does time exist?

USAFHokie80,

Just stepping back a little, I think we are really discussing who's framework of understanding works best. Mine seems to work quite well; being at least internally consistent so far. However, I'm not so sure about yours because it seems to be based on the meaningless idea of "no-thing" being a state of existence.

pswfps,

Your last point equates to "different paradigms" which Kuhn said "are resisted" by the establishment viewpoint (which is "naive realism" or "physicalism") I can't remember whether I've mentioned this paper to you which puts some of these issues of "paradigm clash" in palatable form:

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

Thanks, fresco, I'll certainly have a look at that.

I think there are two basic principles which underpin my particular paradigm and the things I've said in this thread. Firstly, space-time is the "substance" out of which all things emerge. The only difference between "empty" space and a block of iron is the pattern or geometry of space-time. In the case of "empty" space, space-time is relatively linear whilst in the block of iron it is densly twisted and knotted about itself. For me, the concept of "nothing" is entirely irrelevant.

Secondly, the universe is a singular whole and a closed system. There is no "external force" or source of "energy" acting upon the universe. Therefore every pattern and wave-form which emerges out of the "fabric" of space-time is simply an inherant property of space-time itself, as a whole. To me, the concept of energy is really a conceptualisation to represent the tendancy of space-time to alter geometry and form. I explain this tendancy in terms of differentials in the relative density and geometry of space-time which must play themselves out in the strive for equilibrium.

That general view seems to work for me at any level be it quantum, macroscopic or relativistic.

the problem i have with your explanation is that you say matt/energy "emerge" from space-time. space-time, to me as it is explained in several books, is just the medium through which forces (and energy) are transmitted. but space-time does not constitute matter.

I forgot to mention time.

"Time" in the common sense of the word. For me, "time" is a measure of localised change of form in space-time relative to another. Therefore the passing of "time" is perceived only because of the various unstable patterns and irregularities in the fabric of space-time.

The universe was born twisted and it doesn't like it for some reason.

You keep saying "for me". I think of these things as they are exlained by prominent physicists. I see time as a dimension through which all things move at the speed of light. And movement through this dimension can be slowed if some of the energy is diverted into a spatial vector.

That's fine USAF. The way you speak seems to be very much in tune with the classical mechanistic worldview of Descartes and Newton. I'm exploring new ways of thinking because, well, that's what I like to do. If you'd like to show me where my views fail, I'm all ears. Well, eyes because I'm reading I suppose...

It's not Newton... it's Einstein and Hawkings. You can explore new "ways of thinking" to your heart's content - that doesn't mean they are correct. I cannot explain to you why you are wrong any more than I can tell a christian why god does not exist. If you won't want to believe it, there's nothing I can say to make you.

Re: does time exist?
I suppose you could say that time does not exist without an observer. But we are all observers, therefore it "exists" moreover we know which way its going through the concept of entropy.

USAF, that's interesting because what I've said is very much influenced by Einstein and Hawkins and quite a few others. Perhaps that is why you can't find any flaw with what I've said? I can explain gravity too if you'd like? As for "correctness," as I've said before, the best we can do is look for a world view which is internally consistent. Mine seems to be, is yours?

None of the books and essays I have read claim that energy and matter are born of space/time. Your notion of internal consistency still doesn't mean you are correct. Again, the bible is internally consistent. So what? I can explain gravity also. It is a force transmitted by the graviton. What does that have to do with anything?

Ah, I see, force transmitted by a massless hypothetical partical... and no, the bible isn't internally consistent IMO. Anyway, you're a relativity expert, so why not explain gravity for us in terms of that theory? Maybe explain why light bends around a massive object?

By the way, how do you know if something is "correct?"

That's a trick question. Relativity didn't explain gravity in terms of a graviton. Relativity explains that gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time. QM and string theory describe gravitation by elementary particle. You can go read about that on your own, but here is a little piece:


In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field).

Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of the quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other forces of nature with similar particles: electromagnetism with the photon, the strong interaction with the gluons, and the weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. In this framework, the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons, instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime like in general relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical results, including Newton's law of gravitation.

However, attempts to extend the Standard Model with gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies (processes with energies close or above the Planck scale) because of infinities arising due to quantum effects (in technical terms, gravitation is nonrenormalizable.) Some proposed theories of quantum gravity (in particular, string theory) address this issue. In string theory, gravitons (as well as the other particles) are states of strings rather than point particles, and then the infinities do not appear, while the low-energy behavior can still be approximated by a quantum field theory of point particles. In that case, the description in terms of gravitons serves as a low-energy effective theory.

Yes indeed, relativity explains gravity as the curvature of space-time. Does this mean that matter affects space-time? If so it implies that space-time is not "nothing" but how does it affect it? Does gravity have a transmission speed?

Yes, matter affects space-time. (singularities) We can't be sure of what "space-time" is composed or if it is even composed of anything. And yes, gravity has a transmission rate equal to the speed of light.

But to be affected it must be something? I thought gravity to be instant at all ranges.

We can't really say what affects what. Our understanding of things on the plank scale is limited.

And no, gravity is not instant, that was Newton's theory. Relativity tells us otherwise.

Read it here. Experimentally confirmed:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

I would like to clarify that i do not mean to say that "matter" can curve space-time. It is the gravity of the matter that can curve space-time.

In relativity, gravity is the name given to the curvature of space-time associated with matter, isn't it?

I'm wondering which is the cause and which is the effect. Does matter cause the curvature of space-time or does the curvature of space-time cause the matter?