What proof do we have that TIME exists?

[Chalnoth]

Being able to infinitely divide space merely means that dividing space is the wrong way to describe motion.

 

[alt]

I've only taken a class called contemporary physics that touched on quantum mechanics for just a portion of the quarter, but my understanding of it drew me to the conclusion that space was quantized. Or at least that's what I got out of the class. The idea that space is not infinitely divisible.

Therefore, unless this conception is erroneous, then walking past your desk *in reality* is not a matter of walking past something with an infinite set of points on it, but rather walking past something with a finite number of points.

If you take a line, and consider each and every single one of the infinite points on it as you move along it, wouldn't you never get anywhere?

I don't know whether space (or time for that matter) is quantized.

In post #18, a contributor said;
Super weird indeed. Moreover, if time exists, & it passes linearly, it should have an infinite speed, since it passes continuously..Time is weirder than existence itself

My comments which you addressed in the above, were simply to respond to that. But in any event, I'd always thought that a point is dimensionless - and that there are an infinite number of points in a line, as there are an infinite number of lines in a plane, as there are infinite planes in a solid. That's what I was getting at when I used my 'desk' example.

Regarding your last paragraph, this seems to me, a rephrasing of Zeno's Achilles and the tortoise paradox, which has been discussed here earlier.

Zeno's flying arrow paradox - now that's another thing. That one's really got me stumped, because imo, it goes to the heart of what is the present moment / instant in time. And that's a point I've been trying to explore for some time, but haven't gotten far.

 

[Homesick345]

I don't know whether space (or time for that matter) is quantized.

In post #18, a contributor said;
Super weird indeed. Moreover, if time exists, & it passes linearly, it should have an infinite speed, since it passes continuously..Time is weirder than existence itself

My comments which you addressed in the aove, were simply to respond to that. But in any event, I'd always thought that a point is dimensionless - and that there are an infinite number of points, in a line, as there are an infinite number of lines in a plane, as there are infinite planes in a solid. That's what I was getting at when I used my 'desk' example.

Regarding your last paragraph, this seems to me, a rephrasing of Zeno's Achilles and the tortoise paradox, which has been discussed here earlier.

Zeno's flying arrow paradox - now that's another thing. That one's really got me stumped, because imo, it goes to the heart of what the present moment, or an instant in time is. And that's a point I've been trying to explore for some time, but haven't gotten far.

MAYBE our existence, material universe, is finite & quantized, discrete, etc... And MAYBE our intellect or thinking is infinite, or at the very least - & this is even weirder - has a grasp of infinity, for some weird reason.

 

[petm1]

Super weird indeed. Moreover, if time exists, & it passes linearly, it should have an infinite speed, since it passes continuously..Time is weirder than existence itself

Time as measured with a photon has the speed of light tied to it thereby leaving no gaps in our view of reality.

 

[Drakkith]

MAYBE our existence, material universe, is finite & quantized, discrete, etc... And MAYBE our intellect or thinking is infinite, or at the very least - & this is even weirder - has a grasp of infinity, for some weird reason.

Or maybe a clock is just like a ruler but for time, and time is as finite or infinite as space is.

Time as measured with a photon has the speed of light tied to it thereby leaving no gaps in our view of reality.

Are you suggesting that time measured by something other than a photon has gaps in it?

 

[Chalnoth]

Zeno's flying arrow paradox - now that's another thing. That one's really got me stumped, because imo, it goes to the heart of what is the present moment / instant in time. And that's a point I've been trying to explore for some time, but haven't gotten far.

This so-called paradox is trivially shown to not apply to reality based upon one simple fact:
We can measure how fast something is going by observing it at one instant in time.

One way to do this, for example, is if there is a mirror on the object. If we bounce a single photon off of this mirror, that photon will be redshifted/blueshifted based upon how fast that mirror is moving away/towards us.

In a world where objects have both momentum and position, Zeno's flying arrow paradox makes no sense. It is clearly just the wrong way to think of the way the world works.

 

[Tanelorn]

Can you flesh that out a little more?

I was just suggesting that what we call time, and the continuous passage or flow of time, seems very much to be a physical property and characteristic of the way our Universe and our reality works. Without time, cause and effect would not work, because everything would happen at the same moment.

The passage of time acts relentlessly on matter and moves continously onward on matter through out all of space.
Accelerating to the speed of light slows down the passage of time to stationary observers.

I am mainly saying that time is not just an abstract measurement made with a timepiece.

 

[sahmgeek]

Actually, Zeno's flying arrow paradox makes perfect sense IF time and space are one and the same (i.e. if the true nature of time is another way of measuring things in space). I personally think this is a great candidate for the essence of "time".

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, Zeno's flying arrow paradox makes perfect sense IF time and space are one and the same (i.e. if the true nature of time is another way of measuring things in space). I personally think this is a great candidate for the essence of "time".

Except they aren't the same. They are similar, but not the same.

Regardless, I don't see why you think this makes a difference.

 

[sahmgeek]

Except they aren't the same. They are similar, but not the same.

true. maybe i should have said:

time = a measurement of different locations in quantized space, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is fundamental, as experienced by a single observer.

 

[Drakkith]

true. maybe i should have said:

time = a measurement of different locations in quantized space, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is fundamental, as experienced by a single observer.

What? Time is not a measurement of space. We can use the distance that something travels, such as light, as a tool to measure time, but time itself is not a measurement of space.

 

[Chalnoth]

true. maybe i should have said:

time = a measurement of different locations in quantized space, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is fundamental, as experienced by a single observer.

I do not see how this helps. Time, though very similar, does not behave like space.

 

[Tanelorn]

One way in which time and distance in space are somewhat related is that due to the way the Universe works, with a finite speed of light, the more distant an object is, the further back in time we also are looking.
It is very useful for understanding how the Universe evolved, because we believe the Universe to be similar everywhere, but it prevents us from seeing the Universe everywhere as it is today.

 

[petm1]

Are you suggesting that time measured by something other than a photon has gaps in it?

No, I think that the sea of photons we see as space fills the gaps in time very well.

 

[Drakkith]

No, I think that the sea of photons we see as space fills the gaps in time very well.

I'm sorry this doesn't make sense to me. What "sea of photons" are you referring to, how are they space, and how does this involve time?

 

[junjunjun233]

Maybe time don't exist at all. Its a perception of movements/change/transformation and so on (Point A-B-C-D-E etc). Since at quantum level, particle vibrate and eventually moves unless absolute zero movement is achieved, yet or never.

Actually in a sense we don't experience time. We experience changes and movements that we perceived as time and exist as observation.

 

[Drakkith]

Maybe time don't exist at all. Its a perception of movements/change/transformation and so on (Point A-B-C-D-E etc). Since at quantum level, particle vibrate and eventually moves unless absolute zero movement is achieved, yet or never.

Except that the movements/changes/transformations don't all occur at once. They take time.

Actually in a sense we don't experience time. We experience changes and movements that we perceived as time and exist as observation.

We measure time through change and movement but this does not mean we do not experience it.

 

[sahmgeek]

Except that the movements/changes/transformations don't all occur at once. They take time.

We measure time through change and movement but this does not mean we do not experience it.

What would that be like, to experience everything all at once? Wouldn't you experience something static? Would you actually experience anything at all? It's interesting to think about.

It seems to me that time is very deeply embedded in the experience of changes through space, from micro to macro.

 

[sahmgeek]

think about when you're watching a movie and they "stop time". what happens? all of the movement and change stops. almost as if they are one and the same. i certainly don't know if they are, but gosh...

 

[Homesick345]

Time as our psychological interpretation of events, whether they occur sequentially or all at once. Could time be our mind's way to arrange things, regardless of how they exist or occur really?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Time as our psychological interpretation of events, whether they occur sequentially or all at once. Could time be our mind's way to arrange things, regardless of how they exist or occur really?

are you suggesting that things that are observed to happen in one order could "really" happen in some other order? What would "really" be "reality" in that case?

 

[junjunjun233]

Except that the movements/changes/transformations don't all occur at once. They take time.

We measure time through change and movement but this does not mean we do not experience it.

Take away the concept of time and all we have are observations that are stored in our memory projected as experiences. We still don't have the technology to reached an absolute based starting point for time on a micro level. Well, we do have quantum clock (aluminum ion) near to a zero point precision but unless we can narrow it down to zero vibration state. And it is unlikely to find zero resistant particle.

A bit fuzzy. but i don't consider the existence of time because it is always relative to the movement, mass and state we are in. We can only measure that state and called it time.

Experience is how the brain perceived of the leaps from one state to another and eventually stored as information in the brain as memory.

 

[Homesick345]

are you suggesting that things that are observed to happen in one order could "really" happen in some other order? What would "really" be "reality" in that case?

Excellent point.

 

[Drakkith]

Take away the concept of time and all we have are observations that are stored in our memory projected as experiences. We still don't have the technology to reached an absolute based starting point for time on a micro level. Well, we do have quantum clock (aluminum ion) near to a zero point precision but unless we can narrow it down to zero vibration state. And it is unlikely to find zero resistant particle.

Define an "absolute based starting point for time" and "zero resistant particle".

A bit fuzzy. but i don't consider the existence of time because it is always relative to the movement, mass and state we are in. We can only measure that state and called it time.

The existence of time is the only way two objects can occupy the same points in space. They do it at different times.

Experience is how the brain perceived of the leaps from one state to another and eventually stored as information in the brain as memory.

I don't see how this is related to time in any way. Whether we are here to experience it or not the universe has time.

 

[junjunjun233]

Define an "absolute based starting point for time" and "zero resistant particle".


The existence of time is the only way two objects can occupy the same points in space. They do it at different times.



I don't see how this is related to time in any way. Whether we are here to experience it or not the universe has time.

Zero point energy in a vacuum. And maybe it has to do with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics that particles can't be stop completely. However, some behavior of specific particles interactions came close such as bosons given even number of electrons,protons and neutrons. When subjected to low temperature, bosons become a Bose-einstein condensate, in which a ground state occurs and the closest you can get to stopping their motion. However, there is always a fermion in each quantum state and obeys pauli excl principle that instead of going through a ground state, they fill all the lowest states in the system. Perhaps "Time" doesn't exist as objective but subjective. I might be wrong. Ill remain agnostic about it.

 

[tanzanos]

Without time matter cannot exist. Time is movement and not what you observe on the dials of a watch. After all was not time born with the big bang?

 

[Drakkith]

Zero point energy in a vacuum. And maybe it has to do with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics that particles can't be stop completely. However, some behavior of specific particles interactions came close such as bosons given even number of electrons,protons and neutrons. When subjected to low temperature, bosons become a Bose-einstein condensate, in which a ground state occurs and the closest you can get to stopping their motion. However, there is always a fermion in each quantum state and obeys pauli excl principle that instead of going through a ground state, they fill all the lowest states in the system. Perhaps "Time" doesn't exist as objective but subjective. I might be wrong. Ill remain agnostic about it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[junjunjun233]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.

Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.

 

[Drakkith]

It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.

Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.

How do you have motion without time?

 

[Chalnoth]

It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.

Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

 

[Drakkith]

This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

A large part of this thread simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Darken-Sol]

isnt the present the frame of reference in which the wave function is collapsed?

 

[Chalnoth]

A large part of this thread simply doesn't make any sense.

Yeah.

But in this case, equating entropy with time makes no sense whatsoever of a reversible adiabatic processes where entropy is conserved, but the system nonetheless changes.

 

[junjunjun233]

Yeah.

But in this case, equating entropy with time makes no sense whatsoever of a reversible adiabatic processes where entropy is conserved, but the system nonetheless changes.

Adiabatic, reversible adiabatic, isentropic flow; everything that involve movements/changes has to do with time. And we fill each gaps with time. Time makes perfect sense in every aspect of moving bodies; ie energy, heat, particle etc. Unless time is on a separate body or in a different dimensional QUACK.

In any case, even isentropic is only assumption and not totally conserved.

Time only appears in the equation of physics but no one is sure about it.

Imo. I'm agnostic about it.

How do you make sense of time then?

 

[Drakkith]

Adiabatic, reversible adiabatic, isentropic flow; everything that involve movements/changes has to do with time. And we fill each gaps with time.

What gaps?

Time only appears in the equation of physics but no one is sure about it.

I'm pretty sure that time exists whether or not it is in our physics equations.