does time exist?

USAFHokie80,

The best we can do is formulate a cognitive view which is internally consistent, ie, without contradiction. If you carefully examine your idea of "nothing" you will find that it is actually something and as such you are forced to define it. Chasing "nothing" will just tie you up in knots and has no place in a rational discussion.

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

Space, time and matter/energy. All three only have meaning relative to the others. That is, if there was no matter/energy then then space and time would be meaningless. Similarly if there was no time then space and matter/energy would be meaningless.

Basically I think it is a false distinction to speak of time and space and matter/energy as separate entities. They are all one in the same.

I don't think space is meaningless without energy. Space is a coordinate system. It does not matter if that system has members or not. Without energy, there would be nothing to observe...but that doesn't mean it cannot exist.

What is the sound of a tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it? You could say that sound is meaningless in that situation because sound is defined as our perception of vibrations...but that does not deny that something is there and happened.

Likewise, although we could not exist to perceive space in any way without the existence of energy, I still think that the space would be there.

I am not sure what you mean by "all are the same thing" just because they are apparently relative to each other. I mean, "on" and "off" are words that are defined relative to each other, but they are still distinct states that are not equivalent to each other. In this case, they are representing two possible states within a 1 dimensional system.

But, in terms of time and space, these are separate dimensions altogether...and energy is not a dimension at all...so I would not equate these things.

0 Replies

Ugh. Don't tell me you're using this "since we have a definition for it, it can't be 'nothing' " argument. We can conceptualize nothing. It can exist.

And stuh is right. Space is not meaningless without energy. Space/time is the fluid through which energy moves. But space itself still exists without energy.

0 Replies

nothing in itself constitutes something, even it constitutes only the "idea" of nothing.

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

nothing in itself constitutes something, even it constitutes only the "idea" of nothing.

ridiculous circular crap. fine. let's call it "emptiness" now its "name" is not contradictory to its meaning or existence.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80/stuh505,

Let me clarify.

Space and time do not exist independantly. They are one: space-time. Further, energy/matter does not exist independantly of space-time because they are, respectively, ripples and knots in the fabric of space-time. Mattter, energy, vaccuum et al are just words to describe different states of space-time. This is basic relativity and quantum theory. There is no such thing as "nothing," not in this universe anyway.

USAFHokie80,

You seem to define "nothing" as absence of matter, which I hope you now realise is ancient thinking.

On a psychological level, I think all concepts refer to something, which is of course not nothing. Perhaps you could you describe nothing for me? If you cannot then I've no idea what you're talking about.

Hope that helps.

0 Replies

Quote:

We can conceptualize nothing. It can exist.

"Nothing" exists? LOL!!!

Close your eyes and imagine a tree. You've experienced a tree directly so it's not hard to do.

Now imagine a pink elephant. You've not experienced a pink elephant but you have experienced the colour pink and an elephant. So, with a bit of mental manouvering you can indeed come up with a pink elephant.

Now imagine "nothing." You've not experienced "nothing" directly so you've got to manufacture it like you did the pink elephant. However, "nothing" isn't "made" of anything so it cannot be mentally manufactured either.

Perhaps "nothing" is absence of thought, but in such a state you would not be able to perceive it since perceiving requires thought.

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

USAFHokie80/stuh505,

Let me clarify.

Space and time do not exist independantly. They are one: space-time. Further, energy/matter does not exist independantly of space-time because they are, respectively, ripples and knots in the fabric of space-time. Mattter, energy, vaccuum et al are just words to describe different states of space-time. This is basic relativity and quantum theory. There is no such thing as "nothing," not in this universe anyway.

I think your understanding of quantum theory is flawed. I will no longer refer to matter, only energy. While I suppose you could think of EM energy as "ripples" in space-time much as a wave in the ocean, they still are not the same thing. The radiation travelling through space is not the same as the space through which it travels. Relativity, special or general, does not assume that energy or lack-or is a "state" of space-time. You cannot say that nothing doesn't exist becaue the truth is we don't know. I realize that finding a true vacuum, absent of all energy, is unlikely... it still does not preclude the existence.

Quote:

USAFHokie80,

You seem to define "nothing" as absence of matter, which I hope you now realise is ancient thinking.

On a psychological level, I think all concepts refer to something, which is of course not nothing. Perhaps you could you describe nothing for me? If you cannot then I've no idea what you're talking about.

Hope that helps.

I'm not speaking phycologically as our understanding of the physical world has no bearing on said world. How we perceive something has little to do with the way it actually works. I've already defined nothing, but once again, I would say it is the absence of all radiation/energy.

0 Replies

Quote:

I will no longer refer to matter, only energy. While I suppose you could think of EM energy as "ripples" in space-time much as a wave in the ocean, they still are not the same thing.

The wave is not the ocean, true, rather the wave is a property of the ocean. Therefore neither the wave or the ocean exist independantly of one another.

Quote:

You cannot say that nothing doesn't exist becaue the truth is we don't know.

To confirm whether something exists or not, or that we don't know about it's existence, one must first define it. Since nothing has no properties by which it can be defined the whole question is redundant, or in your speak, silly.

Quote:

I'm not speaking phycologically as our understanding of the physical world has no bearing on said world.

My spirit is lifted in agreement..... then you say....

Quote:

I've already defined nothing,

How the hell can you define nothing? Where did you define nothing?

0 Replies

Quote:

The wave is not the ocean, true, rather the wave is a property of the ocean. Therefore neither the wave or the ocean exist independantly of one another.

Wrong! The energy creating the wave is electromagnetic force. It is not the water itself. It was transferred to the water from something else.

Quote:

To confirm whether something exists or not, or that we don't know about it's existence, one must first define it. Since nothing has no properties by which it can be defined the whole question is redundant, or in your speak, silly.

You just defined it yourself. Nothing has no properties. Which, makes it unique, thereby definiable. This is the same idea as the empty set in mathematics.

0 Replies

It just occured to me that the water/wave example is very poor. I say that because as the very very base, the water *is* the same as the energy in that they are both created from the same quantum constituents. However, space and energy are not.

0 Replies

ocean waves not electromechnical
I'm confused...specifically, a surface wave (as in water waves) isn't an electromagnetic force. It's a mechanical force that's created by the movement of wind and friction with water. They usually result from wind or geologic effects.

"Ocean surface waves are mechanical waves that propagate along the interface between water and air; the restoring force is provided by gravity, and so they are often referred to as surface gravity waves"

0 Replies

USAFHokie80,

The "empty set" is dependendent on being potentially filled. Its conceptualization depends on the "something" that is absent. In other words there is no unique empty set, they are all contingent.

Hence pswfps is correct. Nothing or more accurately "no-thing" is undefined. Essentially we have here a non-dualistic view in which all "thingness" implies a "thinger" or observer.

0 Replies

Re: ocean waves not electromechnical

Ragman wrote:

I'm confused...specifically, a surface wave (as in water waves) isn't an electromagnetic force. It's a mechanical force that's created by the movement of wind and friction with water. They usually result from wind or geologic effects.

"Ocean surface waves are mechanical waves that propagate along the interface between water and air; the restoring force is provided by gravity, and so they are often referred to as surface gravity waves"

All forces, are electromagnetic, even gravity. This is part of the basis of relativity and quantum mechanics.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

USAFHokie80,

The "empty set" is dependendent on being potentially filled. Its conceptualization depends on the "something" that is absent. In other words there is no unique empty set, they are all contingent.

Hence pswfps is correct. Nothing or more accurately "no-thing" is undefined. Essentially we have here a non-dualistic view in which all "thingness" implies a "thinger" or observer.

My point is that the empty set is characterized by being devoid of any entries. This is the same way you could define a vacuum or "nothingness" in space.

0 Replies

Digging back in my aging memory and recalls a frizzy, white-haired gent named Einstein agreeing with you. Thanks for straightening me out.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80

No... you don't get it ! There is always the observer..... never "no-thing". It is the observer who is conceptualizing "presence" or "absence".

0 Replies

Time is as "real" and "exists" as much as the three spatial dimensions. It is simply a degree of freedom. The human experience of the passage of time is not real. There is a technical phrase to describe our experience of the passage of time: "the illusion of the animated Minkowski diagram."

In the quantum theory the movement of an electron forward in time is equivalent to the movement of the anti-electron backward in time. You are free to choose how you want to interpret it. In actuality, detailed analytical tools such as Feynman diagrams are often simpler to interpret with backwards and forward motion in time. A Feynman diagram of several particles interacting can often be interpreted as only a single particle that moves backward in time, emitting photons or other particles, then moves forward in time emitting or absorbing other photos or particles, etc..

This symmetry is integral to the QM and its models would not be valid without it. It is just the way that the math works out.

If you wonder why you don't hear scientists describe things in this manner, it is simply because common language is easier. In the same way that astronomers still talk of sunrise and sunset even though we know that it is we that are moving and not the sun. The old nomenclature comes from the past when the sun was believed to orbit the earth but retaining that terminology doesn't confuse us today.

And since I know how bizarre this seems I don't expect a lot of people to believe it; we know there is a past, present, and future in the same way the ancients knew that the Earth couldn't possibly move as it was too big and nothing could stand on the surface if it did. Both ideas are completely intuitive and both just as incorrect.

P.S. Only the electromagnetic force is electromagnetic. The others are the strong force, the weak force, and gravity. The electromagnetic and weak forces have been shown to be two aspects of the same thing. But the combined force is always described as electro-weak NOT electromagnetic.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

USAFHokie80

No... you don't get it ! There is always the observer..... never "no-thing". It is the observer who is conceptualizing "presence" or "absence".

Sure I do. You're using that whole tree falling in a forest thing. But there is no reason to think that becaues we are not there to observe it, that it does not exist. Actually, you are somewhat right. *If* we are there to observe it, then we will pollute it and make it non-nothing. However, it was there before we saw it, when it was still nothing.

0 Replies

does time exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know