledge changes: i.e., what we knew (or thought we knew) is not a universal unchanging thing. "Time" is a concept introduced to make sense of those changes themselves. All you really know is, "what you know changes". Your personal state of being as an entity changes. The "past is what you know (or think you know)", which changes continually, and the "future is what you do not know", even when you think you do. The present is the boundary between the two and consists exactly of those "changes in what you know".

Two things:
- i have put effort into understanding time.
- when i pointed out that octel's question was equivalent to "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum would time stop?" i wasn't suggesting whether or not that is the case, just making the point that time can be both a human concept and/or have a physical implementation (i.e. a dimension) and that i don't think you can tell which is the case.

 

[cliowa]

I feel this discussion is leading nowhere, and in my opinion not a single sensible or interesting "explanation" has come up (until now).

First of all: You're all oversimplifying so much, that the conclusions, which have thus far been drawn, hardly seem convincing or even legitimate.

As mentioned before, defining time via change is circular, as change implies comparing the state of something at different times! If you want to define what time is, you certainly are not allowed to use the concept of change.

Then there's this "now is present" and "before is past" stuff. This is, in my opinion, also very, very problematic, as two different observers will in general not agree on the present (think of relativistic effects), although they live in the very same space. If you now turn this objection down by arguing about the subjectivity of time, you should consider that time is not that subjective, because if it were we could hardly agree on mechanical devices to measure it.

As far as I'm concerned I don't think that time can be expressed in more fundamental terms.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Paul, it's nice to know we agree about something. (No, I think, fundamentally, we see a lot of things the same way.) Our true differences reside in that "explanation" thing. You want to start from the perspective that your world view is an approximation to reality and not just an explanation of reality and, from my perspective, they are quite different things. My desire is to "understand" reality: i.e., comprehend exactly what is behind that "world view" we have all managed to achieve (as it is "reality itself" which stands behind it and it is "reality itself" we would like to understand).

Now, the next thing that I think needs explaining is what you mean by "we". From "my" point of view, being one of "us", it seems that "I" know about a world. It also seems that "my" world also includes the rest of "you". And from "your" reports, it seems as if "our" worlds are one and the same even though "we" don't all know it in exactly the same way.

From my perspective, the rest of you (that there are others in the universe similar to myself) are mental constructs whose existence "explains" a lot of phenomena. Fundamentally, it's any explanation in a cold wind. What I want to understand is what stands behind those explanations and what I can honestly depend upon. I really have very little interest in explaining anything; my subconscious does a fine job of coming up with explanations and, until specific flaws are detected within those superstitions (for that is what they really are) I won't worry about them being right or wrong.

Could it be that "we" are actually one, and that what seem to be individual consciousnesses are that one traversing different world lines? If not, why not?

"Could" is an awfully big arena and I am not going to judge what could or could not be unless I have some very good reasons (the issues I have tried to introduce). There are plenty of people out there trying to invent "explanations"; my prime interest is understanding explanations themselves. Without that, I think we are wasting our time.

i have put effort into understanding time.

I wasn't trying to insult you. Everyone thinks they have made a strong effort to understand time but, in fact, they invariably overlook some very important aspects of the issue. To use a common phrase, everyone is so inured to "thinking in the box" that they simply cannot comprehend approaching the issue objectively.

when i pointed out that octel's question was equivalent to "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum would time stop?" i wasn't suggesting whether or not that is the case, just making the point that time can be both a human concept and/or have a physical implementation (i.e. a dimension) and that i don't think you can tell which is the case.

What you have missed is that "change" and "time" are not equivalent concepts. "Time" is usually seen as a continuous thing whereas "change" is a discreet concept. My point was that the mental picture I think his comment was trying to represent, "everything were moving with the same direction and momentum", was the absence of change even though that isn't what he really said. All we really know is that "things change"; that the change is continuous is a assumption.

I feel this discussion is leading nowhere, and in my opinion not a single sensible or interesting "explanation" has come up (until now).

First of all: You're all oversimplifying so much, that the conclusions, which have thus far been drawn, hardly seem convincing or even legitimate.

As mentioned before, defining time via change is circular, as change implies comparing the state of something at different times! If you want to define what time is, you certainly are not allowed to use the concept of change.

Now that depends upon which you take to be the underlying concept. If you take "time" to be the underlying concept and change is to be defined in terms of time then you have essentially presumed continuity. I my head, taking "change" as the primary concept and defining time in terms of change allows that continuity to be part of your explanation and not a necessary aspect of reality but rather a mental construct used to explain your experiences.

Then there's this "now is present" and "before is past" stuff. This is, in my opinion, also very, very problematic, as two different observers will in general not agree on the present (think of relativistic effects), although they live in the very same space. If you now turn this objection down by arguing about the subjectivity of time, you should consider that time is not that subjective, because if it were we could hardly agree on mechanical devices to measure it.

Oh, that is the case is it? I think I would differ with you sincerely. If you understand logic and mathematics, I believe I can put forth some rather convincing evidence that the agreement you require is quite easy to achieve and, in fact, leads directly to exactly the observed relativistic effects.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[roamer]

Doctordick,
Intuitively I have always felt time to be nothing more than a mental construct, it is a mental invention that makes explanations work (cause and effect). However this still leaves the question of what a clock is actually measuring. I keep on coming up with explanations but they all contain the construct of time! I am willing to try to consider what you are saying but the concept of time seems very imbedded in all my thoughts and ideas. It seems like throwing out the continum idea of time would leav es a huge gaping whole in our "knowledge". What is it that we actually know?