Happy New Year...Does Time Exist?

[GrumpyMan]

I'm pretty sure that if a giant meteor hit the Earth and destroyed it, we would all perish at the same time.

 

[destrekor]

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

You can use atomic decay, or a measured distance for how far light travels after origination.
Like: once a laser has reached Point B, originating from Point A, then a set length of time has elapsed.


You're really breaking down into semantics, however. Time ultimately exists as an innate aspect of the universe, but it's definitions and perception vary. Definitions because time can be broken down into whatever units one could dream up, and perception due to the fact that time always feels constant to the one perceiving the time (measured or not), but time between multiple observers, as in, one observing the person who believes time to be constant (thinking space experiments here), can be different when measured.

Time is very much real, but it can change depending on your perspective/observation point.

Is this what you are debating?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You can use atomic decay, or a measured distance for how far light travels after origination.
Like: once a laser has reached Point B, originating from Point A, then a set length of time has elapsed.

But you're not measuring a thing like you do when you measure the mass of an object. You are just comparing one interval to another. We say "this interval took 10 seconds" -- but what is a second? It just another interval that we've defined arbitrarily in advance. The intervals are abstractions, not features of the real things in the world.

You're really breaking down into semantics, however. Time ultimately exists as an innate aspect of the universe, but it's definitions and perception vary.

To the extent that abstractions exist in our minds and our minds are an innate part of the universe, I agree. Time does not exist like matter exists, however.

Definitions because time can be broken down into whatever units one could dream up, and perception due to the fact that time always feels constant to the one perceiving the time (measured or not), but time between multiple observers, as in, one observing the person who believes time to be constant (thinking space experiments here), can be different when measured.

Time is very much real, but it can change depending on your perspective/observation point.

Is this what you are debating?

My point is simply that time does not exist "out there" but rather "in here" -- in our minds. Like I noted earlier, it is identical in its reality to longitude and latitude -- a coordinate system useful for labeling real things in the world, but not a feature of the world itself.

 

[destrekor]

But you're not measuring a thing like you do when you measure the mass of an object. You are just comparing one interval to another. We say "this interval took 10 seconds" -- but what is a second? It just another interval that we've defined arbitrarily in advance. The intervals are abstractions, not features of the real things in the world.



To the extent that abstractions exist in our minds and our minds are an innate part of the universe, I agree. Time does not exist like matter exists, however.


My point is simply that time does not exist "out there" but rather "in here" -- in our minds. Like I noted earlier, it is identical in its reality to longitude and latitude -- a coordinate system useful for labeling real things in the world, but not a feature of the world itself.

In other words, you subscribe to the notion that everything we can measure is an abstraction.
Length, mass, etc - when you get down to it, we define a measurement at some point in an abstract method.


As I said - take a laser, capture it with ultra-high-speed film, and record the time it takes to go some defined distance (which itself is actually defined, according to the SI Metrics, using lasers and, get this, time - the official Meter is defined by such means).
Whatever that measurement = whatever time interval you wish to define and/or create.

You can define time based on a law of the universe - the speed of light. Which also varies according to certain properties of the universe, those properties that also help give the very structure that defines time.

You are making a distinction between perceived time, and actual TIME. We have defined units of time which are actually subjected to certain properties of the universe that can lead to distortion of the perceived passing of said time. That's the "in the mind" thing - but time is the universe, it's part of the raw physical fabric of everything.
Intervals of anything, motion, speed of light, anything having lifespans (be it celestial bodies or organic matter), gravitation - they all help demonstrate and lend credence to time.

Does it have a physical IT, like matter and the smallest particles that contribute mass? No. But the structure of the universe itself is not limited to the matter we humans we perceive. Time is no more physical than the Planck length.
Does that make it invalid and merely a figment of our imagination?

You seem to be crossing into some sort of metaphysical definition, which simply does no good.
Without the very real nature of Time itself, then everything in the universe is ageless, infinite, and "immortal."
Perceiving a defined time, and being surrounded by Time itself, I would say are two very different things. I think you are failing to make the distinction, or just failing to either get the picture, or didn't see where the distinction was made between time as we perceive and define it and it's role in the Universe at large.

BTW, what I had described earlier, measuring of time with a specific distance, is all wrapped up in every area of research into a "theory of everything." Planck length is the smallest possible measurement of length, in some theories representing the physical structure, with a foamy/grainy appearance, of the fabric of spacetime. Regardless, no theory accepts the possibility that any measurement can be made on a smaller order of magnitude. It is defined using physical constants.
Planck time is also the accepted smallest measurement of time. It is the time the raw speed of light (in a vacuum, unaffected by any gravitation) takes to cross one Planck length.

 

[OverVolt]

In other words, you subscribe to the notion that everything we can measure is an abstraction.
Length, mass, etc - when you get down to it, we define a measurement at some point in an abstract method.


As I said - take a laser, capture it with ultra-high-speed film, and record the time it takes to go some defined distance (which itself is actually defined, according to the SI Metrics, using lasers and, get this, time - the official Meter is defined by such means).
Whatever that measurement = whatever time interval you wish to define and/or create.

You can define time based on a law of the universe - the speed of light. Which also varies according to certain properties of the universe, those properties that also help give the very structure that defines time.

You are making a distinction between perceived time, and actual TIME. We have defined units of time which are actually subjected to certain properties of the universe that can lead to distortion of the perceived passing of said time. That's the "in the mind" thing - but time is the universe, it's part of the raw physical fabric of everything.
Intervals of anything, motion, speed of light, anything having lifespans (be it celestial bodies or organic matter), gravitation - they all help demonstrate and lend credence to time.

Does it have a physical IT, like matter and the smallest particles that contribute mass? No. But the structure of the universe itself is not limited to the matter we humans we perceive. Time is no more physical than the Planck length.
Does that make it invalid and merely a figment of our imagination?

You seem to be crossing into some sort of metaphysical definition, which simply does no good.
Without the very real nature of Time itself, then everything in the universe is ageless, infinite, and "immortal."
Perceiving a defined time, and being surrounded by Time itself, I would say are two very different things. I think you are failing to make the distinction, or just failing to either get the picture, or didn't see where the distinction was made between time as we perceive and define it and it's role in the Universe at large.

BTW, what I had described earlier, measuring of time with a specific distance, is all wrapped up in every area of research into a "theory of everything." Planck length is the smallest possible measurement of length, in some theories representing the physical structure, with a foamy/grainy appearance, of the fabric of spacetime. Regardless, no theory accepts the possibility that any measurement can be made on a smaller order of magnitude. It is defined using physical constants.
Planck time is also the accepted smallest measurement of time. It is the time the raw speed of light (in a vacuum, unaffected by any gravitation) takes to cross one Planck length.

That is the smallest theoretical... I think the smallest realistic measurements are wayyyyy larger. Stuff like the LHC is essentially garbage data IMO. We could be looking right at the fabric of the universe, we still won't understand it.

 

[disappoint]

My point is simply that time does not exist "out there" but rather "in here" -- in our minds. Like I noted earlier, it is identical in its reality to longitude and latitude -- a coordinate system useful for labeling real things in the world, but not a feature of the world itself.

No, time is not just a figment of your imagination. It exists "out there" for everyone (who is willing) to measure. If you can measure it, it is real. Not just an abstraction.

The official timekeeper of the United States is NIST: The National Institute of Standards and Technology. Located in Boulder, Colorado is their atomic clock which uses the resonant frequency of cesium atoms to keep a very accurate clock running. They aren't measuring your, or someone elses imagination. They are measuring time, which is an intrinsic part of the universe you live in. This is why we say you live in spacetime, not just space.

You can read more about it here if you're interested:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/primary-frequency-standards.cfm

The atomic clock at NIST:

 

[destrekor]

That is the smallest theoretical... I think the smallest realistic measurements are wayyyyy larger. Stuff like the LHC is essentially garbage data IMO. We could be looking right at the fabric of the universe, we still won't understand it.

Precisely. No equipment exists to measure either Planck Length or Planck Time.
But it's generally accepted that whenever we can get around to producing such equipment, we will never be able to measure anything smaller.


Also (from wiki, but relevant and accurate):

"Under the International System of Units (via the International Committee for Weights and Measures, or CIPM), since 1967 the second has been defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1] In 1997 CIPM added that the periods would be defined for a caesium atom at rest, and approaching the theoretical temperature of absolute zero, and in 1999, it included corrections from ambient radiation.[1]
This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). Absolute zero implies no movement, and therefore zero external radiation effects (i.e., zero local electric and magnetic fields). The second thus defined is consistent with the ephemeris second, which was based on astronomical measurements."

 

[moonbogg]

Its a good thing the universe is endlessly complicated, because otherwise we would have it all figured out already and we would feel intellectually trapped at a dead end. I like it this way. I feel like a pet gold fish with a very kind owner who gave me a really, really huge bowl to live in. Too large to discover the boundaries of the bowl makes for a free and happy fish. This was a sober post.

 

[disappoint]

Its a good thing the universe is endlessly complicated, because otherwise we would have it all figured out already and we would feel intellectually trapped at a dead end. I like it this way. I feel like a pet gold fish with a very kind owner who gave me a really, really huge bowl to live in. Too large to discover the boundaries of the bowl makes for a free and happy fish. This was a sober post.

Certainly seems sober to me. I agree 100%. Having discovered everything due to "too small a bowl" so to speak would be pretty boring.

Not sure which would be more boring, having discovered everything and nothing left to discover, or having discovered nothing because you're too busy playing farmville on failbook.

So I leave you with this: get out there and learn some physics, and discover the wonders of the universe around you. No matter how much you think you know there is always more to learn. You don't have to learn it all at once (in fact you can't) but little by little at least might enrich your life a bit.

 

[destrekor]

Certainly seems sober to me. I agree 100%. Having discovered everything due to "too small a bowl" so to speak would be pretty boring.

Not sure which would be more boring, having discovered everything and nothing left to discover, or having discovered nothing because you're too busy playing farmville on failbook.

So I leave you with this: get out there and learn some physics, and discover the wonders of the universe around you. No matter how much you think you know there is always more to learn. You don't have to learn it all at once (in fact you can't) but little by little at least might enrich your life a bit.

I agree with all of this.

Whether the universe and everything in it is the result of a creator or nature, we have a great deal of room to truly exercise our minds to the greatest degree possible. So much so, we cannot really fathom what we was really discover as we march down this road. We have our grand ideas and theories, but we may never know the most fundamental truths of the Universe.

Although personally, I wouldn't mind having been born in a time when we knew a great deal more than we do at this point in time, and had a level of technology to match.
Just think: wouldn't it be just grande if we could see the wall of the fish tank, jump through it, and arrive on the opposite side (or who knows where!) of the tank? Perhaps we arrive at the opposite side of the tank, but it's not the same tank, it's an entirely different tank of a completely different design.

There is much, with a higher level of technology, we may (or not) be able to do with a great deal more knowledge.

Of course, we have to survive long enough to both learn of these things, and then figure out technological uses of that knowledge. That's my greatest desire in life: ensure we as a species "step up", and don't perish at our own hands (or due to inaction). Science NEEDS research funding, and governments at this point are all too happy to severely cut back funding because: "what does scientific advancements related to our knowledge of space offer us on the ground in the present day?" So many people see it as not worthwhile because it doesn't lead to improvements to our well being right now. Which is a shame, because that kind of thinking is what can ultimately lead us to a type of doom that makes it impossible to ever leave this rock.

Sorry, I digress. But I have nothing further.

 

[JTsyo]

I talked to my brother, who lives 7 "Time" zones apart.
Does TIME exist? How the hell I was able to talk to my brother, if between us is DIFFERENCE OF 7 HOURS?

Isn't "time" just human immagination? WE ALL LIVE AT THE SAME TIME...

I think, "time" is a measure that all agreed on, unlike democracy/tyranny, Fahrenheit/Celsius, miles/kilometers...

Another thing, besides "time", all we agree - bits, bytes, Mb, Gb, hertz, kilohertz, MHz, GHz...etc...

Isn't a LIFE a fun?

Happy New Year to all...no matter who lives faster or slower....East or West....

Check out this documentary to see what it would be like outside time.

 

[Saint Nick]

I'm time traveling right now!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In other words, you subscribe to the notion that everything we can measure is an abstraction.
Length, mass, etc - when you get down to it, we define a measurement at some point in an abstract method.

Measurement is the process of abstraction.

As I said - take a laser, capture it with ultra-high-speed film, and record the time it takes to go some defined distance (which itself is actually defined, according to the SI Metrics, using lasers and, get this, time - the official Meter is defined by such means).
Whatever that measurement = whatever time interval you wish to define and/or create.

If you're going to go to the trouble of attempting to rebut me, you might try submitting something that contradicts what I've said.

You can define time based on a law of the universe - the speed of light.

But it's still a human defining time. Good Christ, would you just think about that for a second? What we "base" it on is arbitrary. It's simply us humans systematizing our map of external reality. You, on the other hand, and the other disappointments in this thread, seem to think that the map is the territory, and you're wrong.

You are making a distinction between perceived time, and actual TIME.

No, I'm not. There is only perceived time.

We have defined units of time which are actually subjected to certain properties of the universe that can lead to distortion of the perceived passing of said time. That's the "in the mind" thing - but time is the universe, it's part of the raw physical fabric of everything.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The fabric of reality has substance. Time has no substance, because it doesn't exist out there in the world of substance.

Intervals of anything, motion, speed of light, anything having lifespans (be it celestial bodies or organic matter), gravitation - they all help demonstrate and lend credence to time.

But intervals are not objects! The relationships among objects are not attributes of those objects!

Does it have a physical IT, like matter and the smallest particles that contribute mass? No.

Then it doesn't phyically exist!

But the structure of the universe itself is not limited to the matter we humans we perceive. Time is no more physical than the Planck length.
Does that make it invalid and merely a figment of our imagination?

I've never said it was invalid or imaginary. I've only said it is an abstraction. For fucks sake, pay attention.

You seem to be crossing into some sort of metaphysical definition, which simply does no good.

Except nobody has actually supported their assertions to the contrary!

Without the very real nature of Time itself, then everything in the universe is ageless, infinite, and "immortal."

So what? Are you arguing fron undesireable consequences?

Perceiving a defined time, and being surrounded by Time itself, I would say are two very different things. I think you are failing to make the distinction, or just failing to either get the picture, or didn't see where the distinction was made between time as we perceive and define it and it's role in the Universe at large.

You are invited to make whatever distinctions you think are meaningful, but at this point everyone that has suggested such a distinction exists has utterly failed to do so.

BTW, what I had described earlier, measuring of time with a specific distance, is all wrapped up in every area of research into a "theory of everything." Planck length is the smallest possible measurement of length, in some theories representing the physical structure, with a foamy/grainy appearance, of the fabric of spacetime. Regardless, no theory accepts the possibility that any measurement can be made on a smaller order of magnitude. It is defined using physical constants.
Planck time is also the accepted smallest measurement of time. It is the time the raw speed of light (in a vacuum, unaffected by any gravitation) takes to cross one Planck length.

Y'know, for someone that writes so goddamned much, you hardly say anything of substance.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, time is not just a figment of your imagination. It exists "out there" for everyone (who is willing) to measure.

Where? Show it to me.

If you can measure it, it is real. Not just an abstraction.

Then measure time. Tell me how long an hour is. I've already asked you, and you've pretended that question doesn't exist. Why is that?

The official timekeeper of the United States is NIST: The National Institute of Standards and Technology. Located in Boulder, Colorado is their atomic clock which uses the resonant frequency of cesium atoms to keep a very accurate clock running. They aren't measuring your, or someone elses imagination. They are measuring time, which is an intrinsic part of the universe you live in. This is why we say you live in spacetime, not just space.

You can read more about it here if you're interested:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/primary-frequency-standards.cfm
The atomic clock at NIST:

So what? This has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Precisely. No equipment exists to measure either Planck Length or Planck Time.
But it's generally accepted that whenever we can get around to producing such equipment, we will never be able to measure anything smaller.

Not exactly.

 

[disappoint]

I've already asked you, and you've pretended that question doesn't exist. Why is that?

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." - William Shakespeare

 

[disappoint]

But it's still a human defining time. Good Christ, would you just think about that for a second? What we "base" it on is arbitrary. It's simply us humans systematizing our map of external reality. You, on the other hand, and the other disappointments in this thread, seem to think that the map is the territory, and you're wrong.



No, I'm not. There is only perceived time.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. The fabric of reality has substance. Time has no substance, because it doesn't exist out there in the world of substance.


But intervals are not objects! The relationships among objects are not attributes of those objects!


Then it doesn't phyically exist!



I've never said it was invalid or imaginary. I've only said it is an abstraction. For fucks sake, pay attention.


Except nobody has actually supported their assertions to the contrary!


So what? Are you arguing fron undesireable consequences?


You are invited to make whatever distinctions you think are meaningful, but at this point everyone that has suggested such a distinction exists has utterly failed to do so.


Y'know, for someone that writes so goddamned much, you hardly say anything of substance.

You seem pretty emotional about all this. Are you a woman? Or a preacher? Or both?

You remind me of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr0UpQXYkGs

 

[Brigandier]

Time is just saying that things change, the measurements are arbitrary, as are any other, but the fact remains, things change.

I believe in time.

 

[OverVolt]

Not exactly.

I read it, its interesting.

I think the ultra-small scales simply don't matter if it doesn't manifest as a phenomenon in larger scales. We simply don't live anywhere close to that scale of the universe. Arguing about how light behaves on that scale is so pointless if it doesn't manifest as a phenomenon we can use on OUR scale of the universe. I agree how the human calender, seconds, hours, weeks etc. are all arbitrary.

 

[moonbogg]

I agree with all of this.

Whether the universe and everything in it is the result of a creator or nature, we have a great deal of room to truly exercise our minds to the greatest degree possible. So much so, we cannot really fathom what we was really discover as we march down this road. We have our grand ideas and theories, but we may never know the most fundamental truths of the Universe.

Although personally, I wouldn't mind having been born in a time when we knew a great deal more than we do at this point in time, and had a level of technology to match.
Just think: wouldn't it be just grande if we could see the wall of the fish tank, jump through it, and arrive on the opposite side (or who knows where!) of the tank? Perhaps we arrive at the opposite side of the tank, but it's not the same tank, it's an entirely different tank of a completely different design.

There is much, with a higher level of technology, we may (or not) be able to do with a great deal more knowledge.

Of course, we have to survive long enough to both learn of these things, and then figure out technological uses of that knowledge. That's my greatest desire in life: ensure we as a species "step up", and don't perish at our own hands (or due to inaction). Science NEEDS research funding, and governments at this point are all too happy to severely cut back funding because: "what does scientific advancements related to our knowledge of space offer us on the ground in the present day?" So many people see it as not worthwhile because it doesn't lead to improvements to our well being right now. Which is a shame, because that kind of thinking is what can ultimately lead us to a type of doom that makes it impossible to ever leave this rock.

Sorry, I digress. But I have nothing further.

You see what you did there? You exemplified the apparent nature of our fish bowl. If you manage to get outside of it, you just might find yourself, and your fishbowl as being contained in yet a larger fishbowl. As far as I suspect (in my extreme ignorance) there doesn't appear to be an end all theory of everything or a logical reason for why anything exists. The more we learn, the wall of the fish tank seems to automatically move outward, always remaining out of our reach.
Wouldn't that be a cool fish tank? One that gives the fish the impression that it is endless, but in reality the walls move around in circles? Wether by nature or by design, it is very suspicious either way.

 

[disappoint]

How big is our fish tank?

 

[moonbogg]

How big is our fish tank?

I would love to know. Any ideas?

 

[disappoint]

I would love to know. Any ideas?

Well according to wikipedia the age of the universe is approx. 13.7 billion light years. The diameter is estimated at 93 billion light years across.

An example of one of the most common misconceptions about the size of the observable universe. Despite the fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is not 13.7 billion light-years, because the universe is expanding. This plaque appears at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

 

[moonbogg]

Well according to wikipedia the age of the universe is approx. 13.7 billion light years. The diameter is estimated at 93 billion light years across.

An example of one of the most common misconceptions about the size of the observable universe. Despite the fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is not 13.7 billion light-years, because the universe is expanding. This plaque appears at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

When we talk about the size of the fish tank, we are talking not only about the physical size of the universe, but also about wether or not there is a limit to what we can discover. How burried is the fundamental nature of the universe and will we ever discover it? That is the real question. We live in a fish tank which contains intellectual creatures (us). How big is the fish tank?
Thanks for the link by the way. The physical size of the known universe presents no danger to our desire to explore physical space.

 

[disappoint]

You're welcome.