Does Time Actually Exist?

kyle_baron · May 15, 2007

when you start delving into the realm of the quantum particles distance and time lose their meaning. Agreed. Space can not be divided indefinitly. Distance beneath the Planck Length (10-33cm) is impossible. The reason, is that at that length, strings themselves theoretically exist. And the "Strings" are energy that "push back" on any further division. Brian Greene calls it a "cosmic bounce". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 16, 2007

Not so sure I would call it impossible. Immeasurable by our current standards, but not impossible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

marcel_leonard · May 22, 2007

If you think about the universe at the quantum level time stops making any sense at allâ€¦ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

kyle_baron · May 22, 2007

If you think about the universe at the quantum level time stops Agreed, time stops: 1. At the singularity of a black hole. 2. At the speed of light. 3. At the quantum level, beneath the Planck Length. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 23, 2007

Or if my Timex takes a lickin' and actually stops tickin' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

marcel_leonard · May 24, 2007

You find the meaning behind time and you will solve the paradox between cosmology, and quantum mechanicsâ€¦ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

kyle_baron · May 24, 2007

You find the meaning behind time and you will solve the paradox between cosmology, and quantum mechanicsâ€¦ I'm working on it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But unfortunatly, there is no "absolute" time. This means that time can have many meanings, most of which, are equally valid. As Einstein would say: "It's all relative". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

15203700700579 · Feb 8, 2008

A deep question.

cnick · Feb 9, 2008

As I read the various posts on this thread, I see a hodgepodge of metaphysical speculations. Not that that doesn't have it's place, however, don't confuse it with science. Falsifiability is the essence of science, there is no way to prove most of these speculations false. But since we're in a metaphysical mood...I think what we call "time" is a function of our conciousness. All time exists, our concious perception travels thru this continuum. Hmmm I have to think about that some more, well I mean, I think I need more time!

weeman · Feb 9, 2008

Falsifiability is the essence of science, there is no way to prove most of these speculations false. You are correct. Which is the reason that there is not such thing as Scientific Fact. Even as sure as we are that the Sun is at the center of the solar system, we can still be only 99.9999999% sure that this is true. This was actually a question I had on my Oceanography final a couple years ago. Q: Is there such thing as "Scientific Fact"? A: No <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

origin · Feb 9, 2008

This was actually a question I had on my Oceanography final a couple years ago. Q: Is there such thing as "Scientific Fact"? A: No You should have answered "Probably not". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Feb 9, 2008

Sounds like Julian Barbour's Platonia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Feb 9, 2008

We can predict how time will pass for a clock in different circumstances - i.e. a clock at rest on Earth ticks at a different rate from the clock on a GPS satellite in orbit. We have made many tests of this so called "time-dilation" and it does indeed seem to occur as predicted by General Relativity. The rate at which time passes depends on where you are and what you are doing - how fast you are accelerating or how much you are resisting gravity. So it would seem to me that we can consider time to exist and indeed it seems that time and space are intrinsically linked. As you move faster through space, you experience less time and the relationship between the two is the speed of light. The closer you approach the speed of light, relative to another observer, the less time you experience when compared to that observer. But does that mean that time requires an observer? All I can say is that we can measure the rate at which a radioactive isotope decays and we can compare that decay rate with the lifetime of a star. If we weren't here to observe, the question is whether that relationship would change or not. I think not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

weeman · Feb 9, 2008

If we weren't here to observe, the question is whether that relationship would change or not. Ah yes, but then the question comes up of whether or not the entire universe would exist if we weren't here to observe it! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Of course, that idea has come up in conversation about a billion times on this board! Let me know if you like this analogy, Speedfreek: Imagine that you are traveling in your car on a freeway that travels due east, at 65mph. You take an exit ramp that will connect you with another freeway that will take you due north. As you're on the ramp, more of your speed is transfered to the north direction from the east direction. Once you're on the northbound freeway, you will be traveling 65mph north and 0mph east. Isn't this the same idea with time dilation? The faster you travel, the closer you are to the speed of light, meaning your mass is continually increasing. As your mass increases, more energy is required. So, wouldn't this mean that as you travel closer to the speed of light, more of your velocity is transfered from your direction in time to your direction in space? Since it requires an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

SpeedFreek · Feb 10, 2008

Yup, that's a similar analogy to the one Brian Greene uses in his books, and it's a good one! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

gemini59 · Feb 10, 2008

Anything that is "Self Realized" exist. Stephen Hawking said that the odds of what we know and realize as the beginning of our Universe happening, occuring, etc. could not have occured from the atrophy without some sort of blueprint. The odds for that are incalculable.

marcel_leonard · Nov 19, 2008

The question really is if there was some type of circumstantial catalyst for the powers that are behind the Big Bang creation of the universe, or whether there was Mischievous Creator playing with matches?  Wouldn’t said powers be above the laws of physics as we know them to be, and would'nt time have no meaning to this said power? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/9/76ebb953-7c8c-4efa-9962-29eebc309d84.Medium.jpg" alt="" />  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

marcel_leonard · Nov 19, 2008

The question really is if there was some type of circumstantial catalyst for the powers that are behind the Big Bang creation of the universe, or whether there was Mischievous Creator playing with matches?  Wouldn’t said powers be above the laws of physics as we know them to be, and would'nt time have no meaning to this said power? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/9/76ebb953-7c8c-4efa-9962-29eebc309d84.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

DrRocket · Nov 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We can predict how time will pass for a clock in different circumstances - i.e. a clock at rest on Earth ticks at a different rate from the clock on a GPS satellite in orbit. We have made many tests of this so called "time-dilation" and it does indeed seem to occur as predicted by General Relativity. The rate at which time passes depends on where you are and what you are doing - how fast you are accelerating or how much you are resisting gravity. So it would seem to me that we can consider time to exist and indeed it seems that time and space are intrinsically linked. As you move faster through space, you experience less time and the relationship between the two is the speed of light. The closer you approach the speed of light, relative to another observer, the less time you experience when compared to that observer. But does that mean that time requires an observer? All I can say is that we can measure the rate at which a radioactive isotope decays and we can compare that decay rate with the lifetime of a star. If we weren't here to observe, the question is whether that relationship would change or not. I think not. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>Everything that you say is correct.  But it is important that others read your words carefully and recognize that the perceptions of time and space depend on the particular reference frame in which they are measured.  Your statement that time and space are intrinsically linked is most important.  In special relativity there is a clear distinction between time and space, in a single inertial reference frame, but one observer's time can be intertwined with another observer's space.  But in general relativity, time and space are not clearly separable even for a single observer, except locally.  That is one of the consequences of the curvature of space-time.The question as to whether or not time "exists" is not a question of physics.  For the purpose of physics you can measure time, and that is enough.  The question of "existence" is a question of philosophy, and the sub-discipline of ontology.  Debates regarding ontology tend to be prolonged and the next conclusion that I see coming from such a debate will be the first one.  Those discussions are simply not productive.The next time you are late for work try telling your boss that time does not exist.  If you are paid by the hour you might not like his response. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

weeman · Nov 19, 2008

It took time for you to type your post. Time, as humans know it, is just a manifestation of our species, to organize the world in which we live. So then how do we define time on a universal scale? What was time like for the dinosaurs, and how did they perceive it? This debate could go on and on, because none of us really understand time. All we know is that time for us does not stop, otherwise wouldn't we be eternal beings? We are born, we grow into adults, and we die - is this not proof that time of some kind is inevitably moving forward? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The question really is if there was some type of circumstantial catalyst for the powers that are behind the Big Bang creation of the universe, or whether there was Mischievous Creator playing with matches?  Wouldn’t said powers be above the laws of physics as we know them to be, and would'nt time have no meaning to this said power? Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV> This thread is off topic for SETI. Read what this forum is supposed to discuss.It's about the SEARCH for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. As a result, I am moving it.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

origin · Nov 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The question really is if there was some type of circumstantial catalyst for the powers that are behind the Big Bang creation of the universe, or whether there was Mischievous Creator playing with matches?  Wouldn’t said powers be above the laws of physics as we know them to be, and would'nt time have no meaning to this said power? Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV> If A were true and If B were true wouldn't C be true?  Ah, probably?  But we have no possible way of knowing if A and B were true so what is the point.If pigs had wings and the gravity of earth was 1/10 of what it currently is wouldn't pigs be able to fly?  Maybe.These types of conjecture pale next to using science to understand the real universe we live in, IMNSHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

why06 · Nov 20, 2008

Well I've got a quesion for that. If time and space are so intrinsicallly linked then tell me:When space is looked at on a microscopic scale it seems to be extremely chaotic and unorderly. Is time the same way?Say we look at a really short piece of time like  picosecond ( 0.000000000001 seconds) in this period of time will things move like still images? jumpimg from place to place? Or very smoothly? In other worth would inertia not be that big of a deal. <table border="0" class="wikitable" align="right" style="margin:0.5em0pt0.5em1em;font-size:90%"><tbody><tr><td>

skeptic · Nov 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If we weren't here to observe, the question is whether that relationship would change or not. Ah yes, but then the question comes up of whether or not the entire universe would exist if we weren't here to observe it! Of course, that idea has come up in conversation about a billion times on this board! Let me know if you like this analogy, Speedfreek: Imagine that you are traveling in your car on a freeway that travels due east, at 65mph. You take an exit ramp that will connect you with another freeway that will take you due north. As you're on the ramp, more of your speed is transfered to the north direction from the east direction. Once you're on the northbound freeway, you will be traveling 65mph north and 0mph east. Isn't this the same idea with time dilation? The faster you travel, the closer you are to the speed of light, meaning your mass is continually increasing. As your mass increases, more energy is required. So, wouldn't this mean that as you travel closer to the speed of light, more of your velocity is transfered from your direction in time to your direction in space? Since it requires an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light? Posted by weeman</DIV> Excellent point Weeman.  Let me take it a little further.  One of the ways the relationship between time and space is expressed is by the Lorentz Transformation which is sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  This formula is nothing more than the pythagorean formula in disguise. If you have a right triangle with sides A,B, and C with C being the hypotenuse and you know the lengths of sides A and C, how do you find the length of side B?  You simply rearrange the formula into B = sqrt(C^2 - A^2).  In the Lorentz transformation if we let c = 1, v must then be expressed as a fraction of c.  The 1 in the formula is really c^2/c^2 so the formula becomes sqrt(c^2/c^2 - v^2/c^2) and since c = 1, it equals sqrt(c^2 - v^2).  Look familiar?  In fact a much easier way of finding the amount of time dilation is sin(arccos(v)) where v is espressed as a fraction of c.We can visualize this by putting v on the x axis, the rate at which time passes which I call t' or time prime on the y axis and connecting them with a hypotenuse equal to 1 or the speed of lightSo yes, time exists in the same sense that space exists and time passes for a body at rest at the rate of about 299,792,458 meters per second.

marcel_leonard · Nov 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Excellent point Weeman.  Let me take it a little further.  One of the ways the relationship between time and space is expressed is by the Lorentz Transformation which is sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  This formula is nothing more than the pythagorean formula in disguise. If you have a right triangle with sides A,B, and C with C being the hypotenuse and you know the lengths of sides A and C, how do you find the length of side B?  You simply rearrange the formula into B = sqrt(C^2 - A^2).  In the Lorentz transformation if we let c = 1, v must then be expressed as a fraction of c.  The 1 in the formula is really c^2/c^2 so the formula becomes sqrt(c^2/c^2 - v^2/c^2) and since c = 1, it equals sqrt(c^2 - v^2).  Look familiar?  In fact a much easier way of finding the amount of time dilation is sin(arccos(v)) where v is espressed as a fraction of c.We can visualize this by putting v on the x axis, the rate at which time passes which I call t' or time prime on the y axis and connecting them with a hypotenuse equal to 1 or the speed of lightSo yes, time exists in the same sense that space exists and time passes for a body at rest at the rate of about 299,792,458 meters per second. Posted by skeptic</DIV>My point with this discussion was to try and stimulate the conversation about whether, or not time actually existed. Think for a moment that you have be just turned 21 years of age, now think for a moment that for next 4.5 billion years you remain looking and feeling 21 years of age. How much would time matter then?The main reason that our understanding of Physics seems to breakdown; when we study the subatomic, and then compare it to the cosmic observations in scale, is largely because we really don’t fully understand the basic laws of physics. Our understanding of modern physics is really not that much different then Midevil Catholic scholars that attempted to translate the original book of Moses’ Genesis from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek, and finally into Latin… http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/# http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/# <img style="width:390px;height:312px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/15/566883c9-f1a6-47b8-9f59-3fe060701371.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="304" height="255" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

Does Time Actually Exist?

kyle_baron

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

15203700700579

Guest

cnick

Guest

weeman

Guest

origin

Guest

nimbus

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

weeman

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

gemini59

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

weeman

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

origin

Guest

why06

Guest

skeptic

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page