The nature of time itself

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does time need an object to act apon to exist?

If there is a vaccuum, in which nothing changes, is time really passing within?

What is time if not a perception of the sequential nature of events?

Can time exist free of a relationship with matter? Or is time merely a description of the effects of matter/energy on matter?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,590 • Replies: 56

No top replies

you ought to make a time proof chamber and see what happen. lol

0 Replies

a wise man once said, time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so

0 Replies

an even wiser man said, my how time flies wher you're in a coma.

0 Replies

I think this belongs on the Science forum.

0 Replies

Nature is actually all about timing. Time is just our brilliant human concept we've come up with that relates directly to timing.

0 Replies

No time like the present
Time is an illusion of consciousness. We hold in our memory a perceived sequence of events of something that happened. Yet all that has ever happened is recorded in quantum states. In other words, things appear to follow the arrow of time but, in fact, are always in now. A quantum fluctuation is instantaneous and a quantum state is timeless within itself. So time doesn't really play any part in the equation of structure and change.

Yeah, this would fit nicely in the Science forum though, admittedly, some of the more transcendental concepts of physics and cosmology do fall into the realm of philosophy.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think this belongs on the Science forum.

I don't.

There are at least two, completely different, concepts described by the use of the word time.

The concept of "time" that is fundamental to science is that strange relativistic variable that is implicit in Maxwell's equations.

Then there is a the concept of time that we perceive. This is often philosophical and dependent on our experience. This "time" was well described by cris2a.

That these two very different meanings have the same name-- "time"-- is unfortunate.

I am happy discussing the philosophical view of time (which centers on human experience) without the shackles of scientific time (which centers on differential equations).

0 Replies

When I was sixteen I wrote to Ayn Rand but she never replied. I wrote that time was a flow of energy. Time is related to events, happening or motion. But these things require some sort of energy transfer. Where things have not changed we tend to say time had stood still. This is perceived time. What we believe or accept as fact is influenced very greatly by our knowledge and senses. Increased knowledge may lead to a different concept of time. I am not sure about space-time fabric argument. If we did not have sight our concept of time would be limited to sense of touch and sound. For us then the speed of sound would be the ultimate constant and space-time continuum with the speed of sound as the ultimate would give us different concepts.

0 Replies

ok that's it, ebrown is a poopity head, I mean it!

0 Replies

Re: No time like the present

chris2a wrote:

A quantum fluctuation is instantaneous and a quantum state is timeless within itself.

How can a fluctuation be instantaneous? Is a quantum fluctuation not an actual fluctuation?

0 Replies

Re: No time like the present

echi wrote:

How can a fluctuation be instantaneous? Is a quantum fluctuation not an actual fluctuation?

Yes and no. In fact, it is instantaneous only if it is no longer simultaneous. Maybe Schrodinger can help on this point. Again, time is gone.

Quote:

Schrodinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.

Here's Schrödinger's (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.

We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.

0 Replies

Chris,

One of us doesn't know what you are talking about. Sadly, my physics degree isn't helping.

I have always felt strongly that metaphysical philosophy and physical science should be kept well separated. These points reinforce this feeling.

"Quantum fluctuations", which are part of cosmology , posit brief violations of the conservation of energy needed to explain the big bang. Trying to link this with "Consciousness" is just weird.

I don't know what you mean by quantum states being "timeless". I know of no mathematical or scientific definition of "timeless" that would make any sense.

The equations that we use to model quantum states rely on time (that is scientific time).

Using scientific terminology to support flaky philosophy may sound cool, but it seems unecessary. Why not leave science alone and invent new terms for far out ideas.

0 Replies

OK ebrown. I may find it difficult to put my ideas into words. I guess I suffer from a type of conceptual dyslexia. But if you really want to know my perspective on time, check out this book:

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Julian Barbour, Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBM 0-19-511729-8.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I have always felt strongly that metaphysical philosophy and physical science should be kept well separated

I believe every structured discipline is ultimately based on a founding philosophy.

Would like to discuss quantum states some more. Very interesting strangeness. Be back tomorrow.

0 Replies

chris2a--

Thank you for trying, but I didn't have much luck with the cat. I read Julian Barbour's book a couple years ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember it much. I think I'll rummage through my closet and try to find it. There was something in it that book that I had trouble with.

0 Replies

The limitation of light as a medium of observation is what is creating this crazy quantum paradox. Because a photon of light alters the very location of components of subatomic materials shows our limitations of observation. One of the principles of observation is that the subject should not be altered or affected in any way. With subatomic particles there is this violation of the observation principle.

0 Replies

Yeah, those photons actually have momentum... So much for predicting the future... actually forget about predicting the future, that's another debate.

0 Replies

Information theory?
Well, I always found quantum mechanics a bit enigmatic and so I tend to fall back on more familiar sciences; stuff that I studied in college. Schrodinger's cat is a very good, basic paradigm of superposition. If I look at it from the perspective of Information Theory, however, it presents a paradox with respect to time.

If the cat is both alive and dead, we cannot define either state as existing in time. In other words, if both states are true, superposition supersedes time. We cannot say that the cat is alive over a measured interval since it is also dead. It looks like a logical tautology. Like looking at its existence from a temporal edge rather that perpendicular to the arrow of time. We see all of its existence all at once.

Is its existence in time defined? Or, because of superposition, is it timeless?

0 Replies

It's state is not knowable, it's not a function of time.

0 Replies

The nature of time itself

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know