The existence of time

[Demosthene5]

Ive got some ideas that may not be on topic, but we have been talking about it.

There is a common misconception that "time" is a thing. Things have properties. Time, however does not have definable properties. Why? simple: Time doesn't exist.

Think of how we understand time: clocks.. a physical object. When you see hands moving on a clock, it is not "time" that is moving them. The clock hands are objects that are moved by a motor, weights, or whatever- not time. "Time" does not regulate the hands of a clock, the motor does. Time does not regulate anything, because it really doesn't exist. It does not have properties. Remember the definition of our international standard of time measurement: the second is merely defined by 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the light emitted by a Cesium-133 atom. This is just an observation of material properties. No "time" is included when we discuss it, or measure it. Maybe its easiest to say it like this:

Time doesn't move; We move around it.

Remember that the hands on the clock are moving, not time. Because time is not a thing, it has no properties. These properties could be length, duration, end, beginning, and so on.

therefore,
Time had no beginning and will have no end, simply because it doesn't exist. Time is not going foreward, we are, the materials with properties and dimension.

Time defines OUR movement, not "time's"
We exist, and time does not.

Let me know what you think

[Fenguin]

Hehe, excellent question. But let's wiggle it into a new thread in case someone still wants to talk about God. :D

edit: I'll get back to you later; I'm hooked on a kung fu webiste. xD

[chibi]

OOH, quite thought prevoking. Good Job. I do agree about the batteries in a clock making the hands move. So then time would be measured by the rotations of the earth around the sun?

[Demosthene5]

OOH, quite thought prevoking. Good Job. I do agree about the batteries in a clock making the hands move. So then time would be measured by the rotations of the earth around the sun?
The duration of the material actions, yes.
The "time" involved in a year is really governed by the gravitation between the sun and the earth, not by time itself.

This idea brings up alot about how time changes according to velocity near the speed of light, and Einstein's other "variable gamma" ratios that deal with time continuity.

For example, relativity. "Time" passage approaches zero as velocity approaches light speed. What if it is actually the relativity of the material moving near light speed, interacting with its own existance at a different rate than those not moving near the speed of light. This could be mistaken for "time", which doesn't exist.
The being of said material objects would differ. The time, however, remains the same: unchanging because it didn't exist in the first place.


This brings up something im not too familiar with: Gerentology of matter. Maybe Fenguin could enlighten me with his knowledge of entropy in thermodynamics. Im a civil eng major, not a mech so i wont be taking that course.

what im trying to say is that it might be possible that relativity deals with the properties of matter, not the properties of time. Is this feasable?

[Zeltaris]

Whew... this is a thinker.

I guess this issue is more of a semantical one. I mean time does exist... the simple fact that we know of it means that in a sense, it exists. We perceive time but not as a thing. Time is not something that you can see, eat, etc.

What we usually call effects of time are in fact, the consequences of umm... events, right? But these events happen within time. Your fact about the definition of the second is interesting,
the second is merely defined by 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the light emitted by a Cesium-133 atom but... umm, isn't that just the number for the amount of time elapsed between the beginning and the end?

I guess we should see time in the same way we see the flow of a river. You can't actually say the "flowing" is a thing or measure it, you can determine it's direction, the amount of water it transports, it's speed, etc,

I'm starting to rambe here, so I'll sum it up. I agree with you. Time is not a thing... it's merely a concept.

btw I know my ideas might seem a bit blunt and mainstream, but bear with me, I'm 15 years old... I've still got a lot to see ^^. This topic is sooo great :)

[Uuugggg]

Yea, that's one thing. Time just *is*... and the universe has had lots of time to move around and get improbable things to happen. So, before that, was, what?... a singularity that exploded in a big bang, right? And after a lot of time, the universe will collapse into a singularity or something right? So it's one big universal cycle of billions of years? Which cycle are we on? How could we determine that? What started it? Why did it start? EGAD, WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE?!? WHY ISN'T THE UNIVERSE A BIG BLACK VOID?!?!?


... Yasee, these big universal questions about abstract conceptions just bring about many other more abstract questions and become rather frivolous...

[Zeltaris]

Exactly, the thing about all these questions like "What is infinity like?" "Where is God?" "What was there before the universe?" "What is there beyond time?" "How the hell did Fenguin come to be?"
is that they'll eventually make you spin around in circles like an idiot and they'll leave your mind so tired and boggled that the biggest mental effort you can make is lie on the couch and watch a Seinfeld marathon [or badgerbadgerbadger] while you eat a bag of cheetos... oh... um..

Back on topic: Time is hard to understand no matter what we do. We can't control it nor influence it in any way, we know so little about it, that trying to properly understand time would crush our puny brains beyond any use. [Other than watching Seinfeld Marathons]

[Demosthene5]

Seinfeld is great, its the best show comedy television has ever seen.

Someone mentioned existance before time, this is interesting. It seems that some people are still refering to time as if it defines our existance by putting it into a cage of "then" to "now" or something. I think of time as this: an invention. It does not prove itself in reality and only exists in our imaginations.
Think of how we measure length: An "inch" would not exist if people hadn't defined it on a ruler.
So...
Rather than time defining us, We define time.
So...(again)
existance without time or before time, is basically... us

[Zeltaris]

I know that Seinfeld is great... but it's not like it requires that much brain power, heh

Interesting. Existance before time is... us. That makes for some great quotes. Still, this is annoyingly mind boggling, that's why I only care about stuff that will be useful within these 80 years of life time that I was so gracefully gifted with.

Then again, if we exist within time, then how we be outside it? [Cue God]

[Demosthene5]

Then again, if we exist within time, then how we be outside it?
You still assume that time defines our state of being. We do not exist within time because time is a concept within us. Nor could we be outside of it, because it does not refer to limits. The idea of time that we use is immaterial, it does not have physical potential or dimension. There is no present locale according to time. We have no relation to time. Our physical properties have relation to ourselves. Time does not have physical properties, it is an idea and nothing more.

[LordAhriman]

I believe that time is the only thing that exists. Time is constant - the second I type this is the same second that it is where you are now. Time is steady - it moves forward, never back. Read Siddhartha; Herman Hesse states through the main character that all things are one because in time they will come to be each other. What is the difference between a rock and a man? Time. The rock will chip, erode, and eventually be absorbed by plants and eaten by man. The man will die, decompose, become part of the soil and then the rock. If there is no time, no present, no past, no future, then all things exist and do not exist at once. Jesus is alive, as is William the Conqueror, Eleanor of Aquitaine, as are my grandchildren and great grandchildren. And yet, we know this is not true.

Human beings are not necessarily born with the best opportunities in life; at birth, we may be rich, and we may find there is not a penny to our name. We do not know what happened a second before we were born and we can never truly be sure what will ensue upon the moment we die; and yet, in our brief moment of existence, every single one of us is allowed some measure of control in a universe we will never truly understand. All we have in life is time.

[Demosthene5]

well that certainly was very pretty,

I think material is all we have, and I could go on and on but I won't.

What I'm saying does not neccesarily go against your "time is everything" ideas. What we are discussing is duration. What brings the rock to be eaten by man is due to physical properties. "Time" does not exert force upon the rock to chip it: it was erosion. None of life processes are governed by time, but rather by the limits of the materials that we are discussing.

but, you bring up an interesting subject: our perception of "past" "present" and "future"

What makes the past the past is not the passage of time, but the gerentology of the matter we are dealing with. If there were not ageing of the matter, if it did not experience duration, reaction or wear, That matter would be... in the past. This can get kind of complicated. Imagine you are typing an essay, and you get to about the second page, when you accidentally close the window without saving it. All of the information is gone, and as far as the "universe of the typed data" is concerned, you have travelled back in time to when you just sat down at the computer to type ut the essay.

Is this time travel? Essentially, yes. Yes it is "time" travel.

PROBLEM: we do not exist in the "universe of the typed data"
We exist in the universe of physical matter. So how can we perform time travel HERE you may ask. Well, you would have to find a way to "undo" and cancel out every single chemical reaction, force, natural occurance, application of gravity, and every other single law of existance that had ever occured. Once you had undone everything that has ever been done, you would exist in the existance that was.

The past.

What about the future? Find a way to speed up every natural law that will occur. Which natural laws will occur, and to what extent? There are natural laws to tell you that too. But, the computing power that we would need to calculate every single occurance of the past and future, and the actual physical potential required to implement these changes and break the laws of physics are unimaginable. Probably even impossible. I cant "undo" gravity, or make it go faster than 9.8m/s^2 here on the surface of earth. I cant break the laws of physics. If we could, in the ways that I have described, we could travel through what you call time.

[LordAhriman]

What makes the past the past and the future the future within the realm of our own perception is that they are for the present untouchable. It has little to do with your overly complex explanation. Time does not chip the rock, but the progression of time is what allows the rock to erode and become nothing through external forces.

If you admit that it is possible to travel through time - which, by the way, has nothing at all to do with any of this - then you acknowledge that there is chronological order. If you acknowledge that at any point the universe was in a different state than when it was at any other, you admit that there is time. If physical matter is all that changes other physical matter, then there must be time for it to do so. There is simply no way around this.

[Demosthene5]

It seems that you have understood absolutely nothing about what Ive been trying to say. Im not saying that ordered events dont exist, im not saying sequence doesn't exist. Im just trying to point out that time does not constrict us, it is merely the pysical properties of physical materials. Time has no influence on us, and all it will ever be is a concept to attempt to explain said ordered events and sequence. Time does not govern us, or hold us, or exert any force upon anything at all! It is not a thing! it has no existance!

Time is an idea invented to explain the inherant properties of our physical world.
Time by itself has no influence or dimesion. Thats all im saying.

Im challenging our definitions and perceptions, not the properties themselves.

[Ragnarox]

Time is not a thing, it is a measurement of a history of things that we or otherthings have done over the course of their history. We utilize the word "Time" to measure certian milestones in or history and things that could occur in our future. At least that is how I understand it. Time is not a noun, nor verb nor adverb, it is sort of an adjective.

[LordAhriman]

Prove to me your theory.

At this moment, I exist, and I have existed for some time. My grandfather, however, is deceased; I do not know exactly how much time it has been since his death and the present moment, but I do know that such a period of time exists, as my world has changed since his death. How I choose to measure this period of time may be purely made up, and is ultimately irrelevant - the important thing here is that I have recognized the passage of time.

Now, prove to me that what I consider to be true here is completely false, and that period of time does not exist. Or perhaps your argument is just too high brow intellectual for any of us to possibly oppose?

[Fenguin]

Demosthene5 - please explain Einstein's twin paradox in terms of your theory of time not existing. Obviously, one brother is going "forward" with greater speed than the other brother. And how would greater speed be possible without being regulated by time?

[Battlecruiser]

Time has no influence on us, and all it will ever be is a concept to attempt to explain said ordered events and sequence. Time does not govern us, or hold us, or exert any force upon anything at all! It is not a thing! it has no existance!
Yes that is true. You can't argue with that, though I thought that was common knowledge.

Time is obviously not a physical thing. It is just something that people can link patterns to. Such as that after time passes, a rock will be eroded, as long as it is exposed to weathering and erosion. Or a human will die after some time. Time isn't what causes us to die but we know that after some time we will die.

[Fenguin]

But what causes the erosion? An extremely long sequence of natural events that happen sequentially. And why do they happen sequentially, not instantaneously? Because of time.

[Battlecruiser]

But what causes the erosion? An extremely long sequence of natural events that happen sequentially. And why do they happen sequentially, not instantaneously? Because of time.
Yes, but time itself doesn't cause erosion. Such as if the temperature was 0 kelvin, and there was no movement of particles, but there was air, and gravity, which are the causes of erosion, then even if a million years passed, no erosion would occur. So time can't be the cause of erosion, directly.


Wait, I think my arguement can be used against me. Grr.

[Ragnarox]

LordAhriman, what I mean is that time is a measurement, and we come up with titles of certian measurements (i.e. Kilometers) in this case, miliseconds, hundreths of seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries and mellenia are used to measure time.
You say your grandfather is now deceased. This may be true, physically his body is dead, but the fact is that the physical matter still exists within this world as matter cannot be destroyed.

Therefore the measurement of his lifespan is gone but his measurement of existance within this universe still is running. In this case, since the end of his lifespan, it has been measured a certian amount of seconds, minutes, hours, years etc. so the matter that created his body is still existant within this universe and has only aged a certian amount of "time" since his death.

[LordAhriman]

[QUOTE=Ragnarox]LordAhriman, what I mean is that time is a measurement, and we come up with titles of certian measurements (i.e. Kilometers) in this case, miliseconds, hundreths of seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries and mellenia are used to measure time.
You say your grandfather is now deceased. This may be true, physically his body is dead, but the fact is that the physical matter still exists within this world as matter cannot be destroyed. QUOTE]

My post was more directed against Demo than you, but still, what you say is true.

Time is not a physical thing, but it is what allows all things to occur. For A to go to B, time is a necessary factor; it cannot do so instantaneously.

Even if time is only invented, its importance in our lives is nonetheless vital.

[Demosthene5]

This is getting a wee bit out of hand. Let me say it again:

Im challenging our definitions and perceptions, not the properties themselves.

I brought this up because people were giving time physical properties in their arguments, i.e.:

Time had a "beginning", and time will have an "end"

Giving something that doesn't physically exist these physical properties disgiusted me. Hence, the outburst I let out against how some people were percieving "time".

I thought that was common knowledge.
Couldn't have said it better, BC

[Ragnarox]

I couldent agree with you more LordAhriman, regardless of what "time" really is, it allows for our continued existance. As without existance, there are no nouns.

[Fenguin]

I brought this up because people were giving time physical properties in their arguments, i.e.:

Time had a "beginning", and time will have an "end"

Giving something that doesn't physically exist these physical properties disgiusted me. Hence, the outburst I let out against how some people were percieving "time".
If you say that time does not exist, how would you explain the elongation and contraction of time in environments of different gravities? In a singularity, anything that happens (i.e. any sequence of events) takes up an infinite sequence of events in our universe.

In addition, because the concept of time is inseparable from the concept of space (since time is defined as a continuum in which events occur, and without space, there can be no events), the time in our space (i.e. our universe) actually did have a beginning, approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before the 10^-43 second mark, there was no time. Why 10^-43 seconds, you ask? Because it is proven that the concept of time does not exist for objects smaller than one Planck length (i.e. singularities), and it took the Universe approximately 10^-43 seconds to reach a Planck length in size after the Big Bang. This phenomenon is known as Planck time.

The Planck length is somewhat linked to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The reason that an object smaller than a Planck length would undoubtedly cause a humongous mess in terms of time is because the sheer uncertainty in momentum causes a black hole in general relativity. However, scientists are not able to explain this phenomenon precisely because to do so, they would have to link quantum mechanics and general relativity - in other words, they'd need a GUT.

Thus, time did have a beginning: 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. And when will it end? When the Universe shrinks to less than a Planck length in size. :D In other words, you'd need one of those Big Crunch thingamajigies.

[Grom_Icecream]

I do believe Fenguin just proved time exists. Good work on bringing up the fact that time will act differently on things moving at different (greatly) speeds.

Its been proven (done by scientists) that a clock in a VERY fast moving object, will not be the same as one not moving, if they were calibrated BEFORE the moving clock began moving. eg. both clocks showed 1:00, the clock rocket took off, flew around for a bit, landed, showed 1:59. The clock on the ground showed 2:00.

Its been done.

[Demosthene5]

Its been proven (done by scientists) that a clock in a VERY fast moving object, will not be the same as one not moving, if they were calibrated BEFORE the moving clock began moving. eg. both clocks showed 1:00, the clock rocket took off, flew around for a bit, landed, showed 1:59. The clock on the ground showed 2:00.

Its been done.
The difference between the two atomic clocks in this experiment was not a whole dang minute. The difference, because the moving clock was nowhere near the speed of light (this is where Einstein's variable gamma begins to have noticable effects in proportion to space/time.), was not noticable without the most precise time measurement and the computing ability to detect the most slight difference in E to the negative whatever seconds. If you were to see the two clocks lined up and saw their miliseconds on a screen, you would not be able to see a difference. But, yes, there was a small difference. The results of this experiment was dead on with Einsteins calculations on relativity.

More evidence of changes in space/time is in particle accelerators, a controlled electro-magnetic tunnel that flings particles around a several mile radius at speeds of almost half that of light. The studies that the scientists do all the time with these accelerators have to include the Einstein's variable gamma to factor out the change in space/time due to relativity. Again, these formulas that make up for the change are exact with Einstein's calculations.

Again,

I am not challenging the effects that "time" has on us. I am opposed to the current perception by many people. I am NOT saying we live in singularity. I am aware of sequential events.

As you can see from my responses above about Einstein, I am aware of the effects of time passage in different situations, also the changes of length approaching an infinite when materials apporach the speed of light, and also the change in mass. This may not seem possible but it is also true. The mass of an object approaches infinity as its velocity approaches the speed of light. This is why we cannot achieve light speed, simply because you cannot accelerate an infinitly large mass.

You see, the changes experienced in relativity all have something to do with the properties of matter. This is yet another reason why I think that time is defined by matter, as opposed to defining it, which is how some think of it.


This phenomenon is known as Planck time.
Fenguin, this is fascinating. Also, it strenghthens my ideas of time. "Time" stopped, because of the situation that the matter concerning it was in. (being smaller than one Planck length) Inside of this length, there is some property of that matter that I am not familiar with that stops the gerentology of that matter. Outside of this Planck length, a different situation of this same matter reveals a new property: what we call time. This reinforces what I have been saying, that material defines what time is, and that time itself has no properties and no physical existance. Time does not exert.

You may bring up what I said earlier, actally I'll do it myself:
I brought this up because people were giving time physical properties in their arguments, i.e.:

Time had a "beginning", and time will have an "end"
This does not exactly contradict to what I am agreeing to, though some may say it does. Thank you Fenguin for explaining the importance of the Planck length. (ive heard of it before, but I didn't know this much) I have claimed that time has no beginning because it didn't physically exist and therefore did not experience these comparative boundaries. I still think so, simply because Fenguin did not prove that our universe's time began, but rather could have "continued" after "pausing"(the period between entering the planck length to exiting the planck length)(sorry about the "quotation marks", it just really irks me to have to use these physically comparitive concepts, but I have no choice- we have no non-existant words haha if only we could communicate using ideas themselves, instead of stooping to using words that represent ideas)

If matter is unable to enter this planck length from a larger measurement, then that would imply that all energy in our universe originated from the big bang, as opposed to entering it's next big bang. (I am still seeing redshift studies that say we are experiencing a negative acceleration...maybe if anyone finds something I can see about the positive acceleration away from the universe's center of gravity, please post it.) But from what Fenguin said:

When the Universe shrinks to less than a Planck length in size.
It seems that this cycle can, and will continue.

For those of you who think I am being contradictory, because if time were to stop when we were to enter the planck length then we would stop... remember that I see time as being defined by matter, not the state of time (stopped or paused) defining what the matter is capable of.

Also, apparently our universe has exited the planck length already, so it must be possible. Am I correct in assuming that we exist?

[Fenguin]

I only said "When the Universe shrinks to less than a Planck length in size" to show the only way Planck time can be experience again, not stating it as an actual fact. Actually, it is almost certain that the Universe is infinitely explanding; I gave some evidence for that in the other thread.
Again, Hubble's Law and the supporting evidence for it prove that the Universe is infinitely expanding. Read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_Law.

The next sentences are assuming that the Universe will Bang and Crunch in an infinite cycle; I'm doing this to make a point. I don't believe that the Universe will stop expanding anytime in the future.
By an application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Universe after a Bang will not be the same Universe as before the previous Crunch. This is because as time doesn't exist in areas smaller than the Planck length, neither does a definite version of space (since nothing now is certain), as they are interconnected. There is nothing transferred from the old Universe to the new one, and so, there is a new space and thus a new time.

[Demosthene5]

Amazing. Thanks for posting it Fenguin

Finally, the dark energy might dissipate with time, or even reverse its force. Such uncertainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on itself in a "Big Crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch)".

Yowza, I guess we dont know as much as I thought. The site says this is the least likely possibility, as far as we know, but still we dont know. Nobody knows. I dont know, and yes believe it or not I do have the ability to say "I dont know" at times haha. The redshift info I was referring to must be outdated or misconstrued, or based off the older theory that gravity was all that was affecting the expansion of the universe. So, an infinitly large universe maybe someday? who knows. This is mind blowing. This is a very thorough encyclopedia, thanks again for the link Fenguin.

[Battlecruiser]

After reading Fenguin's great and interesting responses, I guess I will change my opinion. Time does exist. It just doesn't have physical properties (i.e Length, width or height).

[Demosthene5]

Time does exist. It just doesn't have physical properties (i.e Length, width or height).Length was the main one I was stabbing at.

[TSOShadow]

Ive got some ideas that may not be on topic, but we have been talking about it.


It seems quite on topic in this thread...

There is a common misconception that "time" is a thing. Things have properties. Time, however does not have definable properties. Why? simple: Time doesn't exist.

Errr... you sorta contradict ur self here... and l8r... I'll explin it l8r..

Time doesn't move; We move around it.

Intresting concept.... I see something wrong here for but for the sake of moving along...

Remember that the hands on the clock are moving, not time. Because time is not a thing, it has no properties. These properties could be length, duration, end, beginning, and so on.

it has no properties... yet you say "these properties are".... Yep now that ain't correct... You say it dosen't exist yet you lay out what you said dosen't exist :p...

therefore,
Time had no beginning and will have no end, simply because it doesn't exist. Time is not going foreward, we are, the materials with properties and dimension.

Time is considered to have an end when ones life is over... or the universe ceases to exist..

Time defines OUR movement, not "time's"
We exist, and time does not.

Tru... But when we do not exist... dosen't time go on? ;)...

let me know what you think

Gladly have :)...

P.S. srry If I may hve skipped somethnig alrady covered... no need to re-answer... just my thoughts as you asked...

[Nuts]

You might want to check the date of a thread before replying next time.

[ZeroDarkStar]

You might want to check the date of a thread before replying next time.

That's extremely ironic.

[TSOShadow]

lol srry maybe I looked at a outa date link... It was a side link I saw with a intresting topic :/...

[GenocideAlive]

OK, this thread is TWO years old. You seriously need to re-read the forums rules, bud.