Time doesn't exist...?

[Vox]

Existence exists, just like resistance resists, defiance defies and persistence persists. Perhaps even ignorance ignores and triumph triumphs.

 

Goodnes how many semantic issues we find in here. Let's look at just one of them:I don't know how you define this potential and I don't know which meaning the word when has, in terms of your definition of time and neither do I know what it means to say that it "acts through distance".

 

Let's try considering this: an event occurs here on this planet, another event occurs "simultaneously" somewhere in the NGC 224 galaxy. People in a spaceship that is whizzing through the stars hear our broadcast saying this and say "Heck, no! The thing in Andromeda happened years before the other!" and they have every right to their point of view. So, how exactly do we define the meaning of present?

 

This is from Wikipedia ,

 

"The present is the time that is associated with the events perceived directly,[1] not as a recollection or a speculation. It is often represented as a hyperplane in space-time,[2] often called now, although modern physics demonstrates that such a hyperplane can not be defined uniquely for observers in relative motion. The present may also be viewed as a duration (see specious present[3][4])."

 

But from my perspective this Wikipedia definition is not really going to the "hearth of the matter" and in this thread we have been discussing "time" , "present" and "now" from different perspectives, "Rade" described his own view with illustration in

116#

Rade`s view is also that time definition/duration for "now" is Planck´s time.

 

Currently my own mind´s view for present or what we have in this thread called "now" is state where observed state is not creating any event ..(event=diffrent now´s put together) so now would be the steady state of the observed point..example of "electron point" from it spinning "orbit", but it has to be observed so the "now" can manifest in that "point of time" (Personal opinion again: If we would describe "event" it would need to contain motion of now´s or lapse of time within.)

 

124# there is more concerning what I mentioned above.

 

Therefore my current personal view is that Cosmos is complex event and we are inseparable part of that event where "blocks" of steady state "now universes" are "stiched together" by time and motion of now´s is created.

[Vox]

I agree. The "now" is a "moment" such as []. Time = that which is intermediate between moments []. So, a picture of time and three moments:

 

....<--- time ---->[]<--------time------->[]<------time----->[]<-----time ----->.....

 

Movement of time to the past applies to antimatter (see Feynman interpretation of Dirac equation for antimatter); movement of time to the future is for matter. See that each moment or now [] is both unique (different color) but also identical (same shape). This is a very important attribute of the "now" or moment.

 

There must always be time between moments [], moments cannot touch such as [][]. Why ? For same reason that a line is not made of points, a line is made of smaller lines--always. Just as points are always outside of the line, the "now" or moment [] is outside of time. Time can always be divided because time is continuous and infinite. For matter, each moment or now [] is where the future is transformed into the past. For antimatter, each moment [] is where the past is transformed into the future. I claim the transformation has magnitude of "Planck Time" (smallest quantum time possible), which is completely different concept of "time" than that which is between moments [].

 

I am still coming back to this now definition..If we assume that it should be timeless moment itself ? then if agree to use this Planck´time accordingly to separate diffrent now´s due they can not be linked to each other directly, being separate spaces

 

....<--- Planck Time ---->[]<--------Planck Time------->[]<------ Planck Time----->[]<----- Planck Time ----->.....

 

Assumptions:

 

Separate nows would be timeless "independent" unmotional universes containing state of specific combination and amount of different universes would be infinite.. So all the possible scenarios of events would be covered. Infinite amount of diffrent "steady state" universes in space would look to us as empty space. it would be like canvas for the painter, it is empty but can contain/create all the possibilities what painter can do with his brush strokes. As soon as Time would be added as 4th dimension to this "steady state sea of possibilities" which we call space, "motion film" /events would emerge. Naturally at the "frame rate of Now´s" in which speed you are travelling throught these diffrent state of possibilities/universes.

[Harpz]

The three physical dimensions are Mass, Length and Time. Without any one of these existing, there would be no existence.

 

Where there is less time there seems to be more energy......Consider this, if i crash my car into a concrete pillar at 10mph there will be a serious amount of damage done to my car but I will easily survive. If I run into the same object a 100mph my car will be totally wrecked and the chance of survival will be slim.

 

What has allowed more damage to be done? The only difference is time. Less time taken at point of collision. Some may say it is about force and I would agree, but the force has been created due to a change in the amount of time......Force = Mass x Acceleration.

 

I believe that time is as physical as energy or matter. It is probably the key that holds energy and matter apart.

 

Since E=MC2, it comes clear that quantity of energy is linked to mass (matter) by the constant C, which is the speed of light. Speed is distance/time. So without time we would have no energy or mass.....There would be no existence!

 

If there are multiple universes in the cosmos, and ours isn't the only one, then the time on each universe is only applicable to itself. From the moment of the 'big bang' time starts. The moment the universe callapses or fades to non existance, time ends for that universe.

 

If there is a cosmos time what significance could it be to any universe?

 

Time could be the creator of existence! Can we imagine an eternity without time? Strange? That's what we would have without it! If the universe collpases and everything ceases to exist how long do we wait until the next big bang? Given there is no time what happens? Surely the big bang will happen again immediately as there can be no timeless gap.

 

I personally believe that when a big bang occurs, because there are no external forces, all events are completely the same. Including the forming of our Sun, the Earth, Humans and me writing this message on this forum. That is why we exist now - at this time. That is what is so special about now that we exist...It is inevitable, that we are born, that we die and that we will be born again around 16.7billion years after the next big bang. Because we are here and now why wont it all happen exactly the same again? The tricky part is that if the big bang happens an infinate amount of time, it is the same as it happening once. Let my explain, if universes are constantly appearing, and possibly all over the cosmos on an infinite plane, and each one is identical to another, and when one disappears another one forms to replace it, at what point could we start counting and stop at an end point with that final figure? I would guess never and that 'yes' would be sufficient......Imagine the latest blockbuster DVD has gone on sale and that millions buy it the first day and all go home and watch it at differents points in time and different locations, and some may play it again, does the movie deserve to be considered more than just one, even though the same catalogue of events will happen? No it doesn't, we are probably going through a preset existence that we have no controll for whatever action we take now, we have done it before an infinite amount of times ad we will do it again an infinite amount of times that amount up to equalling one...............

 

Anyway I need a pee now and must dash, but if time doesn't exist I should be able to hold it in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vox]

The three physical dimensions are Mass, Length and Time. Without any one of these existing, there would be no existence.

 

Anyway I need a pee now and must dash, but if time doesn't exist I should be able to hold it in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes and that we could call the purest momement of now , pontential for exist, which do not exist..immiditely when time would be introduced to the equation, event of you going to the toilet would continue..from where it stopped.

 

As in DVD disc there is fixed potential for specific movie in it .. but it do not exist as movie as long laser beam..logical software/hardware and movement (time) is introduced...

 

Why not... digital universe, infinite amount of "each differently aligned" universes as " raw data " ever ready" in "nothingness".. Law´s of nature is making it as potential and time is making it real / exist for us as an event and for us to observe with our conscious

 

Just playing with the ideas..

[jedaisoul]

Consider this, if i crash my car into a concrete pillar at 10mph there will be a serious amount of damage done to my car but I will easily survive. If I run into the same object a 100mph my car will be totally wrecked and the chance of survival will be slim.

 

What has allowed more damage to be done? The only difference is time. Less time taken at point of collision. Some may say it is about force and I would agree, but the force has been created due to a change in the amount of time......Force = Mass x Acceleration.

This is not quite right. There are two factors to take into account. Firstly the amount of energy expended in the crash is the MOMENTUM. I.e. mass x velocity. This is higher because of the higher velocity.

 

Then the FORCE with which the car hits the pillar is proportional to the time during which the car DECELERATES. I.e. because of the higher velocity (and the crumple zones designed in to the car) the DURATION of the impact will be GREATER at 100 mph than at 10 mph, not less. This spreads the transfer of momentum over a longer period of time, REDUCING the force from that which would arise from a near instantaneous crash. If the crash was truly instantaneous, the force would be infinite (in both cases)! So even a concrete pillar gives a little (although it may not look like it)!

[jedaisoul]

Since E=MC2, it comes clear that quantity of energy is linked to mass (matter) by the constant C, which is the speed of light. Speed is distance/time. So without time we would have no energy or mass.....There would be no existence!

It is misleading to think of the "speed of light" c as an ordinary speed. It isn't. In some respects it behaves like one, in others, not. E.g. Light from the Sun takes roughly eight minutes to reach us, because that is the time, to us, that the light takes to "travel" the distance between the Sun and us. But, unlike normal speeds, the "speed of light" is frame invariant. This has the strange effect that, to the light, no time passes between it being emitted by the Sun and reaching us!

 

The moment the universe callapses or fades to non existance, time ends for that universe.

The current view is that it is most likely there will not be a "Big Crunch", the universe will go on expanding indefinitely. But that does not mean that it will "fade to non-existence". There will be roughly the same amount of matter, as only radioactive materials decay. It will just be spread very far apart.

 

I personally believe that when a big bang occurs, because there are no external forces, all events are completely the same. Including the forming of our Sun, the Earth, Humans and me writing this message on this forum.

The Big Bang is possibly one of the best examples of truly random behaviour. Without random differences in its density, the hydrogen cloud would not have condensed to form stars and galaxies. So it is unlikely that a repeat Big Bang would happen exactly the same. But that is just speculation.

[Vox]

It is misleading to think of the "speed of light" c as an ordinary speed. It isn't. In some respects it behaves like one, in others, not. E.g. Light from the Sun takes roughly eight minutes to reach us, because that is the time, to us, that the light takes to "travel" the distance between the Sun and us. But, unlike normal speeds, the "speed of light" is frame invariant. This has the strange effect that, to the light, no time passes between it being emitted by the Sun and reaching us!

 

 

Speed of light , "eternity within" ? But what would surroundings "look like" to the observer who is travelling with light speed ?

 

Side note, many religions considers eternity to be within /one with the light..enlightenment ...light beings:eek_big:

[jedaisoul]

Speed of light , "eternity within" ? But what would surroundings "look like" to the observer who is travelling with light speed ?

I was asked this question recently, and I suggested that, as at the speed of light no time passes, they would have no time to observe their surroundings. But I'm not sure that is accurate. Basically, the "speed of light" is not an ordinary speed like mph. It's more of a limit than a speed. Besides which, it is not possible for any entity with a rest mass to travel at the speed of light, so the question is meaningless.

[Vox]

I was asked this question recently, and I suggested that, as at the speed of light no time passes, they would have no time to observe their surroundings. But I'm not sure that is accurate. Basically, the "speed of light" is not an ordinary speed like mph. It's more of a limit than a speed. Besides which, it is not possible for any entity with a rest mass to travel at the speed of light, so the question is meaningless.

 

Let´s assume, for the sake of discussion that "imagination" do not have mass;) and it could be "observer" in that kind of "speed" or state..so time would not exist and there would not be any events or change at all..static state, but static state of what ? Everything what was, is and will be?..infinite state of everything manifest as one?

[jedaisoul]

Vox, you can imagine anything you like, that does not make it real. I'm not prepared to speculate further on what is an impossible scenario anyway. Sorry.

[Rade]

I am still coming back to this now definition..If we assume that it should be timeless moment itself ? then if agree to use this Planck´time accordingly to separate diffrent now´s due they can not be linked to each other directly, being separate spaces

 

....<--- Planck Time ---->[]<--------Planck Time------->[]<------ Planck Time----->[]<----- Planck Time ----->.....

This is not how I see the picture--my picture of the situation is like this:

 

<- time between moments-> [Planck time within moment]<- time between moments-> [Planck time within moment]<- time between moments-> [Planck time within moment]

 

Assumptions:

 

Separate nows would be timeless "independent" unmotional universes..

Yes, this is very close to how I see it, except I do not understand the use of the word universe ? The way I see it, each now is a "limit" of two different "times" (one the past, the other the future) within this universe where we exist.

 

Each now is indivisible, the "[ limit" and the "] limit" are one and the same because if one would be apart from the other then there would be "time" intermediate between them, which there is not. There is nothing between them. For me, each "now" is not a universe within motion, it is a nothingless, it is what is between a quantum movement from one energy level to another--which for me is "nothing". What we can say is that the quantum movement from one energy level to another occurs within Planck Time, no slower and no faster. We also can say that whatever is the quantum entity, at the time it changes from one energy level to another, it is 1/2 in the [ limit of now and 1/2 in the ] limit of now within the same moment.

 

Each now is, as you say, unmotional--that is, there is no motion within the []. If motion were possible then logically we could expect both slower and faster motion to be possible within the now. If so, then the now could be divided, which it cannot, thus it is impossible for anything to be in motion in a moment. It is difficult to explain, but, suppose a quantum entity approaches a moment, [], then leaves the same moment [].

The picture is that the quantum entity does not move through the [ ], it "becomes" both [ & ] limits simultaneously. This is what it means to be simultaneous in time, that neither limit [ or ] of any moment is prior or posterior to the other. Each moment contains past and future time simultaneously.

 

Thus, it is said that time contains something that is indivisible, and we call this a now or a moment. Of course, from Einstein we learn that each moment [] is relative, my present moment [] may be your future moment [] and the next person past [] moment. But, Einstein does say there are no moments possible, for time without moments would be impossible situation.

 

I also agree with your comment that there must be an infinite number of nows or moments, this is because time is infinite.

 

I agree (I think) also with your comment that space is like a sea of steady state possibilities of now, and thought is what moves between them (if that is what you are saying ?)

 

The only other comment I have is that it is important to consider Einstein, that, neither time interval nor space interval separate connect to reality of existence. One must look to the dialectic, the union of the two into the concept of space-time interval. It is the space-time interval that is intermediate between moments (nows) that connects to reality. For me there is dual dialectic: (1) time + space = space-time (2) space-time + moments = existence.

[Harpz]

Jedaisoul, with reference to posts 141 & 142

 

Yes the momentum is higher, but without time there is no momentum, I think you have mis-understood my point, without getting into the dynamics of crumple zones etc. I think you are using the wrong term when you use momentum:-

 

Quote

'Firstly the amount of energy expended in the crash is the MOMENTUM. I.e. mass x velocity. This is higher because of the higher velocity.'

 

Surely we should be using FORCE when we talk about the energy expended in the crash, this way we can talk about the deceleration (F=ma).

 

The dimensions for force without time would only be ML. The impact of the force would be directly proportional to the inverse of time! Thus physical proof time exists!

 

Quote

'It is misleading to think of the "speed of light" c as an ordinary speed. It isn't. In some respects it behaves like one, in others, not. E.g. Light from the Sun takes roughly eight minutes to reach us, because that is the time, to us, that the light takes to "travel" the distance between the Sun and us. But, unlike normal speeds, the "speed of light" is frame invariant. This has the strange effect that, to the light, no time passes between it being emitted by the Sun and reaching us!'

I make no reference to c being an ordinary speed! The fact is that E=mc2 dictates that both mass and energy are dependant on the dimension T (time). It maybe that the speed of light is not important and that we have substituted it for the speed of gravity that is the same!

 

Quote

'The current view is that it is most likely there will not be a "Big Crunch", the universe will go on expanding indefinitely. But that does not mean that it will "fade to non-existence". There will be roughly the same amount of matter, as only radioactive materials decay. It will just be spread very far apart.'

 

The current view is that if the universe expands indefinately matter and energy will eventually collapse as gravity ceases to bind them together!

 

Quote

'The Big Bang is possibly one of the best examples of truly random behaviour. Without random differences in its density, the hydrogen cloud would not have condensed to form stars and galaxies. So it is unlikely that a repeat Big Bang would happen exactly the same. But that is just speculation.'

 

It is hard to use the big bang as an example when there are no guarantees that this theory is correct! The big bang theory relies on evidence that the universe had expanded or is expanding, but I find it hard to accept that using redshift is a good way of deriving this. The universe is full of large amounts of matter that twist and distort time. Using your statement on 'c' then there shouldn't be a redshift!

 

If the big bang theory is correct, and that there is an infinate cosmos, then there will be and infinate amount of universes created by an infinate amount of big bangs on an infinate timescale. Your statement, 'So it is unlikely that a repeat Big Bang would happen exactly the same. But that is just speculation', bears insignificant when divided by an infinate chance. Even if all big bangs do unfold exactly the same, it will still not alter the maths. Some mathematicians may claim the chances of our existence at atronomical figures, but the fact that we do indeed exist shows these figure to be worthless. So I think the term 'unlikely' doesn't come into play.

 

If our universe disappears from existence there will be no evidence that it ever did exist, and the statement that 'we never existed' could become true as the laws of physics would not apply without existence.

 

My own theory kind of embraces the BB and BE theory. It is an acceptance that 'universe' means one and that is where we are at. Whether the big bang did happen or that we just 'BE' doesn't really matter as we are just all going through a cycle in time. We are in 'dreamtime' and many cultures derive that life is some form of giant illusion. The fact that we do exist suggests that it was inevitable!........Think about it!

[Vox]

This is not how I see the picture--my picture of the situation is like this:

 

<- time betwee Rmoments-> [color"Red"][Planck time within moment][/COLO]<- time between moments-> [Planck time within moment]<- time between moments-> [Planck time within moment]

 

Assumptions:

 

Yes, this is very close to how I see it, except I do not understand the use of the word universe ? The way I see it, each now is a "limit" of two different "times" (one the past, the other the future) within this universe where we exist.

 

Each now is indivisible, the "[ limit" and the "] limit" are one and the same because if one would be apart from the other then there would be "time" intermediate between them, which there is not. There is nothing between them. For me, each "now" is not a universe within motion, it is a nothingless, it is what is between a quantum movement from one energy level to another--which for me is "nothing". What we can say is that the quantum movement from one energy level to another occurs within Planck Time, no slower and no faster. We also can say that whatever is the quantum entity, at the time it changes from one energy level to another, it is 1/2 in the [ limit of now and 1/2 in the ] limit of now within the same moment.

 

If I understand correctlly we differ only with the defnition of now itself..currently how I see this and it is naturally envolving as more thought is put into it, is that we need 2 nows combined to create one moment so one now is not a moment itself it just potential in "nothing"..I´ll use the analog of the film frame.. one frame would be the now and universe with set specific "potential". That alone for us would be "nothing" due we do not have anything to compare it to verify it´s exist and it do not "move". "After" Planck time another now is introduced due "time vector" passing through these 2 so there would be moment in time with tiniest possible exist due 2 separate universes positions are exist as contrast /comparison between these 2. That could be defined as smallest moment in time. Just to explain how I see this in my mind, although you are most probably more correct on this one, I need to explore more..

[jedaisoul]

Quote

'Firstly the amount of energy expended in the crash is the MOMENTUM. I.e. mass x velocity. This is higher because of the higher velocity.'

 

Surely we should be using FORCE when we talk about the energy expended in the crash, this way we can talk about the deceleration (F=ma).

Momemtum = mass x velocity.

Force = mass x acceleration = Momentum per second.

 

So the total energy expended in the crash is the momentum. The force is the rate at which the energy is expended.

 

The dimensions for force without time would only be ML. The impact of the force would be directly proportional to the inverse of time! Thus physical proof time exists!

Dimensional analysis is not physical proof. ;)

 

Can you provide a reference to substantiate the claim:

 

"The current view is that if the universe expands indefinately matter and energy will eventually collapse as gravity ceases to bind them together"?

 

Can you provide a reference to substantiate the claim:

 

"If the big bang theory is correct, and that there is an infinate cosmos, then there will be and infinate amount of universes created by an infinate amount of big bangs on an infinate timescale.

"?

 

Your statement, 'So it is unlikely that a repeat Big Bang would happen exactly the same. But that is just speculation', bears insignificant when divided by an infinate chance.

This is a different claim. You claimed that EVERY big bang would work out the same. I was pointing out that there are reasons to assume that is not the case. I also pointed out that it was just speculation anyway.

 

If our universe disappears from existence there will be no evidence that it ever did exist, and the statement that 'we never existed' could become true as the laws of physics would not apply without existence.

It does not follow that if something ceases to exist it never existed. If that were true Columbus never existed, so the colonization of North America never happened? Tell that to 514 million North Americans.

 

The fact that we do exist suggests that it was inevitable!

No it doesn't. The fact that we do exist merely shows that it was possible, not that it was inevitable.

[Rade]

If I understand correctly we differ only with the definition of now itself..currently how I see this and it is naturally evolving as more thought is put into it, is that we need 2 nows combined to create one moment so one now is not a moment itself it just potential in "nothing"..I´ll use the analog of the film frame.. one frame would be the now and universe with set specific "potential". That alone for us would be "nothing" due we do not have anything to compare it to verify it´s exist and it do not "move". "After" Planck time another now is introduced due "time vector" passing through these 2 so there would be moment in time with tiniest possible exist due 2 separate universes positions are exist as contrast /comparison between these 2. That could be defined as smallest moment in time. Just to explain how I see this in my mind, although you are most probably more correct on this one, I need to explore more..

I think I see your idea" [now]--moment--[now]. This is what you mean by the statement "we need two nows combined to create one moment". If so, then clearly this moment within time cannot be the same as the now.

 

We clearly are using the words "now" and "moment" in different ways. I have interchanged the two words such that now = moment. Thus, time is what is intermediate between moments (=nows). Perhaps my approach is not the best, because the concepts of moment and now have different aspects to them.

 

I agree with you that there must be two nows (a before and an after) for a concept of "a moment in time" to exist. However, as soon as you attempt to isolate any single moment in time, it becomes a "now-moment" and divides time and thus is outside of time (not that time is made of moments, for time is made of time intervals, same as space is made of space intervals). The key point is that time is NOT composed of moments or nows--they are concepts outside of time.

 

My picture would then be, using your way of looking at things,: [now-moment]--present-moment in time--[now-moment].

 

It is difficult to explain, but I also see two different aspects to the word "present" (1) the aspect related to the thing-event with potential for movement within a space-time interval, and (2) the aspect related to the "now-moment" which forms the limits and divides each space-time interval. The present for me has this dual aspect, and thus makes it difficult for me to communicate my thoughts.

[watcher]

Rade the last two steps in the argument mock presentism, which is the view that only the present exists. How can the boundary between two things exist, if neither of them exists?

 

two words ... scalar waves.

 

only the present exists ........ for US. that is.

the two things that doesn't exist for us can be simply meant undetectable

[Knothead]

Time is a gas.