Time isn't real so what does that mean?

a reply to: beetee

You said:

It does not need to start anywhere to be real.

Not true especially when it breaks down at Planck's Constant. This is why Hawking reduced eternal inflation to a timeless state in his final paper. Time breaks down when it reaches a quantum level. That's why you see violations of causality in quantum experiments. Here's what Hawking's paper said.

The researchers developed a variation of the holographic principle that projects the time dimension in eternal inflation, which allowed them to describe the concept without having to rely on general relativity.

This then allowed them to mathematically reduce eternal inflation to a timeless state on a spatial surface at the beginning of the Universe - a hologram of eternal inflation.

www.sciencealert.com...

So your statement:

There will always be something between the smallest unit you can possibly come up with, but that hardly means it does not exist.

This is just flat out wrong. What's that something you speak of. This is from the OP.

“From our perspective, the perspective of creatures who make up a small part of the world—we see that world flowing in time,” the physicist writes. At the quantum level, however, durations are so short that they can’t be divided and there is no such thing as time.

Again, this is why you can make a measurement in what we call the future and it can determine a measurement in what we call the past.

Again, what is this something between the smallest unit?

a reply to: neoholographic

I had written a lengthy reply, but then I happened to hit the back button and all my brillant wit was, alas, lost.

And I cannot bring myself to spend all that, wait for it, time to write it all again.

Anyway, it is a cool discussion, but I am afraid you will never be able to sell me the idea that time does not exist.
Unless you can sell me the idea that space does not exist either, and then we will be in real trouble.

Cheers,

BT

Elysiumfire:

What is time? Our sense of time is like space, it is something we infer from something other, and that other is the motion of an event. An event is a change occurring to the content in space. Every change has a length of duration, it has a beginning and an end, and the length between the beginning and the end is the duration of the event of a change. Events, do not of course, occur with the same lengths of duration. For instance, here in England it is o6:57 am on the 31st December. Tonight at midnight the New Year is going to be delayed by 1 second. This is due to a slow down in the earth's rotation, and is thus being accounted for. An event, such as 1 full rotation of the earth, has changed by an increase of 1 second longer than what it was the year before. So, are we actually changing 'time' itself, by making a duration audit, or are we simply imposing our own sense of time upon reality?

We derive our duration length of a second by observing the length of a single oscillation of the caesium atom. A second does not actually exist. It is just an imposed unit of measurement. If I were to ask you to define time, you would probably relate it to some occurrence of change, but change is not what time is. In fact, you could not define time alternatively to what I state, without using an imposition, and if you have to use a stance of imposition for time, you are simply demonstrating it to be a man-made abstraction...nothing more.

You infer time by your observance of events around you, and in you (proprioception), and the brain cross-references them into a one stream data flow by synchronising all sense data, and from which our conscious awareness arises. In order to sense time, you need a frame of reference, just as you need a vector coordinate frame of reference to sense space. Your one stream data flow of all sense data is that frame of reference...your 'now' moment that throughout your life remains static in a sea of events of varying lengths of duration. None of this makes time real.

What is real is that events take place, changes constantly occur, and they all have their own lengths of duration.

The concept of spacetime functions as a mathematical expression, but it is not real, and is simply a man-made abstraction to infer an environment in which (not on which) events take place. Both space and time are not realities.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

So if there is no motion, there is no time? At least no way to measure it.

Time is what slows omnipresence. Time is high frequency.

100 years in hell is not even a blink to God. Hell is ionian, timely.. God is timeless, very large orbit.. Days are not time, years are time. Longer year = less time. Once time is removed you will say "Damn i was worried about that one little millisecond in hell?"

When low frequency raises octave its orbit aka amplitude shrinks. THIS is the gate kept by Einstein. The illogical application of half assed Relativity theory.

a reply to: toms54

There is no such thing as "no motion" even at absolute zero. My post was simply an example of time measured in the intervals of an oscillator. There are a million other examples. Time is a just a measurement from point A to point B. Time is asymmetric - it only goes one way.

a reply to: Phantom423

its because even though molecules appear not to move , they are still vibrating but at extremely low frequency ?
undetectable to human measurement ?

a reply to: sapien82

You can only "stand still" relative to another object. The ground state of a harmonic oscillator is zero. However, due to quantum fluctuations, the oscillator is still moving to some extent. It's really a non-zero ground state.

a reply to: sapien82

You can only "stand still" relative to another object. The ground state of a harmonic oscillator is zero. However, due to quantum fluctuations, the oscillator is still moving to some extent. It's really a non-zero ground state.

a reply to: neoholographic

If time isnt real, does that mean its never time for a beer, or always time for a beer? Either way, I'm screwed!

a reply to: Phantom423

I can understand most things here but the quantum stuff. I have read a lot but never received a systematic education on this subject. Would you say these vibrations underwent any type of decay or are they supposed to continue unabated indefinitely? Sometimes I think of time more as a measure of entropy than just motion. That would imply there eventually be a motionless zero state at the end of time.

a reply to: toms54

That's ok.
Nobody understands QM, no matter what they tell ya.
It's an emerging field of study.

a reply to: toms54

As John Wheeler said: "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it."

Quantum fluctuations are caused by very small waves, or particles, that come in and out of existence (virtual particles). They have energy but whether that energy decays or not, I don't know. I would assume that it doesn't decay because quantum fluctuations comprise the vacuum energy, or energy density of the universe. It's also called the cosmological constant. As mentioned in another post, that energy is close to zero but never zero. Conservation laws would prohibit the energy from just disappearing. Radioactive decay produces particles which are detectable. Not sure how this is approached experimentally in QM. To get a grip on it, you really have to dive into the mathematics.

But you can always pose the question to Arbitrageur in his thread. I'd be interested in a more detailed answer myself.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Phantom423

I can understand most things here but the quantum stuff. I have read a lot but never received a systematic education on this subject. Would you say these vibrations underwent any type of decay or are they supposed to continue unabated indefinitely? Sometimes I think of time more as a measure of entropy than just motion. That would imply there eventually be a motionless zero state at the end of time.

You're right. This is why Einstein said the distinctions between past, present and future are just a persistent illusion and quantum experiments violate causality. This is because there's no time.

Think of the twin paradox. For a stationary observer time will tick faster than an observer that's accelerating. Time for the observer will tick slower until you reach the speed of light and then...no more ticks! At Planck scales there's no ticks between events so classical events like a 1 or a 0 is a qubit on a quantum scale.



Eventually there's no ticks and no time. We saw this with actual twins.

In Space, Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Brother on Earth - And Here's Why

The answer is always Einstein.

Here's something to wrap your head around: when astronaut Scott Kelly went into space and his slightly older twin brother Mark stayed on Earth, the age gap between them increased, thanks to Scott's time in orbit.

www.sciencealert.com...

It gets even crazier because your head can age faster than your feet! Thanks Einstein!

NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet

Scientists have long known that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket. Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.

www.nist.gov...

You look at 4D space-time and as Einstein said, there's no point in space that represents now objectively.

“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.”

So a now in 1970 can be the same now in a distant galaxy's "future." A now in 2018 can be the same now in a distant galaxy's "past." So there's no objective now because all now's exist simultaneously in 4D space-time. This is why I keep asking, when does time change.

a reply to: neoholographic

You totally misunderstood what Einstein meant with his quote. We have never shown causality to be after the effect. What your talking about in physics is the breaking of local causality. This happens with what Einstine called spooky action at a distance. If we separate two objects changing one can effect the other. Causality never truly changed since first example photons had to be created. What they mean is local causality can be broken meaning there is no reason are separated photons should change.

NOW FOR Hawking HE proved that closed timelike curves cannot be created in a finite system. IN OTHER WORDS YOU CANT CHANGE THE PAST. The only way this would be possible is exotic matter and building a time machine. Which in his paper on the Chronology Protection Conjecture where he determines causlity must always occur first. This far we have a reliable grasp on whether causality can be violated, but from here things get speculative for example mathematically if we have negative mass we could.

Now does time exist of course it does check your watch. Does space exist again walk in any direction. Does mass exist grab a brick and hit your self in the head. People want to make claims physics says this or that in truth physics is about explaining how reality does what we observe.

So if we can show in reality something occurs it exists.

a reply to: dragonridr

You said:

You totally misunderstood what Einstein meant with his quote.

Nope, here's Brian Greene and others making the same point.



The quote is explains itself. There's nothing to misunderstand you just don't want to accept what it says. NO SECTIONS THAT REPRESENT NOW. This is because all now's happen simultaneously.

This quote doesn't even belong in a science forum. You said:

Now does time exist of course it does check your watch. Does space exist again walk in any direction. Does mass exist grab a brick and hit your self in the head.

This has nothing to do with science. You say "check your watch" but that's meaningless. Science wants to know why there's an arrow of time but the laws of physics don't care about an arrow of time. Is time fundamental or an emergent property? Science doesn't just say "check your watch."

Scientist are asking does gravity exist.

“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

www.nytimes.com...

So, in science these questions are not so simple and they're hotly debated. In 4D space-time at what point does time change?

a reply to: Phantom423

You look at 4D space-time and as Einstein said, there's no point in space that represents now objectively.

“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.”

So a now in 1970 can be the same now in a distant galaxy's "future." A now in 2018 can be the same now in a distant galaxy's "past." So there's no objective now because all now's exist simultaneously in 4D space-time. This is why I keep asking, when does time change.

That seems counter intuitive. I would expect 4D space-time to locate the now more precisely. If you use time to measure motion then we would be talking 6D space-time. Motion occurs in 3 dimensions so time would necessarily have to also. The time spent along each dimension. The result would be a more precise now.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

Scientist are asking does gravity exist.

“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

www.nytimes.com...

I know it is an hour long but it did give me a whole new look at gravity.

a reply to: neoholographic

This seemed interesting to me.

What is Time?

The universe does not exist in time. Time exists within the universe.