Does Time Actually Exist?

[pioneer0333]

Time is only a "percieved" scale in which every thing has a place or "point". Time is just a meager attempt used to help account for everything that exist in the physical universe. I think of it as a "false infinite", because to us, time will someday reach an end . We feel this way because when we are about to die, we feel as if time is ending. We can never help that feeling. But in the 3-dimensional world, time knows No boundary. Only because even if no one is there to see it(time), time will continue to flow. Whether it's before the creation of the known universe, or after the creation of the universe. Time is just a scale that helps account for the existence of the universe.<br /><br />But, I could be wrong! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siarad]

H'm, sounds just like Fourier, where a lot of sine waves arriving at different times end up producing a sudden impact, a square wavefront! <br />So those other universes could still exist but we just see the final result. Maybe a space filter like a frequency filter would show them up <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[marcel_leonard]

Another analogy would be dropping a pebble in a pond will cause a ripple. Every consecutive wavelength will continue to grow ever larger than the one before it until it is no longer visible to you. What you've witnessed was a displacement of water molecules and surface tension. Once the disturbance is displaced you are left once again with still waters running deep. <br /><br />To me time or our perception of time is that displacement and the universe is constantly differentiating time/space so that ultimately the universal surface tension will once again look peaceful and undisturbed.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[enigma10]

that would suggest that there is a universal state of balance, or stability, if you want to call it. A state of Zero energy. <br /><br /> With that in mind, that would also suggest that there is unknown force pushing toward this stabalization process. If such a force existed, would it also provide a resistance to change? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[wavefunction]

I think time exists and doesn’t exist. Its probably more of a philosophical thing than anything.<br />Perhaps it’s simply a ‘hole’ to let space exist.<br />Take for instance the old cliché “if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there . Does it make a noise”.<br />The answer, yes and no. The audio energy will propagate through the area. However, it is not a sound until it is processed by something’s brain.<br />Polyfrequencies of light are nothing more than photons until it is processed by a brain. Then it becomes a picture.<br />Einstein proved time is relative. So, it is not the same for everybody, yet it is completely natural for whoever is experiencing it.<br />The inherent problem here may be with asking does it exist.

 

[minotast]

Of course time is vitally important, without it nothing can be done or changed or exist. Perhaps not even the state of nothingness could exist without time. <br /><br />Now there are different acounts of time. <br /><br />We have metabolic time, the effect time has on our bodies and how our bodies perceive time. <br /><br />Then there are also other accounts of time that are probably only acknowledgable from math, investigation, and possibly that which can gather from computers and robots (well those that achieve artificial intelligence in the distant or near future).<br /><br />The metabolic world of time works a bit different but relative to the other realities or distortions of time. <br /><br />Time can be bend through gravity, but it can also be distorted through chemical imbalances. <br /><br />For instance a fly perceives this world alot faster than we do. So minutes to us could very well be tens of minutes or an hour to them. <br /><br />And the opposite can be said with tortoises. The perceive this world alot slower than we do. So minutes to them could very well be seconds or tens of seconds to us. <br /><br />These general time preceivable occurances are generated from chemical metabolic situations that are involved within the body. They are generally created through genetic or evolutionary causes. Like for instance a species that requires less energy to move about per portion to it's body would therefore have a slower metabolism and therefore would perceive the world much like a tortoise. Certain mutations can also occur that can generate a sudden instability or long term porportion and we are seeing that with some of our own population. Where some of us perceive time slower than others. <br /><br />But I have a question, technically or atleast allegedly time it's self becomes slower when your body is in an accelerated environment. Like if you were in an airplane the seconds on your watch would tick slower than they would if you were off that plane. Wouldn't this contradic

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Very cool observation, Siarad. I agree. And if Hawking and Hertog are anywhere near the truth, then, yes, those other histories are not gone (and not forgotten). They are still 'here' and 'present' - still tied to what's happening now and where we are.<br /><br />Hawking's knack for seeing a relativistic macroscopic universe through a quantum microscopic lens once had me convinced he would find - or be instumental in finding - quantum gravity. He certainly has been helpful, but that grail will be someone else's to claim. Meanwhile, he offers an Alexandrian solution to a question by answering that the question itself doesn't exist. Another Gordian Knot unknotted.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>I like the idea the Craig proposes that the universe may simply have no beginning and no end. Actually this is not a new idea...</i><br /><br />Not a new idea at all. Yet it always seems to require an intuitive leap of some kind on our part in order to see it. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only transformed. The universe has always been, always will be.

 

[craigmac]

I like the point you make about energy not being able to be destroyed; which leads to the question if energy has no beginning, and no end why do we hold on to this notion that “Time” some how actually exists. If you were a being of pure energy like an electron of even a star for that matter the notion of time would be meaningless.

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Serak -</b><br /><br /><i>"Yet it always seems to require an intuitive leap of some kind on our part in order to see it. ... The universe has always been, always will be."</i><br /><br />Maybe the intuitive leap is in how we perceive the beginning of time during the Big Bang event -- when the universe itself came into existence. <br /><br />Since time didn't exist before the universe, we can accurately state that the universe has existed for all time. And then there's the vexing question of just how long it took for the first instant of time to unfold (the first 4.3 × 10¹⁷ seconds); it may have taken an infinite amount of time for the first Planck unit of time to begin. There was nothing in the universe with which to measure this initial time interval, so one could argue that time has existed forever.<br /><br /><b>CraigMac -</b><br /><br /><i>"If you were a being of pure energy like an electron of even a star for that matter the notion of time would be meaningless."</i><br /><br />Nicely stated! Take the example of the photon, it doesn't experience the passage of time; from its perspective, it's both created and annihilated at the same instant (but from our perspective some photons seem to be billions of years old).<br /><br />Our laws of physics are an attempt to mathematically model the basic conflict between the static mass and energy ("m" and "E"), and the infinitely expanding time and creation of space ("c") in our universe -- this conflict is our universe!<br /><br />(This is an agregious oversimplification of the "Classical" view and I would be happy to expand on the logic of this train of thoughts...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />) <br /><br />

 

[craigmac]

If you’re a true Trekkie you will remember the old Star Trek episode were the crew of the USS Enterprise encountered a human raised on another planet in another galaxy who traveled back from his base planet back to the earth named Gerry 7. His teleportation technology was so advanced that even the 24th century Enterprise had nothing to compare it to. I would like to think at the quantum physical level that such transportation is possible not only for traveling through space, but time as well.

 

[knjaz]

Time does not exist because time is a term man invented to explain and measure change.<br />Between two states there is a change or to be more precise infinite number of small changes.<br />That is the problem, our inability to understand infinity.<br />We must picture infinity as a lope of some kind, all the answers are infinitely simple and complex at the same time.<br />infinity is the key.<br />So the time does not exist, only infinite change.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Wait, you posted that 20 minutes ago!<br />It's now 20 minutes later!<br />Time must exist.<br /><br />Welcome to SDC <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

knjaz - Actually, God also experiences time, but at a different rate - or at least His concept of time is at a different rate - e.g. 1,000 years as one day (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).<br /><br />We may have thought up the English word "time," but the medium through which cause and effect flow, whatever you call it, existed long before mankind was created.<br /><br />Many do misunderstand infinities - for example many assume all infinities are equal - which they are not.<br /><br />For example: Our universe's radius is finite at any given point in time. However, our universe will expand forever, so that if you factor into the equation infinite future time you also get an infinite future radius.<br /><br />That is a time dependent infinity. <br /><br />Also, there are infinities that have a finite beginning but infinite end.<br /><br />For example, the time in years (or any other unit of time) for the future existence of our universe is indeed infinite. However, our universe had a beginning.<br /><br />That is a one way infinity.<br /><br />God, on the other hand, has no beginning and no end as the First Cause. That is a two way infinity.<br /><br />Now, what is it that we are not able to understand about various infinities exactly???<br /><br />To emphasize: change cannot occur without time; cause and effect cannot proceed without time.

 

[witgenestone]

I disagree.<br />I read the quote differently. God is experiencing X year(s) as Y year(s), regardless of what timespan the variables are representing. <br />Remember that the bible was "published" a long time ago (written by humans), people wasn't familiar with many of the concepts we have today.

 

[newtonian]

WitGeneStone - Feel free to disagree.<br /><br />What do you mean by X or Y years?<br /><br />Here are the quotes, btw:<br /><br />(Psalm 90:4) 4 For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night.<br /><br />(2 Peter 3:8-9) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. . .<br /><br />Studying Biblical context helps too!<br /><br />For example, note the days of creation in Genesis 1. Many religions assume these are 24 hours long each, notably young earth creationists [Note: Genesis 1:1 was before the first creative day, likely billions of years before.]<br /><br />Those of my faith believe the Genesis days of creation are days in God's concept of time. <br /><br />It should be noted that the writer of Genesis, Moses, was also the writer of the 90th Psalm.<br /><br />Scientific evidence confirms these days were not 24 hours long each. For example, how could plants produce enough oxygen for animals in 2 24 hour days from the 3rd day to the 5th day?<br /><br />However, if one uses the watch during the night = 1,000 years equation, one gets about 7,000 years per creative day.<br /><br />Even that is fast, but it is possible - especially given the higher CO2 in the earth's past as is indicated by the carbonates in earth's crust deposited by the geological carbon cycle.<br /><br />So, in other words, perhaps God is experiencing X years, which = 365,000 years in the human concept of time. That would be X = 1; Y= 365,000, no matter what units of time one is using or representing time with.<br /><br />Which, therefore, seems be in agreement with your post - where exactly are we disagreeing? <br /><br />One more point. We can determine the length o

 

[witgenestone]

"that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day"<br /><br />It can be intepretated as God experiences one day (for God) as thousand years (for us) but also a thousand years (for God) as one day (for us). It looks like God can chose regarding time with this interpretation.<br /><br />I am not disagreeing.Just wanted to say that the quote isn't unambiguos.

 

[marcel_leonard]

People get stuck w/ Moses’s Genesis account of the six day creation story; without realizing one vital thing. That Moses while being a prophet of God was not born at the beginning of time and as far as I’m aware there were not any human eye witnesses at the beginning of time. I think this is why theologians and physicists have such a hard time agreeing on either evolution or creationism.<br /> <br />The bottom line is evolution is in conjunction with the story of Genesis. In the story God says “let there be light”. Must physicist and biologist would agree that with out some form of light energy life as we now it cannot exist. Plant life could not carry out photosynthesis and animal life would not be able to produce their much needed vitamin D to sustain a health metabolism. Also in Genesis Moses describes how the lower forms of life were created first and on the sixth day the highest form of life on this planet was created. This sounds strangely Darwinian to me. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[pyoko]

Answer to topic: No, little duckie. It does not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Space isn't absolute (complete).<br />Time isn't absolute (complete).<br />Space-Time is like concrete, and defines our reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Please tell me Pyoko that you can make a more convincing argument then that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Hawking's and Hertog's work refers to string theory, a theory of everything, currently unproven.<br /><br />Progress toward proving it?<br /><br />Theoretical Physicists Develop Test for String Theory by Lauren Ward (Carnegie Mellon University)<br /><br />Jan. 23, 2007<br /><br /><i>. . . When the LHC turns on later this year, scientists will begin to investigate the scattering of W bosons, which has not been possible with other particle accelerators. Because the new test follows from a measurement of W boson scattering, it could eventually be performed at the LHC, according to the authors. <br /><br />"The beauty of our test is the simplicity of its assumptions," explained Grinstein. "The canonical forms of string theory include three mathematical assumptions — Lorentz invariance (the laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers), analyticity (a smoothness criteria for the scattering of high-energy particles after a collision) and unitarity (all probabilities always add up to one). Our test sets bounds on these assumptions.<br /><br />"If the test does not find what the theory predicts about W boson scattering," he added, "it would be evidence that one of string theory's key mathematical assumptions is violated. In other words, string theory — as articulated in its current form — would be proven impossible." <br /><br />"If the bounds are satisfied, we would still not know that string theory is correct," Distler said. "But if the bounds are violated, we would know that string theory, as it is currently understood, could not be correct. At the very least, the theory would have to be reshaped in a highly nontrivial way...."</i>

 

[ianke]

I know it took a lot of time to read this thread.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

That’s my point exactly; is that the passage of time or your biological clock ticking? Imagine for a second that you had the lifespan of a Redwood tree you would live for thousands of years and time would be relative to how you aged. Case/Point: I will soon be turning forty one yet when I go to the package store I am often carded like some teenager. I understand that my genes have allowed me to age more gracefully than others in my own age group; which is probably why I and my younger sister do not get along. People are always assuming that she is my mother.<br /><br />My theory about time as we know it here on earth is just an illusion created out of our desire to want to live forever. For this main reason we have not figured out how to travel interstellar space. From our perspective the nearest star Alpha Centuri is unreachable by conventional rocket in our lifetime. Imagine a transportation technology that could allow you transport FTL instantly to any point in the galaxy… <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[search]

Interpretation of "Time" depends from which point of view you look. If you think about "Time" in Newtonian terms it is part of the fundamental structure of the universe. If you think in philosophycal terms then it is part of the fundamental intelectual structure used to measure things. <br /><br />In the the first view Time is measurable and in the second it is part of the intelectual measuring system.<br /><br />Time and Spacetime are also different. We can travel in spacetime (which is the road) during a certain time (which is how long it takes to travel the road or spacetime) but our lifespan are usually to short for the distances between stars at the current technological speeds and physical constraints.