Why does time not exist?

Forums: Time, Spaghetti Sauce, Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote: "Quantum “Theory” Proves That Time Does Not Exist, at the fundamental level and shows that our concept of time, as thought of as a linear passage of events is totally wide of the mark, and in fact there is no mark."

How can the events around us happen in succession, with no time? Why wouldn't the absence of it be chaos? We uneducated lummoxes want to know.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 7,275 • Replies: 92

@edgarblythe,

I'd explain it but I have no time. I'm visiting relatives that are not local.
Ask Martini.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Quote: "Quantum “Theory” Proves That Time Does Not Exist

Quantum theory don't "prove" **** about time, eh, Ed? It may assume some things, sure, but....

Even then it's not clear how it could even assume that time doesn't exist. Oh, sure maybe they want to smash it together, mathematically, with space, and call it "spacetime," but what does that "prove" about time itself? That's just a matter of convention.

0 Replies

It is impossible to say without knowing what they base this conclusion on or who is saying it. A citation would be helpful.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

The 'solution' lies in understanding that there are different levels of analysis (contexts) going on which fundamentally alter what the word 'time' refers to. Details of such levels would include a consideration of whether the term 'event' presupposed a concept of 'linear time' as axiomatic or not, or whether Einstein's deconstruction of 'simultaneity' had any bearing on time as an independent physical parameter.
'
The problem is a common one in the philosophy of language. The simple analogy of different meanings of the verb 'to have' may illustrate the case. The two sentences ..Bill has a dog.....Bill has a pain ....clearly indicate contextual issues involved with the meaning of 'has'. The word 'time is significantly diverse even in everyday usage...we can buy time....we can waste time... we can spend time....we can imagine a time, etc.

(My own admittedly simplistic overall solution is to consider the meaning of the word 'existence' as also being relative to its context of usage.)

2 Replies

You might find this article at About-dot-com interesting. Here is the quick answer upon which the author then expands:

Quote:

Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence.

The article was last updated two days ago.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence.

Lol

They have no clue what time is. Once they start making things complex, you just know they don't know.
Of course time is non-existent.
But eh?! If a bunch of psychotic scientists agree that it must exist it must exist, right?

Isn't it funny, they have no clue what time is, yet they use it all the time in their calculations! Same with light! They don't understand it, yet, they use it in their calculations! If that isn't psychotic then what is?

So funny!

0 Replies

Oh yeah, you're just a laugh riot. What an appropriate screen name.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

{quote]Oh yeah, you're just a laugh riot. What an appropriate screen name.

Quote:

Gee, is that all you can do, a personal attack at me by my nickname?

Isn't that very cheap?

0 Replies

You can whine about a personal attack if you like, but if you post bullsh*t, the odds are good that you'll get called on it. Are you a physicist? Do you claim to have specialized knowledge of the subject? I've seen you running all over the site, sneering at other people's responses to topics and the posts of other members. So yeah, i consider all bunk to be a good screen name for you.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The 'solution' lies in understanding that there are different levels of analysis (contexts) going on which fundamentally alter what the word 'time' refers to. Details of such levels would include a consideration of whether the term 'event' presupposed a concept of 'linear time' as axiomatic or not, or whether Einstein's deconstruction of 'simultaneity' had any bearing on time as an independent physical parameter.
'
The problem is a common one in the philosophy of language. The simple analogy of different meanings of the verb 'to have' may illustrate the case. The two sentences ..Bill has a dog.....Bill has a pain ....clearly indicate contextual issues involved with the meaning of 'has'. The word 'time is significantly diverse even in everyday usage...we can buy time....we can waste time... we can spend time....we can imagine a time, etc.

(My own admittedly simplistic overall solution is to consider the meaning of the word 'existence' as also being relative to its context of usage.)

This is not an issue except for us. In physics, unlike in conversational English, these things have precise definitions.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

No. It depends what you mean by 'precise'. In physics 'precise' means 'sufficiently empirically consistent with the paradigm in which the term is being used'. For example, the concept of 'an electron' is understood to account for measurements in experiments and causally interdependent with other specified particles, but the 'exact nature of an electron' or even its 'position' cannot be specified. As for 'time', if Edgar's QM quote is valid, it implies that the concept of 'time' has no utility in a quantum paradigm even if it does in a Newtonian one.( I seem to remember Cox writing about having to redefine 'velocity' in quantum terms following findings such as 'non-locality'). In short 'precise definition' is not equivalent to 'existence'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

...whether Einstein's deconstruction of 'simultaneity' had any bearing on time as an independent physical parameter.

Al's postulation of the relativity of simultaneity has certainly changed how "time" is viewed by most physicists. But that's all it is, a postulation, not a "proof."

Theories of relative motion based upon absolute simultaneity are just as robust and viable as special relativity. Such theories do not mangle the concept of time as we experience it, and they fully explain and predict all the same phenomena that special relativity does equally well (if not better).

In such theories the abstract 4-dimensional mathematical concept of "spacetime" does not come into play. Time is it's own "dimension," and space is a different entity consisting of the other 3 dimensions (length, breadth, and depth).

3 Replies

@layman,

1 Reply

@fresco,

You have anything of substance to say, there, Fresky?

I didn't think so.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

the other 3 dimensions (length, breadth, and depth).

Should be obvious, but I meant to say length, height, and depth, eh?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You can whine about a personal attack if you like

Whine? lol. I don't whine. Just pointing out how worthless your 'argument' is because it is an ad hominem. Your whining feels like a projection to me.

Quote:

, but if you post bullsh*t, the odds are good that you'll get called on it.

That is ok. But then on good arguments, not some cheap personal atacks.
You can do better can you?

Quote:

Are you a physicist? Do you claim to have specialized knowledge of the subject?

Well, yes, I studied physics at university level. But you probably don't even get that this is an ad hominem as well???

Quote:

I've seen you running all over the site, sneering at other people's responses to topics and the posts of other members. So yeah, i consider all bunk to be a good screen name for you.

You really don't get it, do you? Doesn't matter. Let's call it wasted on you.

lol

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Ed, time is very "concrete" but also relative

http://able2know.org/topic/306839-1

..., which most a2k'ers will tell ya, is total nonsense. Yet it does seem to resolve certain problems of time

In any case a succession of events will depend on relative conditions of motion while observations thereto aren't entirely chaotic tho the math can get very involved

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Theories of relative motion based upon absolute simultaneity are just as robust and viable as special relativity

Not so sure about that Lay. I get the distinct impression for instance that even Al was just a teenie bit confused when faced by the Twin Paradox

I also get the impression, after reading a bit, that a subliminal assumption of a stationary ref still survives; it's just that the relativists won't face it head-on

1 Reply

@AllBunk,

Why should i "do better?" You posted bullsh*t, and i called you for it. Then you whine about a persona attack. That's an everyday occurrence online. Since you posted bullsh*t, there was no argument required in rebuttal. What you did or did not study in university is not relevant--are you a physicist, do you claim to possess specialized knowledge? It appears that you really don't get it.

0 Replies

Why does time not exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know