Time Does Not Exist

[EdwinParker]

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time   I was kicked out of a physics forum for saying what this Popular Science article says.  I said time does not exist, only the human act of timing.  All that exists are matter and energy moving faster or slower relative to one another.  The moderator argued with me and got meaner and meaner and finally kicked me out.

Edited December 12, 2017 by EdwinParker

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, EdwinParker said:

I was kicked out of a physics forum for saying what this Popular Science article says.  I said time does not exist, only the human act of timing.  All that exists are matter and energy moving relatively faster or slower to one another.  The moderator argued with me and got meaner and meaner and finally kicked me out.

!

Moderator Note

Well, try to be a bit clearer here at SFN. Chances are you inadequately supported an argument against the mainstream definition of spacetime, and that's going to put you in hot water with physicists who need a temporal dimension so the math works out right. 

When people get meaner and meaner, don't assume it's just them. You're trying to redefine something that already has specific meanings and applications, so don't be so surprised that you get pushback.

I removed the link from the title since that looks like advertising, and I moved the thread from Science News to Classical Physics until you establish a discussion. If you get your mainstream explanations, it can stay here, but if you decide to paddle off mainstream science, we'll move it to Speculations. Enjoy and welcome.

 

Personally, I'm put off by Barbour's first cheap, pop-sci argument, that since you can't hold time in your hands it must not exist. Can you hold any of the spatial dimensions in your hand? I'll finish the article but it doesn't make a good first impression.

[iNow]

50 minutes ago, EdwinParker said:

time does not exist, only the human act of timing.  All that exists are matter and energy moving faster or slower relative to one another.

And yet movement and velocity themselves are undefined without time. How can one exist, but not the other? 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, EdwinParker said:

All that exists are matter and energy moving faster or slower relative to one another.

How about radioactive decay of unstable particles.. ?

There is nothing moving much. Nucleus remain in pretty much the same frame of reference.

f.e. solid piece of Uranium. U-235 half-life is 704 mln years, and U-238 half-life is 4468 mln years.

 

Did you hear about radiometric dating of stones (Rubidium-87 radioactive isotope), or radiometric dating of organic remains (mostly archaeological organics remains up to ~50,000 years) using Carbon-14 radioactive isotope?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Sensei

[Strange]

Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”. 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, EdwinParker said:

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time   I was kicked out of a physics forum for saying what this Popular Science article says.  I said time does not exist, only the human act of timing.  All that exists are matter and energy moving faster or slower relative to one another.  The moderator argued with me and got meaner and meaner and finally kicked me out.

!

Moderator Note

Post some physics, if this is going to remain in physics.

 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, EdwinParker said:

All that exists are matter and energy moving faster or slower relative to one another.

 

Most discussions of this nature tend to founder on what is meant by 'exist', so I suggest you start by discussing this.

 

For instance you claim "all that exists.........."

If that is so, what do they exist in?

What lies between the bits of matter and/or energy and separates them?

Edited December 12, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

What lies between the bits of matter and/or energy and separates them?

Bearing in mind they are separated spatially (they are not all in the same place) and temporaly (they are not all happening at the same moment) rather suggests that both space and time exist(*) and are inseparable.

(*) For suitable definitions of "exist".

[Tub]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”. 

Ha,Ha. Excellent. While not being a complete " time-denier ", i do have a little sympathy for Mr. Parker. Time is definitely a useful and necessary measuring tool for science and daily life, but, like the sea has an absolute bottom and relative depths, i think there could be an absolute time and relative time: here in England, by the clock, we are something like 5 hours " ahead " of America, but about 12 hours " behind " Australia ( relative time ) and yet we all exist in the same, simultaneous moment ( absolute time ), so perhaps there's a case for both aspects.

P.S. It's 11.57 a.m GMT as i post this.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Tub said:

yet we all exist in the same, simultaneous moment ( absolute time )

Except we don't. You may have heard of the theory of relativity, which disposed of the idea of absolute time and absolute simultaneity. They are both observer dependent.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Tub said:

Ha,Ha. Excellent. While not being a complete " time-denier ", i do have a little sympathy for Mr. Parker. Time is definitely a useful and necessary measuring tool for science and daily life, but, like the sea has an absolute bottom and relative depths, i think there could be an absolute time and relative time: here in England, by the clock, we are something like 5 hours " ahead " of America, but about 12 hours " behind " Australia ( relative time ) and yet we all exist in the same, simultaneous moment ( absolute time ), so perhaps there's a case for both aspects.

P.S. It's 11.57 a.m GMT as i post this.

Time zones are a human-inflicted effect. A convenience driven by commerce.

Science (and other endeavors) use UTC, which is common to the whole earth. Time everywhere on the geoid is the same.

We pretend the earth is an inertial frame, which has some ramifications. When you want to compare time in various places you need to take into account relativistic effects. Signals sent around the earth's equator, for example, gain or lose a little more than 200 ns, owing to the earth's rotation, from the Sagnac effect.

[Tub]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Except we don't. You may have heard of the theory of relativity, which disposed of the idea of absolute time and absolute simultaneity. They are both observer dependent.

Does this mean then, that time has no existence without the observer so time has no intrinsic existence, which is what Mr Parker was getting at?  Didn't Einstein say something like "... the moon still exists even if i don't observe it " so perhaps we could say the same thing about time? Or what would happen to time without the observer - would it simply go on pause and then pick up from the same point when observed again or just " flow " on?  Didn't all time begin simultaneously at the " Big Bang " ?  I'm puzzled.

 

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Time zones are a human-inflicted effect. A convenience driven by commerce.

Science (and other endeavors) use UTC, which is common to the whole earth. Time everywhere on the geoid is the same.

We pretend the earth is an inertial frame, which has some ramifications. When you want to compare time in various places you need to take into account relativistic effects. Signals sent around the earth's equator, for example, gain or lose a little more than 200 ns, owing to the earth's rotation, from the Sagnac effect.

Thanks. I didn't know about UTC.  In effect,then, we have created an absolute time that isn't observer dependent - as if we had all synchronized our watches - and, if that was the case and there was only UTC, would that have any impact on our acceptance of  relativity? 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Tub said:

Does this mean then, that time has no existence without the observer so time has no intrinsic existence, which is what Mr Parker was getting at?  Didn't Einstein say something like "... the moon still exists even if i don't observe it " so perhaps we could say the same thing about time? Or what would happen to time without the observer - would it simply go on pause and then pick up from the same point when observed again or just " flow " on?  Didn't all time begin simultaneously at the " Big Bang " ?  I'm puzzled.

When you note the time on your mobile phone and put it in your pocket, does it carry on from where it was when you last looked at it?

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Tub said:

Does this mean then, that time has no existence without the observer so time has no intrinsic existence

I wouldn’t say that. Time exists but is measured differently by each observer (frame of reference). 

32 minutes ago, Tub said:

In effect,then, we have created an absolute time that isn't observer dependent - as if we had all synchronized our watches - and, if that was the case and there was only UTC, would that have any impact on our acceptance of  relativity? 

Your watch would become unsynchronisedas soon as you move (or climb a mountain). 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Tub said:

 Thanks. I didn't know about UTC.  In effect,then, we have created an absolute time that isn't observer dependent - as if we had all synchronized our watches - and, if that was the case and there was only UTC, would that have any impact on our acceptance of  relativity? 

Time is only the same for stationary clocks on the geoid. Moving clocks or clocks at altitude will experience relativistic effects, since they are not in the same reference frame.

Having a common time in a single reference frame is part of relativity. It is not an absolute time.

[mistermack]

As far as the word exists goes, I would say that time definitely exists. It exists as a phonomenon, not as a thing.

Just as motion exists. If you restrict existence to things, then you can't describe the world properly. 

The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist. But time exists as a characteristic of change. And so it's a real phenomenon.

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When you note the time on your mobile phone and put it in your pocket, does it carry on from where it was when you last looked at it?

Maybe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis !

[Tub]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When you note the time on your mobile phone and put it in your pocket, does it carry on from where it was when you last looked at it?

Obviously not, SJ, but that's due to the physical action of microchips reacting to a signal - if i took the battery out, the time-display on my phone would disappear but time itself wouldn't come to a halt, and when i put the battery back in, the phone would pick up the new signal again,so it's not the phone that's generating time.

 

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

I wouldn’t say that. Time exists but is measured differently by each observer (frame of reference). 

Your watch would become unsynchronised as soon as you move (or climb a mountain). 

I'm glad you edited that post, Strange! Climbing a mountain is hard enough by itself, never mind cleaning one!  ( Posting on a smartphone ? ). Thanks, anyway.

 

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

Time is only the same for stationary clocks on the geoid. Moving clocks or clocks at altitude will experience relativistic effects, since they are not in the same reference frame.

Having a common time in a single reference frame is part of relativity. It is not an absolute time.

Thanks, swansont.  I imagine relativistic effects went unnoticed before Einstein and until we developed techniques and instruments sensitive enough to measure them.  

[Klaynos]

Quote

No, the answer is an orange and two lemons. 

- The Guide Mark II. 

[QuantumTonberry]

I was skinny, young, and attractive in the past, but I am fat, old, and ugly now. This is true regardless of how I speed up or slow down. Therefore, time exists.

[Butch]

Reality is a persistent illusion, so it is with time. Ultimately we must accept the illusion.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Reality is a persistent illusion, so it is with time. Ultimately we must accept the illusion.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

[EdwinParker]

On 12/11/2017 at 11:47 PM, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Well, try to be a bit clearer here at SFN. Chances are you inadequately supported an argument against the mainstream definition of spacetime, and that's going to put you in hot water with physicists who need a temporal dimension so the math works out right. 

When people get meaner and meaner, don't assume it's just them. You're trying to redefine something that already has specific meanings and applications, so don't be so surprised that you get pushback.

I removed the link from the title since that looks like advertising, and I moved the thread from Science News to Classical Physics until you establish a discussion. If you get your mainstream explanations, it can stay here, but if you decide to paddle off mainstream science, we'll move it to Speculations. Enjoy and welcome.

 

Personally, I'm put off by Barbour's first cheap, pop-sci argument, that since you can't hold time in your hands it must not exist. Can you hold any of the spatial dimensions in your hand? I'll finish the article but it doesn't make a good first impression.

 I prefer to say "Timing occurs" rather than "Time exists". I don't really say "Time does not exist".  I say instead "The activity of timing occurs, and the term 'time' is simply the abstract noun that refers to the number that we read off our timing device".  I understand the activity of timing, as I do it often.  I claim that time t is defined as s/v (distance/velocity).  Distance and velocity don't need definitions because we can look and see greater and smaller distances and objects moving at faster and slower velocities.  BTW, the math works out just as fine with definition t=s/v as it does with alleged definition v=s/t, since they are mathematically equivalent.  

[Endy0816]

You can have straight frequency too.

f = 1/t

Logically went away from needing motion for our clocks. Easier to use something that cycles between two states.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Endy0816

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

 Logically went away from needing motion for our clocks. Easier to use something that cycles between two states.

Not easier, as such, but it yields a more precise result.