Time isn't real so what does that mean?

a reply to: YouSir

I noticed something that may or may not have relevance.

I don't really celebrate my birthdays, and I often need to think at least a few seconds to rememner my age. It's just not something I focus on. I don't like a lot of attention and I don't like people going out of their way for me or spending a lot of money, or any money preferably, on me.

I look very young. I feel young, but I haven't taken very good care of my body, so, maybe not as young as I could.

I wonder if, paying attention to the passage of time more, or less, could have an effect on your mind, which translates into a psychosomatic effect on your body, and of course the subconscious which controls everything.

"Oh, I'm 45 so I guess it's just time for my body to have a heart attack pretty soon in the next 5 or 10 years." Of course you aren't consciously thinking this to yourself. It's not that easy. You can't really help it if your subconscious wants to obsess over a thought like that. It's effected by a long line of butterfly effect like events that would be near impossible for a human to orchestrate or fool.

I don't know Why I don't pay attention to age. I date a wide range of ages too. I don't prefer any age, I just don't discriminate either. But I don't know why. Maybe something to do with my chaotic childhood. My psyche was jumbled around and found a position in which to be comfortable and that included not wanting a spotlight on me, and wanting to make others feel special instead, so I intentionally (subconsciously so actually unintentional) avoided and played down my own celebrations and achievements and perhaps a secondary effect to that was that it led me to forget how old I am more often than normal, and just, forget about the passage of time in general.


OR... maybe it's just a coincidence that I look young. A lot of people don't like to celebrate birthdays so that's nothing rare. A lot of people don't look like their age, too, so, that is nothing too special either.

It's just a thought that has nagged quietly over the years in the dark, cobwebbed recesses of the deepest blankest corners of my aging withering ragged mind...

double trouble

a reply to: 3n19m470

Know the feeling - I too always have to think if asked my age (what year is it? oh yeah then i'm ..)

I never wear a watch, haven't for decades and generally my phone is in my car or on the side in the house, yet if asked the time I am usually accurate to 5 minutes.

Time is a strange thing indeed - perceived to go faster when enjoying yourself and perceived as much slower in other instances (that slow motion thing when you are crashing or waiting for the work/school day to end)

i read that article. the author is spot on.

however, the way that neoholographic has interpreted the article has turned it into the most useless, valueless masturbatory dribble...

TIME EXISTS! and even if it didn't, we are all still subject to it. so what good is it to say that it doesn't?!

effing idiots.

a reply to: 3n19m470

One thing for certain. You're not getting any younger.

a reply to: neoholographic

after I read this , it reminded me a lot of David Bohms book , Wholeness and the implicate order !

the universe is on giant living consciousness experiencing itself
we are all the same stuff

so dont be a dick to anyone you are only being a dick to yourself !

a reply to: neoholographic

How does the non-existence of time affect the Schrodinger equation:

The Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation
We are now ready to consider the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Although we were able to derive the single-particle time-independent Schrödinger equation starting from the classical wave equation and the de Broglie relation, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation cannot be derived using elementary methods and is generally given as a postulate of quantum mechanics. It is possible to show that the time-dependent equation is at least reasonable if not derivable, but the arguments are rather involved (cf. Merzbacher [2], Section 3.2; Levine [3], Section 1.4).
vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu...

Hilbert space H of states is space with time-independent basis vectors. Schrodinger's equation describes the state of a quantum system and is time dependent.

How does that square with the "time does not exist" theory? Was Schrodinger wrong? Time evolution in quantum systems is linear. How do you remove time from those equations?

a reply to: Phantom423

I was reading this thread just fine until I got to your post.

a reply to: Phantom423

Aye , how then can we use the equation " speed is equal to distance over time "
if time isnt a real observable function

a reply to: Phantom423


ruh-roh!

NEO's got some 'splainin to do!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

How does the non-existence of time affect the Schrodinger equation:

The Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation
We are now ready to consider the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Although we were able to derive the single-particle time-independent Schrödinger equation starting from the classical wave equation and the de Broglie relation, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation cannot be derived using elementary methods and is generally given as a postulate of quantum mechanics. It is possible to show that the time-dependent equation is at least reasonable if not derivable, but the arguments are rather involved (cf. Merzbacher [2], Section 3.2; Levine [3], Section 1.4).
vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu...

Hilbert space H of states is space with time-independent basis vectors. Schrodinger's equation describes the state of a quantum system and is :

dependent.

How does that square with the "time does not exist" theory? Was Schrodinger wrong? Time evolution in quantum systems is linear. How do you remove time from those equations?

Did you read your source? Let's start there. At the end of your link it says:

For these reasons, wave functions of the form (27) are called stationary states. The state $psi([bf r], t)$ is ``stationary,'' but the particle it describes is not!

What are Stationary States?

A stationary state is a quantum state with all observables independent of time. It is an eigenvector of the Hamiltonian.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Let me repeat that.

A stationary state is a quantum state with all observables independent of time. It is an eigenvector of the Hamiltonian.[1]

Again, this is from the source you linked to. It tells you right there in the end what it's talking about. It goes on to say:

Of course equation (27) represents a particular solution to equation (21). The general solution to equation (21) will be a linear combination of these particular solutions, i.e.

A LINEAR COMBINATION OF THESE PARTICULAR SOLUTIONS.

Do you know what this means?

The wave function of what we call a particle is spread out throughout space-time. There's nowhere in space where the wave function is non zero. This is why prior to measurement, you can only know the probabilities.

This is why your source says the state is stationary but the particle it describes is not.

So if I make a measurement of a particle and it's at position x then 10 minutes later I measure the particle, it's position shares no relationship to the previous measurement.

This is why in experiment after experiment causality is violated on a quantum level. We only care about the past, present and future. The laws of physics don't. We will record THE LINEAR COMBINATION of measurements as past and future. We will say I 10 AM I measured spin up and at 11 AM I measured spin down. We will then say I measured spin up before I measured spin down but Physics doesn't care about this order in terms of past, present and future. It's a mental construct.

Again, this is from your source.

If the wave function is spread out through space, how can there be time between points A and B?

a reply to: neoholographic

We will then say I measured spin up before I measured spin down but Physics doesn't care about this order in terms of past, present and future. It's a mental construct.

It's important to remember that Physics is just as much a mental construct as is the past, present and future.

It is just our conscious mind trying to make sense of reality. And if we need to negate the existence of time to explain what Physics tells us, that might also mean that in stead of time being an illusion, physics is an illusion.

You cannot measure, observe and reason independent of your own consciousness.

I would love for time to be an illusion, but alas, it seems not to be the case. At least not from the perspective of the human consciousness, and what other perspective can you offer?

Cheers,

BT

a reply to: beetee

You said:

I would love for time to be an illusion, but alas, it seems not to be the case. At least not from the perspective of the human consciousness, and what other perspective can you offer?

That makes no sense. Just because consciousness experiences something it doesn't mean it's a reality. Have you ever seen Brain Games lol. We can implant false memories. What you're saying is because human consciousness has the perspective that these false memories must be real. That makes no sense.

Einstein said the distinctions between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. He said:

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent ‘now’ objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

Here's Brian Greene and others talking about this:




Tell me, where does this flow of time start? Is it at a nanosecond? Picosecond? Zeptosecond? Planck's Constant? If time is objectively real, at what point does it change?

a reply to: beetee

There was an old man from Strucktz.
Whom thought we were all mental constructs.
He said with a jeer.
As he opened a beer.
If this whole thing is real them I'm fuchtz.

Time is just a measurement , In order for there to be a beginning or end they must start at the same location .

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Time is just a measurement , In order for there to be a beginning or end they must start at the same location .

Exactly. Time is a measurement of distance between events. Event A JFK Assassination on Friday, November 22, 1963, at 12:30 p.m. in Dallas, Texas. Event B on Thursday, May 12, 1994, at Ft. Campbell, KY when I was discharged from the Army.

These are two events in space-time. There's no evidence that anything changed or there some flow of time between these two events. There's evidence that more events were observed but we call these events past, present and future. Like I said, if time changes where does that change occur? Yoctosecond?

I'm a big believer in the concept of now. Which is to say that when I say "now," where I am, on Earth, is the exact same now that it is on the most distant galaxy. Of course, it may take a few billion years for the light of that galaxy to reach Earth, but that doesn't mean it's experiencing a different now. It just takes a while for the light to get here.

Again, I think it would be interesting to see a star map with the stars in the positions they are right now, not where they were years ago when the light first left it. Might make for some interesting new constellations.

Tell me, where does this flow of time start? Is it at a nanosecond? Picosecond? Zeptosecond? Planck's Constant? If time is objectively real, at what point does it change?

a reply to: neoholographic

It does not need to start anywhere to be real. It just has to be. A dimension is just a vector for something to exist in. Like our three dimensional space. Where does space begin? At what point does it change?

Seconds are just a human construct to measure time. Like cm is a human construct to measure space. There will always be something between the smallest unit you can possibly come up with, but that hardly means it does not exist.

And we need to remember that me, you, and every physisist you have mentioned - and indeed who ever lived - are observing the world within the same constaint - that of being, fundamentally, a human consciousness. So, the point I was trying to make, is that everything you have presented so far is, in fact, a construct of the human consciousness trying to make sense of a reality that it can never know from any other perspective.

Which means we know of no other perspective than the perspective from within the human mind.

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: Nothin

lol...

That is some epic poetry right there.

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: neoholographic

Think harmonic oscillator - period, amplitude, frequency. Particle in initial state 1. Oscillates to state 2. Oscillates back to state 1. Time = the interval between the states.