Why does time not exist?

@Brandon9000,

There was a term used by our philosophy of science lecturer applied to those of my fellow physics students who wrote clueless essays. That term was 'cardboard scientist'. I'm beginning to get a bit of deja vu !
Far be it from me to 'waste' any more of your time! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

There was a term used by our philosophy of science lecturer applied to those of my fellow physics students who wrote clueless essays. That term was 'cardboard scientist'. I'm beginning to get a bit of deja vu !
Far be it from me to 'waste' any more of your time!

So, to your way of thinking, an obscure hint of a personal insult is a valid on topic argument? I asked you for a counter-example that proves your point.

1 Reply

I have to admit: My mind does not wrap around all these concepts very well. I will stick to mundane daily time applied to my life and perceptions.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I have to admit: My mind does not wrap around all these concepts very well. I will stick to mundane daily time applied to my life and perceptions.

You'll never go wrong doin that, Ed. Most of the debates, and wide-sweeping claims, about what time is, or isn't, on some highly abstract, highly "technical" level is just mental masturbation. It don' mean sheeit.

We all know what time it is. Right now it's 11:12 P.M., where I am.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Now why would I want to insult someone who accused me of irrelevance with respect to Edgar's question? Wink

For Edgar's benefit, let him see you define 'time' such that your definition encompasses (a) the everyday absolute linear reference frames assumed by Newton, (b) Relativistic reference frames and non Euclidean geometry (c) concepts of dimensionality up to the 10 plus demanded by current theories (d)concepts of 'reverse time' as utilized in Feynman diagrams with respect to particles such as positrons (e) the concept of an' event' particularly in QM, where the observer is said to play a role in the collapse of a wavefront and (f) the concept of 'entropy' such that 'disorder' can be defined independently of the judgement of an observer.

BTW. Do you actually understand the term 'paradigm' as coined by Kuhn?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Now why would I want to insult someone who accused me of irrelevance with respect to Edgar's question?
For Edgar's benefit, let him see you define 'time' such that your definition encompasses (a) the everyday absolute linear reference frames assumed by Newton, (b) Relativistic reference frames and non Euclidean geometry (c) concepts of dimensionality up to the 10 plus demanded by current theories (d)concepts of 'reverse time' as utilized in Feynman diagrams with respect to particles such as positrons (e) the concept of an' event' particularly in QM, where the observer is said to play a role in the collapse of a wavefront and (f) the concept of 'entropy' such that 'disorder' can be defined independently of the judgement of an observer.

BTW. Do you actually understand the term 'paradigm' as coined by Kuhn?

I don't need to understand anything except what I am talking about. I have two degrees in Physics. Time is actually a rather poor example because unlike most physical quantities, e.g. energy, it is so familiar and basic that it is rarely defined, although the units of time are often defined in terms of a cesium 133 atomic transition. In every physics book I've ever read, and that is many, time is left undefined and simply corresponds to our intuitive understanding. I suspect that in the theory of General Relativity and perhaps quantum electrodynamics, there may be explicit definitions, but I have barely looked at GR or QED and don't know them personally. More familiar examples are:

1. Energy: the ability to do work
2. Momentum: mass x velocity
3. Electric field: a region of space in which charged particles experience a force.

Whether you like it or not, physics defines its terms. Your arguments about unrelated matters are irrelevant. This is simply an historical truth. And by the way, you are misquoting me. I didn't call you irrelevant, I called the content of your words irrelevant. Your comment, on the other hand, was addressed to me personally.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Time is actually rather a poor example....

But it's exactly what the OP is about ! Very Happy

So, I'll take that sidestepping above, as a 'no' then for your understanding of 'paradigms' and hence the relevance of my answer to Edgar's problem, stemming from the mismatch between his 'intuitive understanding of time,' and the contemporary ideas of physicists.

Have a good day!

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Time is actually rather a poor example....

But it's exactly what the OP is about !

So, I'll take that sidestepping above, as a 'no' then for your understanding of 'paradigms' and hence the relevance of my answer to Edgar's problem, stemming from the mismatch between his 'intuitive understanding of time,' and the contemporary ideas of physicists.

Have a good day!

I understand paradigms and everything else you said perfectly, but it's irrelevant to my only contention here which is that physics defines its terms clearly and that such definitions are essentially universally agreed upon within the physics community. Speaking of side-stepping you pretended that you didn't see my request to give a single counter-example - a term used by physicists in physics to denote a quantity of interest which is either defined unclearly or upon which there is significant disagreement over the definition.

0 Replies

@layman,

For everyday use only. Not intended for speculation.

We understand time according to the order of events and space according to the position of objects, whether tangible or intangible.

0 Replies

@layman,

Phone recorded post before I was done, so:

And we percieve energy by its effects.

We have ample speculation of additional dimensions and parallel universes but little ability to describe the attendant qualities. Even when we can study these phenomena by hypothesis/test, the implications of the results are often subject to speculation. We're pretty sure there is such a thing as the Higgs Field, whatever the heck that is.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

We're pretty sure there is such a thing as the Higgs Field, whatever the heck that is.

Fields, schmeilds, eh? What we need is more particles, I tellya!

Oh, wait....they aint no particles. It's all strings, I clean forgot.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Well, you can look at Feynman diagrams, the advanced and retarded components of electromagnetic waves, and more broadly, Wheeler-Feynman time-symmetric theory, to get non-linear temporal interactions (i.e. future and past states rolled up in current states).

More fundamentally, it occurs to me that in quantum theory, the state of a system is actually a superposition of possibilities, each having its own probability, called eigenstates. Only when a system is observed (i.e. only when a particular quantum value such as momentum, position, etc. is measured) does the system revert to a single eigenstate (i.e. the particular measurement value observed).

Now, in order to know what time it is you have to make a measurement. It might be the distance that a clock hand has moved, or the number of vibrations of a quartz crystal in a digital watch, or something else: but you have to make an observation before you can talk about what time it is.

But because that observation involves quantum uncertainties, the system has no eigenstate until you conduct the measurement. But the measurement determines the time. And the particular eigenstate that the system reverts to is a matter of randomness and probability, according to quantum theory. So there is no one time until you make an observation that creates a particular time value measurement.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Edgar will probably need a lie-down after reading that !

2 Replies

@fresco,

I know I do.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I gave up very quickly. I don't have the mental makeup to process such as that.

0 Replies

I met a guy who had a precise sense of time. He said it came from watching episodes of I Love Lucy as a child. Each episode was exactly 30 minutes long. He learned to stack 30 minute intervals. He said that up to about three hours after seeing a clock, he could tell you the time (assuming that clock was right.)

My time-sense is very elastic. I thought everybody was like that. In fact, I wouldn't have believed the dude had that ability if I hadn't seen it demonstrated. Precise time-sense is as astonishing to me as perfect pitch.

The moral to the story is: people don't experience the world in exactly the same way. Your way may be unique.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Humans sensing of time and the physics of how and whether time exists are not that related topics.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Is there time effects when flying in an airplane or space ship?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It has been proven that a temporal non-linear shift exists...when a plane flies with the cargo of a super highly accurate chronograph (recording time piece) ... after the trip is over, the chronograph shows an infinitesimal variation while recording time elapsed within the plane's ride (at elevation).

This is measured in comparison to a chronograph synced at the origination point when measured comparatively. This test has been duplicated many times and is known phenomenon ...indicating the time is relative and varies depending on the effect of gravity...(time-space warp).
I'll go out on a limb and probably be wrong when I say that time shifts as a result of slightly lesser gravity that existed due to the plane ride's elevation and speed(?) relative to what existed in comparison to time elapsed on the origination point's chronograph.

Arrgh..I can't explain it right.

Someone who is more familiar with this experiment and topic will know how to explain this better.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

Vely intelesting! Glavety, you say. Da same for space tlavel?

1 Reply

Why does time not exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know