Does Time Actually Exist?

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I hate to write long post. I'll make comments on all of your posts.<br /><br />DanIKo:<br />"So he spent 30 years experimenting with this thought (that's persistence). "<br />"For me the future must be enough far, that it's not predictable nor precalculatable. That's what thrills me"<br /><br />This is because Barbour stopped publishing papers. If you must publish papers, you must stay inside the box (i.e, your works must conform with others). To take a different perspective of things, one must go outside the box and make observations.<br />Your diode analogy is interesting, you can shine more light on that later in another post.<br />And about predicting future. Sorry to tell you, someday we will be able to exactly predict events even a year or more ahead. We'll be able to predict as small thing as a road accident at an intersection at certain time. This predictions will be as close as traveling to the future. All we gonna need are some super super super computers and many precise variables.<br /><br />I_Think:<br />"So time controls the pace of cause and effect"<br />In my opinion one event is responsible for the next event, not time.<br /><br />Serak:<br />This is what i understand of Barbour. If 3 particles are at x,y, and z (3 locations), then this is Now. When they are at x+1, y+1, z+1, this is Now. The past (x,y,z) is erased. But since x,y,z are recorded in our memory or other media, we sense or see a sequence of events or flow of time.<br />Same here. I have to read the Barbour paper again with your explanations in mind. Tho I'd not worry about big bang at this time. Do you have any readable link to Wheeler-DeWitt equation? I mean, without 'physical review' type of math.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-DeWit_equation<br />

 

[mickeyone53]

Hey DanIKo, <br /><br />One more point about GR; the very thing we measure is affected by the fact we are measuring it. Meaning, if you are measuring time, time is effected by where we are in the gravitational flux for gravity is not consistant everywhere on earth. Therefor, the questions begs to be ascked: Can time exist without gravity or vice versa; can gravity exist without time?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Can time exist without gravity or vice versa</font><br /><br />Try imagining a unvierse without gravity. No gravity implies that neutral masses will assort randomly and not cluster. Electromagnetism would become more homegenous in the universe, like the early big bang.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">can gravity exist without time?</font><br /><br />Try imagining a universe without time. Nothing happens in such a universe.<br /><br />Time is rate of change.<br />Gravity is a form of attraction.<br /><br />You can have time without gravity.<br />But gravity requires time (rate of change), or else it's meaningless.

 

[daniko]

I'm glad that more folks joined writing because the thread becomes interesting <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'll try to comment all new (for me) posts.<br /><br />1. To <font color="blue">Mickeyone53</font>s question about which is first:<br />-- /> If Time is defined as the "rate of change" of things so if we don't have any matter we will not have Time. So the Matter comes first and starts to wrigle and "click" the Time pops up. But everywhere the Matter exists it twists the space and produces Gravity. It's not proven fact but I thing - all kinds of matter must produce Gravity. So for me the answer is:<br />For Time you need Matter and Matter comes with Gravity -- /> Time + Gravity = joined forever <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />2. To <font color="blue">Serak_the_Preparer</font>about "This description of time is of very little practical value to us ...":<br />-- /> I completely agree with that. And yet I don't see how Barbour will get rid of time completely.<br />If we suppose that a human mind is a written book and all we do is folowing the letters, the fact that we follow the letters is a change. But as mentioned above - if there is a change -- /> there is Time ?!?<br /><br />3. To <font color="blue">emperor_of_localgroup</font><br />-- /> About prediction of time - I hope I never get predicted by such a computer <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />-- /> About my "diode analogy" - I think that there are really existing spacetime zones where Time goes in opozite to ours Time direction. The main problem the physicists see about that is the posibility of breaking the <b>cause and effect</b> sequences. My assumption was that a natural mechanism exists that prevents passing of any kind of information between the two zones.<br />But as I write this new ideas arrise.<br /><br />So I'll stop this post and start unother ...

 

[lewcos]

I think time exists but it exists like many other man made things.<br /><br />Time is a made up measurement tool. <br /><br />We "create" a "mile" to help us gauge distance.<br />We "create" a "cup" to help us gauge volume.<br />We "create" "time" to help us gauge our lives as to where we "are" and where we should be or need to be.<br /><br />Just because it is man made does not make it fake or unreal, it is simply a tool.

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Yes of course time exist. If we were one million light years away from our planet and then looked back at it from that distance. We would see what was happening here a million years ago.<br /><br />So I guess, space is time. <br /><br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

DanIKo, Lewcos, Spaceinvador:<br /><br />DanIKo, You touched almost every bases. But if Barbour is right about time, i.e. its only 'Now', nothing else, then Lewcos put the last nail in the coffin.<br /><br />Time is a unit of 'change'. Just like any other units of science.<br /><br />As you have already noticed, Barbour's definition of time has no practical value because in most theories time is treated as 'changes'. Except, I have no idea what will happen to time dilation.<br /><br />In your diode analogy, are you implying forward and reverse time flows in the same universe? That's seems very unlikely. I also see why you brought in matter (or gravity) into 'time'. If 'change' is time, we do need something to change. If there is no matter (or gravity) , there's no time.<br />BTW, I dont think we'll see the 'future predicting' computer in our life time.<br /><br />Spaceinvador, no, the event you see 1 mill year later, you do not see it live. You see an event that has been 'recorded' in photons 1 mill year ago. The instant of time the event took place is gone forever.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[lewcos]

"Gravity slows down the atomic and subatomic processes. "<br /><br />So if I can create a massive object and stay near it for most of my lifetime, I will live longer than I otherwise would have?<br /><br />Can gravity be the fountain of youth? I suppose the amount of gravity needed to slow your aging process would limit your physical options?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Can gravity be the fountain of youth? I suppose the amount of gravity needed to slow your aging process would limit your physical options?</font><br /><br />No because in a strong gravity field, time slows down, so everything from celluar function, thinking, conciousness, and moving about are slowed down accordingly.

 

[daniko]

High all of you <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />For a moment I thought you'll become tired of this thread but I'm happy to see you again.<br /><br />Here's my lines:<br /><br />1. To <font color="blue">lewcos</font>s dream of "fountain of youth":<br />-- /> I also wrestled this idea but unfortunately it's not very practicle. When <b>one</b> is in strong gravity (<font color="blue">kmarinas86</font>is right) the time slows down so everything slows down. But that's according to the observers from outside. For them <b>one</b> will live longer but slower. But the interesting here would be the <b>ones</b> point of view.<br />-- /> If <b>one</b> lives in no gravity and his molecules oscilate (for example) 10^1024 times in his life --> if he spend his life in the strong gravity - his molecules will oscilate 10^1024 times in his life !!!<br />So for <b>ones</b> conscious and body the length of life will be exactly the same.<br />But there is application for a "Gravitational Life Suspending Chamber" - <b>one</b> can spend there all the time in his life that is useless for him <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />2. To <font color="blue">emperor_of_localgroup</font>about the information diode:<br />-- /> Your point is close to something I'm thinking of lately. If between two zones of spacetime where Time goes in different directions there is no way for any information to pass --> it's impossible to tell "Time goes in different directions" because there can't be any comparison. It's more likely this two zones to be in separate universes.<br /><br />But what kind of separation is this ?<br /><br />For illustration I'll explain how I see the things around a Black Hole (BH):<br />Lets start investigation of a BH from point above where its gravitation is ignorable (point A)<br />When moving form p.A toward the "events horizont" of the BH (moving point B) - all we know that Time starts to slow down measured by p.A's clock. So if at p.A the rat

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>When we understand gravity, we will understand time.</i><br /><br />I've long believed this myself. I suspect what we call 'time' is really our perception of entropy, and entropy gives us our so-called 'arrow of time.' Though I can't really explain it very well right now, I believe as you do, that gravity is tied to that.<br /><br />The universe - or space - expands, and that expansion is really the movement away from the high-energy and high-density state of the Big Bang toward the low-energy, low-density state of the heat-death of the universe. What is that, though, other than another way of talking about entropy? At the same time, the universe is unfurling from a small, compact and very curved configuration toward a much larger and broader arrangement. That transformation of space as the universe moves from a very ordered toward a very disordered state is saying something about gravity, as well as time. Probably an overly simplistic and very unsophisticated view of 'the big picture,' but appealing all the same, as it hints at an underlying unity we seem to be on the verge of glimpsing.

 

[daniko]

Here you are a tricky little question that will help in the way of understanding Gravity and Time:<br /><br />On the surface of a star we have Time delated because of the gravity of the star Matter<br /><br />-- /> Is Time delayed in the middle of the star ?<br /><br />Some more remarks:<br />If Gravity is a force so the gravitational force in the middle of the star should be equalized.<br />But if Gravity is curvature of the space caused by Matter, then may be in the middle of the star we also must have curvature ?<br /><br />I don't know the answer <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[spaceinvador_old]

I'm new at this science talk. I do have a logical mind though.<br /><br />So I'm understanding that gravity is the ruler of time. The speed at which events take place.<br /><br />Even if gravity slowed our time clock, things would not change. We wouldn't live more years, just slower, and we would notice nothing...

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Yes, the thread is getting interesting because 'time' has always been a mysterious subject. I'll ask you all a big question. But before that let me summarize what we have found so far.<br /><br />time is space<br />time is gravity<br />time flows like water in a river<br />and then there is no time.<br /><br />Time is spce is understandable, but time is gravity is an overstatement. If the reason is gravity changes space, then the relation between time and gravity, based on my limited knowledge, is highly indirect.<br /><br />DanIKo, your example of zero time near a black hole, or even a reversal of time ( i read somewhere) near a BH is, in my opinion, a wishful thinking. I'm a bit reluctant to accept everything 'a theory' says beyond the event horizon of a BH. You see, there are too many unknowns, too many variables for objects even just outside our solar system. Accepting detailed descriptions, from theories, of deep space objects and their behaviors as 'real truth' are very premature. But as i always say, speculation and 'what if...' are always healthy and should be encouraged.<br /><br />Here is a more down to earth qustion.<br /><br />Do we NEED 'time'? Do we REALLY need 'time' to explain anything in our world?<br /><br />Before you start laughing and ridiculing me, come to think of it. <br /><br />Your car ran 1 mile when a needle, in what we call watch, moved certain distance. This is speed.<br /><br />The needle in my watch moved and made 1 complete rotation when I sat in my chair and blankly stared at the wall. This is how long I procrastinated. <br /><br />Please point out other scenarios i may have overlooked. I'll see if i can explain without time.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[toothferry]

time is a <i> sequence </i> of events. The sequence of the swing of a pendulum; the sequence of the grains that fall through an hourglass; the sequence of atomic vibrations within a super accurate clock; the sequence of moments within our lives as defined in seconds, minutes, hours and days.<br /><br />Even if as you suggest there were no such thing as time, and all time was essentially compress into a single instant, then there would still be those ordered sequences of events that happens through all levels of our universe.<br /><br />perhaps its only <i> Life </i> that decompresses all those ordered sequences, and pages through them within our very handicapped 3D perpective, sorting through our <i> Life </i> one moment at a <i> Time. </i>

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Man you seem smart! I think we're all stating different kinds of time. <br /><br />My big question is; Can we travel through time? I know I'm myself and there isn't another like me, anywhere...<br /><br />I don't think time travel is possible, because light is only an image and doeasn't carry the matter it bounced off of.<br /><br />Say I'm wrong and time travel is possible. Say we did make a machine/spacecraft in some future that can take us throught time. That would explain why there are UFO's. Could they be us from the future. <br /><br />I can only guess...

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Can we travel through time?</font><br /><br />We can't travel to our own past.<br /><br />However, we can, in theory, use relativity to adjust the rate at which time passes for us, relative to someone else.<br /><br />In other words, we can adjust the relative rate at which we age, by accelerating to relativistic speeds.

 

[spaceinvador_old]

So what your saying is, we can age at different speeds? I can come back older, but not younger, yes?<br /><br />We can't travel through time, but we can alter how we age by playing with the time clock at which things change/happen.<br /><br />2 days to me, could be 100 years for another. Just depends on the speed that person is going through life in comparison to me.

 

[kmarinas86]

Einstein, Relativity, and Time Travel<br />http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/classes/2001Spring/135-1/Projects/1/Einstein.htm

 

[daniko]

The Story of Time ( I hope <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> )<br /><br />I rered this thread once again as a whole and I noticed that several aspects of Time are used. So I tryed to systematize all ideas. Three major aspects formed and I ordered them respective to the development of human understanding of Time.<br /><br /><b>Time_H</b> as:<br />-- /> the "History" that everything that happens leaves as a trail of traces in our memories and in the material world<br /><b>Time_L</b> as:<br />-- /> the "Life of the humans" measurement sequence of pseudo-events called: ..., seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, ... that is determined by devices named "clocks" and to which sequence we compare our lives<br /><b>Time_M</b> as:<br />-- /> the "Matter's dynamic of change", which is used as the 4-th dimention of the spacetime in modern physics<br /><br />When first the Nature created living creatures with nerval system they possessed the basic mechanism of memory. When humans develop their thinking skills they found that they remember historically ordered sequences of events. Humans also found that in the surrounding environment they can observe the traces left by memorised events. That's how the understanding of <b>Time_H</b> was developed first.<br />As humans develop as a social beings the needs for better coordination grew. The increasing abilities to predict and plan also raised the needs for better coordination. The humans started to seek steadily repeting events, stable in the past and so believed to be easily predicted in the future. Starting with the thigs that nature offered like day and night changes and seasons, humans reached to the clock. Inspired by the achievements in Time measurement - Newton decides that there must be a God's Clock that is the most precise and rules all. That's shortly the story of <b>Time_L</b>.<br />Then Einstein came to the conclusion that Matter occurs at different concentrations and in different speeds. These differences could be

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Yes, sorry, I forgot to include 'time is entropy' on my list in my previous post. Since entropy is always increasing, it may be akin to time. Entropy, I guess, can be different in different regions of space which makes it friendlier to Einstein's relativity than other notions of time. My other thinking is force or energy also contribute to our perception of 'time'. Note that gravity is a force. I need more time to think about this.<br /><br />Sorry to say, I always have trouble accomodating Special Relativity in my line of thinking. But here is another example why we can do things without 'time'.<br /><br />mph (miles per hour) or m/sec (meters per sec) can easily be called 'miles/degree' or 'meters/degree'. We can do this if we assume the 'hands' in a watch make 360 degrees, which we call an 'hour'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">So what your saying is, we can age at different speeds?</font><br /><br />Exactly. Well done.<br /><br />Here is another way to look at it.<br /><br />"A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two never does." (Fortune cookie) <br /><br />Light travels roughly 1 foot per nanosecond. So, if I'm having a conversation with someone standing 5 feet from me, we're separated in time from each other by about 5 nanoseconds. I can't know (for certian) anything about what my partner has done in the past 5 nanoseconds.<br /><br />We each have our own clocks. Some run faster, and some run slower. Also, the farther apart we are, the more our individual clocks are separated in time.<br /><br />Now consider this philisophically deep corrolary: Since our clocks are individual, our choices are also individual. Being separated by 5 feet from another means I get 5 nanoseconds worth of free choice to think and feel and do whatever I wish. (Yes, choices have consequences, but that comes later...)

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Thanks for the replies! I can't understand how we each have our own time clock?<br /><br />Since lights speed is the same for you and I, wouldn't we be on the same clock? I can't understand how a stationary object ages faster either. <br /><br />Maybe I think different galaxies have their own clocks. I think that because they have different degrees of mass/gravity. <br /><br />I hope I don't sound dumb...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Thanks for the replies! I can't understand how we each have our own time clock? </font><br /><br />I have a wristwatch, and so do you. Is that such a difficult model to grasp?<br /><br />We each follow our own path through life. Since our wristwatches stay with us, time advances the same for me and my own wristwatch. (My wristwatch measures me.)<br /><br />Separate wristwatches may be synchronized by mutual agreement. To do this, we simply agree that at a certian place and instant, both of our watches read identically.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Since lights speed is the same for you and I, wouldn't we be on the same clock? I can't understand how a stationary object ages faster either. </font><br /><br />Synchronization may be maintained by placing clocks in similar environments, near each other. If the two of us synchronize our watches to each other in the morning, then go about our normal workday, we will find our watches will read the same in the evening, within experimental error.<br /><br />This leads us to the illusion of a single universal clock. In actuality, it is an infinite number of individual clocks which happen to remain synchronized because they move slowly relative to each other.<br /><br />The de-synchronization effect only becomes obvious when we have experienced high speed relative to one another. If we synchronize watches in the morning, then I fly to the moon and back, fast enough to return that same evening, we will see that our watches will read **differently**.<br /><br />That's special relativity. It is beyond our normal experience, but it is real.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Maybe I think different galaxies have their own clocks. I think that because they have different degrees of mass/gravity. </font><br /><br />Relativity extends all the way to the smallest scales. You might do well to consider each and every atomic particle to have its own clock.<br /><br />If the atoms do not move relati