The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is time an illusion?  (Read 53809 times)

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #150 on: 04/04/2012 14:59:46 »
Time is the measurement of change as a metre is a measurement of distance.
They both exist just as much as the other...
If your asking does anything exist then yeh, 'I think therefore i am.' right?

As I have explained a few times, time itself is not synonymous with change. You can have frozen systems as well. There is no special relationship here.

And Barbour has his own theory, where there is no time, only change. Seperate entities see.
I still think it is.  I can't see how you could have change without it taking place in time?

In a truly frozen system with the temperature as close to absolute zero as possible there is no 'usable' energy available and time has effectively stopped therefore there can be no change.

Personally, I don't understand why people can't understand change without invoking time. Neither concept are even the same thing, in many demonstrations you can speak about time without a system even changing state which is evidence alone neither concepts are truely the same. Time is more of a parameter than being the same thing in normal circumstances, or if you like it provides freedom; but time is not change itself.

Secondly, the idea of it providing freedom is the idea it is also part of geometry. What part then also amuses me why no one picks up on the obvious truth that when the universe came into existence, there was in fact no geometry one could talk of... so time is not really a real artefect of the world. If time exists, it appeared late in the universes history when matter clocks where able to define time itself. Worse off, there is no evidence time actually exists ''out there'' so thinking it does is speculation - or perhaps worse than that even, that we are projecting our own experiences on the world outside thinking it exists objectively. This is most obvious when one realizes that memories of a past and feeling a future to be expectant are all illusions of the mind. Even Einstein once said, ''the distinction of past and future are only stubbornly persistent illusions.''

I think you are wrong.  You can't speak about time without a system changing state.  A clock requires energy to run.  No energy, or if that energy is frozen then the clock does not run.  No time.

Time is change.  If there is no change there is no time.


Without time, distance and hence geometry become pretty meaningless.  Without mass to both define the arrow of time and to give it a time dilation factor then time as we know it does not exist but that does not preclude change.  It does preclude causality.  The arrow of time without mass is double ended and everything happens all at once. 

The question should be is this very early state before the creation of mass a state of the universe or its precursor?  Maybe it is just a very hot state within the quantum vacuum that cooled to become the Universe.

When the 'universe' cooled sufficiently for mass to form then it would meet our description of what we consider to be the Universe.  At that point 'Time' came into existence. 

I agree that something happened before (whatever that means as 'before' is meaningless without time) that point but whether it is correct to think of it as within or prior to the universe is debatable.


We have no reason to believe that time would not exist out there.  Everywhere in the Universe there is energy and gravity so there must be local time. Thinking that time does not exist out there is pure speculation.

First of all, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned - if your time evolution is frozen, nothing about the system is truely physically changing. Take the zeno effect. Observe a particle and you may freeze the system in time, so to speak, nothing physical is changing.


''When the 'universe' cooled sufficiently for mass to form then it would meet our description of what we consider to be the Universe.  At that point 'Time' came into existence.  ''


Then we essentially agree with something. Time only becomes significant if you like, later in the universes history. Be this as it may, it makes time geometrical and not fundamental. Anyone who knows the implications of those words will come to realize that what exists fundamentally is not time - that alone has serious implications on whether it truely exists.

As for thinking time does exist out there, I think that is speculatory. What evidence do we have other than our own subjective experiences? Can you give a working example?

That's taking it out of context.
As I said it is debatable whether it is reasonable to call it the Universe prior to the creation of time and geometry.  It would seem more reasonable perhaps to consider it the void.  In which case time is fundamental.  It's clearly as fundamental as gravity.


Nearly everywhere we care to look we can see distant galaxies, quasars etc as they existed billions of years ago.  That's good enough evidence for me of the existence of time throughout the Universe.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2012 15:01:33 by MikeS »
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #151 on: 04/04/2012 15:23:50 »
Time is the measurement of change as a metre is a measurement of distance.
They both exist just as much as the other...
If your asking does anything exist then yeh, 'I think therefore i am.' right?

As I have explained a few times, time itself is not synonymous with change. You can have frozen systems as well. There is no special relationship here.

And Barbour has his own theory, where there is no time, only change. Seperate entities see.
I still think it is.  I can't see how you could have change without it taking place in time?

In a truly frozen system with the temperature as close to absolute zero as possible there is no 'usable' energy available and time has effectively stopped therefore there can be no change.

Personally, I don't understand why people can't understand change without invoking time. Neither concept are even the same thing, in many demonstrations you can speak about time without a system even changing state which is evidence alone neither concepts are truely the same. Time is more of a parameter than being the same thing in normal circumstances, or if you like it provides freedom; but time is not change itself.

Secondly, the idea of it providing freedom is the idea it is also part of geometry. What part then also amuses me why no one picks up on the obvious truth that when the universe came into existence, there was in fact no geometry one could talk of... so time is not really a real artefect of the world. If time exists, it appeared late in the universes history when matter clocks where able to define time itself. Worse off, there is no evidence time actually exists ''out there'' so thinking it does is speculation - or perhaps worse than that even, that we are projecting our own experiences on the world outside thinking it exists objectively. This is most obvious when one realizes that memories of a past and feeling a future to be expectant are all illusions of the mind. Even Einstein once said, ''the distinction of past and future are only stubbornly persistent illusions.''

I think you are wrong.  You can't speak about time without a system changing state.  A clock requires energy to run.  No energy, or if that energy is frozen then the clock does not run.  No time.

Time is change.  If there is no change there is no time.


Without time, distance and hence geometry become pretty meaningless.  Without mass to both define the arrow of time and to give it a time dilation factor then time as we know it does not exist but that does not preclude change.  It does preclude causality.  The arrow of time without mass is double ended and everything happens all at once. 

The question should be is this very early state before the creation of mass a state of the universe or its precursor?  Maybe it is just a very hot state within the quantum vacuum that cooled to become the Universe.

When the 'universe' cooled sufficiently for mass to form then it would meet our description of what we consider to be the Universe.  At that point 'Time' came into existence. 

I agree that something happened before (whatever that means as 'before' is meaningless without time) that point but whether it is correct to think of it as within or prior to the universe is debatable.


We have no reason to believe that time would not exist out there.  Everywhere in the Universe there is energy and gravity so there must be local time. Thinking that time does not exist out there is pure speculation.

First of all, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned - if your time evolution is frozen, nothing about the system is truely physically changing. Take the zeno effect. Observe a particle and you may freeze the system in time, so to speak, nothing physical is changing.


''When the 'universe' cooled sufficiently for mass to form then it would meet our description of what we consider to be the Universe.  At that point 'Time' came into existence.  ''


Then we essentially agree with something. Time only becomes significant if you like, later in the universes history. Be this as it may, it makes time geometrical and not fundamental. Anyone who knows the implications of those words will come to realize that what exists fundamentally is not time - that alone has serious implications on whether it truely exists.

As for thinking time does exist out there, I think that is speculatory. What evidence do we have other than our own subjective experiences? Can you give a working example?

That's taking it out of context.
As I said it is debatable whether it is reasonable to call it the Universe prior to the creation of time and geometry.  It would seem more reasonable perhaps to consider it the void.  In which case time is fundamental.  It's clearly as fundamental as gravity.

Nearly everywhere we care to look we can see distant galaxies, quasars etc as they existed billions of years ago.  That's good enough evidence for me of the existence of time throughout the Universe.

I strongly protest that your vision of time is fundamental. It is certainly not a void prior to the matter fields. If it truely is a void, then you may as well go for a nullified approach: nullify all matter and energy, including appreciating there is no time.

Anyway, I don't see looking at systems, whether those being distant galaxies or being a dice rolled on a table. There are reasons why prominent scientists like Rovelli and Barbour are in fact saying this is a timeless universe. Do you not realize that these scientists are quite aware of similar questions you are posing. There are obvious reasons why simply observing a system is not evidence for time.

In fact, I should write up a thread on time myself and explain it in my terms.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #152 on: 04/04/2012 16:12:23 »
ah so maybe our perception of time is our perception of change which are exactly the same thing with a different title. Time is not the ticking of a watch it is just a change of state.

I like your thinking, but to think the perception of change is the same as the perception of time has atleast an underlying problem: that change and time are not synonymous. Nor is perception inherently the same as the outside world. One major problem we don't understand in neuroscience, is how the brain actually takes a two dimesnsional object and recasts it into the three dimensional phenomenon - in fact, our brain takes signals from the outside world and recreates it in our brains, creates if you like, a type of holograph of the world in the name of perception. Our feelings of the world, and the real world at large, are two different types of realities, completely.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #153 on: 04/04/2012 16:52:32 »
Ęthelwulf
quote
"There are obvious reasons why simply observing a system is not evidence for time."

It's certainly not obvious to me.  Perhaps you would care to explain?
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #154 on: 04/04/2012 16:55:32 »
Ęthelwulf
quote
"There are obvious reasons why simply observing a system is not evidence for time."

It's certainly not obvious to me.  Perhaps you would care to explain?

I've told you sir countless times. The zeno effect punches holes in the change equals time motive.

Observe a system and you may suspend any changes in it's evolution. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, you observe a system, you may actually suspend it's evolution... but if time still existed, how can time and change be synonymous... if anything, time, change and static should all mean the same thing. But I don't go as far as that. I draw the line somewhere. Guess where?
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #155 on: 05/04/2012 06:24:19 »
If your theory relies upon the zeno effect which seems to be an explainable paradox then it is on a shaky footing.

"The arrow paradox
“   If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.   ”
—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5
In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[11] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
Whereas the first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

This paradox fails as it assumes every instant to be timeless.  Whereas every instant in time is not zero but equals planck time.

"Nick Huggett argues that Zeno is begging the question when he says that objects that occupy the same space as they do at rest must be at rest.[12]

Hans Reichenbach has proposed that the paradox may arise from considering space and time as separate entities. In a theory like general relativity, which presumes a single space-time continuum, the paradox may be blocked.[27]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

That seems to be how the macro world works.  The quantum world is strange.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #156 on: 05/04/2012 08:32:30 »
No Wulf, to me it's not the same. If you read what I wrote before it's perfectly possible to define it from locality, as you observing having a arrow, which you must as you're the one observing, although that what you observe is without change intrinsically, and so exhibiting 'no arrow' as defined from your observation. The problem comes when you want a undivided same SpaceTime, because in such a one there must be arrow encompassing both the 'frozen' object you observe, as well as yourself, and everything else existing.

And I, as well as you, use 'clocks' to measure time, where the best one must be radiation. But that is the 'arrow of time', not what I call 'time'. And you're perfectly right in that clocks came at a later 'time' :) but the concept of a arrow must have a origin somewhere. Possibly as a result of there coming to be a geometry?

Radiation fields are actually the worse kind, not the best. They don't act as clocks, which has been my point all along. The universe arose in radiation fields, not matter field. Only the latter here act as clocks.

Sorry, now you lost me. The constant 'c' is the worst 'clock'?
Why?

Because you find it to be a constant?
Radiation is the ultimate clock you can find as far as I'm concerned :)
And it is the same locally everywhere.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #157 on: 05/04/2012 09:15:50 »
No Wulf, to me it's not the same. If you read what I wrote before it's perfectly possible to define it from locality, as you observing having a arrow, which you must as you're the one observing, although that what you observe is without change intrinsically, and so exhibiting 'no arrow' as defined from your observation. The problem comes when you want a undivided same SpaceTime, because in such a one there must be arrow encompassing both the 'frozen' object you observe, as well as yourself, and everything else existing.

And I, as well as you, use 'clocks' to measure time, where the best one must be radiation. But that is the 'arrow of time', not what I call 'time'. And you're perfectly right in that clocks came at a later 'time' :) but the concept of a arrow must have a origin somewhere. Possibly as a result of there coming to be a geometry?

Radiation fields are actually the worse kind, not the best. They don't act as clocks, which has been my point all along. The universe arose in radiation fields, not matter field. Only the latter here act as clocks.

Sorry, now you lost me. The constant 'c' is the worst 'clock'?
Why?

Because you find it to be a constant?
Radiation is the ultimate clock you can find as far as I'm concerned :)
And it is the same locally everywhere.

Well you must know that time does not pass for photons?
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #158 on: 05/04/2012 09:17:02 »
If your theory relies upon the zeno effect which seems to be an explainable paradox then it is on a shaky footing.

"The arrow paradox
“   If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.   ”
—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5
In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[11] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
Whereas the first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

This paradox fails as it assumes every instant to be timeless.  Whereas every instant in time is not zero but equals planck time.

"Nick Huggett argues that Zeno is begging the question when he says that objects that occupy the same space as they do at rest must be at rest.[12]

Hans Reichenbach has proposed that the paradox may arise from considering space and time as separate entities. In a theory like general relativity, which presumes a single space-time continuum, the paradox may be blocked.[27]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

That seems to be how the macro world works.  The quantum world is strange.

Ahem, I am saying change is not necessery over time! If indeed time exists, then some things don't change and the zeno effect is a PERFECT example.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #159 on: 05/04/2012 10:08:40 »
No Wulf, to me it's not the same. If you read what I wrote before it's perfectly possible to define it from locality, as you observing having a arrow, which you must as you're the one observing, although that what you observe is without change intrinsically, and so exhibiting 'no arrow' as defined from your observation. The problem comes when you want a undivided same SpaceTime, because in such a one there must be arrow encompassing both the 'frozen' object you observe, as well as yourself, and everything else existing.

And I, as well as you, use 'clocks' to measure time, where the best one must be radiation. But that is the 'arrow of time', not what I call 'time'. And you're perfectly right in that clocks came at a later 'time' :) but the concept of a arrow must have a origin somewhere. Possibly as a result of there coming to be a geometry?

Radiation fields are actually the worse kind, not the best. They don't act as clocks, which has been my point all along. The universe arose in radiation fields, not matter field. Only the latter here act as clocks.

Sorry, now you lost me. The constant 'c' is the worst 'clock'?
Why?

Because you find it to be a constant?
Radiation is the ultimate clock you can find as far as I'm concerned :)
And it is the same locally everywhere.

Well you must know that time does not pass for photons?

I actually honor myself for being able to talk about physics to people, so let me try and explain this better.

If we have two moving clocks, Bob and Alice, both of them possess frames of reference to measure time. However, as they approach the speed of light, both observers measure a time dilation. If Alice was magical, and managed to move to the speed of light, something remarkable would happen. Bob will still measure her speeding off a way ahead, but something strange has happened to Alice. Dilation has stretched to infinity. Indeed, when we speak about infinities they usually do not purport to reality, so sometimes many physicists agree to state that, Alice no longer really has a frame of reference.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2012 11:00:44 by Ęthelwulf »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #160 on: 05/04/2012 10:43:14 »
Photons don't have a frame of reference, so calling them timeless is misleading.  The step in your argument when Alice becomes "magical" and reaches the speed of light breaks the laws of physics, so you can't meaningfully use them anymore.  This includes predicting what a clock carried by Alice does.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #161 on: 05/04/2012 10:59:30 »
Photons don't have a frame of reference, so calling them timeless is misleading.  The step in your argument when Alice becomes "magical" and reaches the speed of light breaks the laws of physics, so you can't meaningfully use them anymore.  This includes predicting what a clock carried by Alice does.

Bolded by me. I actually said that at the end.

This was a thought experiment JP, to show that you can't talk about time purely for radiation fields - they don't make good clocks.

Are you disagreeing with this?
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #162 on: 05/04/2012 12:30:09 »
A thought experiment which includes a massive object travelling at light speed cannot derive anything from special relativity
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #163 on: 05/04/2012 12:34:00 »
A thought experiment which includes a massive object travelling at light speed cannot derive anything from special relativity

Could you my friend, elaborate your point a bit better?

Special Relativity deals with moving clocks in a flat spacetime. It's only approximately correct, which is why GR was created.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #164 on: 05/04/2012 13:44:23 »
A thought experiment which includes a massive object travelling at light speed cannot derive anything from special relativity

Could you my friend, elaborate your point a bit better?
Special Relativity deals with moving clocks in a flat spacetime. It's only approximately correct, which is why GR was created.

You have posited a thought experiment based on special relativity .  SR does not admit to a frame of reference for a massive object that moves at the speed of light.  Anything you get out of the thought experiment is bust, because you broke one of the axioms of SR to start with; gigo. 

On your second point -  SR is only approx correct, yes but so what; in the small enough local limit curved space time will approximate flat and anyways your thought experiment was very much an SR thang not GR
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #165 on: 05/04/2012 13:50:54 »
A thought experiment which includes a massive object travelling at light speed cannot derive anything from special relativity

Could you my friend, elaborate your point a bit better?
Special Relativity deals with moving clocks in a flat spacetime. It's only approximately correct, which is why GR was created.

You have posited a thought experiment based on special relativity .  SR does not admit to a frame of reference for a massive object that moves at the speed of light.  Anything you get out of the thought experiment is bust, because you broke one of the axioms of SR to start with; gigo. 

On your second point -  SR is only approx correct, yes but so what; in the small enough local limit curved space time will approximate flat and anyways your thought experiment was very much an SR thang not GR

I can see why it might be appealing to say ''so what?'' however, it's a big reason because GR is global not local like SR. It's like approximating a local neighbourhood of a black hole. The space might be flat, but it does not describe the system in totality.
 

Offline Manoo

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #166 on: 05/04/2012 15:13:14 »
Everything (all matter) is in motion.

Even what is described as 'stationary' is only relative to some motion.

Motion occurs through time: there are no instantaneous reactions in nature.

Motion through space is also motion through time (and change is also motion).

Space is, therefore, a proxy for time.

Any movement through space is also a movement through time. Even if you return to the same space, it is not the 'same' because it is in a different moment in time.

As long as there is space, time exists.

Space and time are indivisible.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #167 on: 05/04/2012 16:19:50 »
Everything (all matter) is in motion.

Even what is described as 'stationary' is only relative to some motion.

Motion occurs through time: there are no instantaneous reactions in nature.

Motion through space is also motion through time (and change is also motion).

Space is, therefore, a proxy for time.

Any movement through space is also a movement through time. Even if you return to the same space, it is not the 'same' because it is in a different moment in time.

As long as there is space, time exists.

Space and time are indivisible.

One problem, relativity says time does not exist, so you can say all you did above, just try and interpret it without time, now it becomes difficult.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #168 on: 06/04/2012 08:44:29 »
No Wulf, to me it's not the same. If you read what I wrote before it's perfectly possible to define it from locality, as you observing having a arrow, which you must as you're the one observing, although that what you observe is without change intrinsically, and so exhibiting 'no arrow' as defined from your observation. The problem comes when you want a undivided same SpaceTime, because in such a one there must be arrow encompassing both the 'frozen' object you observe, as well as yourself, and everything else existing.

And I, as well as you, use 'clocks' to measure time, where the best one must be radiation. But that is the 'arrow of time', not what I call 'time'. And you're perfectly right in that clocks came at a later 'time' :) but the concept of a arrow must have a origin somewhere. Possibly as a result of there coming to be a geometry?

Radiation fields are actually the worse kind, not the best. They don't act as clocks, which has been my point all along. The universe arose in radiation fields, not matter field. Only the latter here act as clocks.

Sorry, now you lost me. The constant 'c' is the worst 'clock'?
Why?

Because you find it to be a constant?
Radiation is the ultimate clock you can find as far as I'm concerned :)
And it is the same locally everywhere.

Well you must know that time does not pass for photons?

Yes, but radiation measure the arrow to us still.
And I can't think of anything more precise?

You might find this interesting. NIST.
"NIST scientists use lasers to cool the two ions which are held 4 thousandths of a millimeter apart in an electromagnetic trap. Aluminum is the larger of the two ions, while the beryllium emits light under the conditions of this experiment. Scientists hit the ions with pulses from a "clock laser" within a narrow frequency range. If the laser frequency is at the center of the frequency range, the precise "resonance frequency" of aluminum, this ion jumps to a higher energy level, or 1 in the binary language of computers. Otherwise, the ion remains in the lower energy state, or 0.

If there is no change in the aluminum ion, then another laser pulse causes both ions to begin rocking side to side in unison because of their physical proximity and the interaction of their electrical charges. An additional laser pulse converts this motion into a change in the internal energy level of the beryllium ion. This pulse reverses the direction of the ion's magnetic "spin," and the beryllium goes dark, a signal that the aluminum remained in the 0 state.

On the other hand, if the aluminum ion jumps to the higher energy level, then the additional laser pulses fail to stimulate a shared rocking motion and have no effect on the beryllium ion, which keeps emitting light. Scientists detect this light as a signal that the aluminum ion jumped from 0 to 1.

The goal is to tune the clock laser to the exact frequency that prompts the aluminum to jump from 0 to 1. The actual measurement of the ticking of the clock is provided not by the ions but rather by the clock laser's precisely tuned center frequency, which is measured with a "frequency comb," a tool for measuring very high optical frequencies, or colors of light."
 

Offline Aksgenius1997

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #169 on: 07/04/2012 05:41:40 »
Time Cannot be called an illusion. Its a part of space-time. It can also be called the 4th dimension. You move because of time. Time is like a snake's movement. It can go Zig-Zag,straight, 90 degree turned. It passes through you. O8)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #170 on: 07/04/2012 14:46:02 »
Time exist :)

But we haven't a precise definition of it. Although if you believe in your math solely? You might exchange it.
While you're doing that, you're inside the arrow.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #171 on: 07/04/2012 16:35:18 »
Time Cannot be called an illusion. Its a part of space-time. It can also be called the 4th dimension. You move because of time. Time is like a snake's movement. It can go Zig-Zag,straight, 90 degree turned. It passes through you. O8)

I move because of time?

I do enjoy these little physics lessons I get from people time to time at this place. And here was me thinking that a body has motion because of kinetic energy.

And as I have said before, it is true that Minkowski space is a manifold which treats time as a space dimension, but I have also explained that before that understanding, Relativity described space quite well. Perhaps it was indeed a little bit more complicated, but we could still deal with spatial dimensions without time. If special relativity was the sister theory, it's brother theory General Relativity seems to be pointing towards the idea that time does not exist, or atleast time does not change in a global sense.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #172 on: 07/04/2012 16:37:48 »
No Wulf, to me it's not the same. If you read what I wrote before it's perfectly possible to define it from locality, as you observing having a arrow, which you must as you're the one observing, although that what you observe is without change intrinsically, and so exhibiting 'no arrow' as defined from your observation. The problem comes when you want a undivided same SpaceTime, because in such a one there must be arrow encompassing both the 'frozen' object you observe, as well as yourself, and everything else existing.

And I, as well as you, use 'clocks' to measure time, where the best one must be radiation. But that is the 'arrow of time', not what I call 'time'. And you're perfectly right in that clocks came at a later 'time' :) but the concept of a arrow must have a origin somewhere. Possibly as a result of there coming to be a geometry?

Radiation fields are actually the worse kind, not the best. They don't act as clocks, which has been my point all along. The universe arose in radiation fields, not matter field. Only the latter here act as clocks.

Sorry, now you lost me. The constant 'c' is the worst 'clock'?
Why?

Because you find it to be a constant?
Radiation is the ultimate clock you can find as far as I'm concerned :)
And it is the same locally everywhere.

Well you must know that time does not pass for photons?

Yes, but radiation measure the arrow to us still.
And I can't think of anything more precise?

You might find this interesting. NIST.
"NIST scientists use lasers to cool the two ions which are held 4 thousandths of a millimeter apart in an electromagnetic trap. Aluminum is the larger of the two ions, while the beryllium emits light under the conditions of this experiment. Scientists hit the ions with pulses from a "clock laser" within a narrow frequency range. If the laser frequency is at the center of the frequency range, the precise "resonance frequency" of aluminum, this ion jumps to a higher energy level, or 1 in the binary language of computers. Otherwise, the ion remains in the lower energy state, or 0.

If there is no change in the aluminum ion, then another laser pulse causes both ions to begin rocking side to side in unison because of their physical proximity and the interaction of their electrical charges. An additional laser pulse converts this motion into a change in the internal energy level of the beryllium ion. This pulse reverses the direction of the ion's magnetic "spin," and the beryllium goes dark, a signal that the aluminum remained in the 0 state.

On the other hand, if the aluminum ion jumps to the higher energy level, then the additional laser pulses fail to stimulate a shared rocking motion and have no effect on the beryllium ion, which keeps emitting light. Scientists detect this light as a signal that the aluminum ion jumped from 0 to 1.

The goal is to tune the clock laser to the exact frequency that prompts the aluminum to jump from 0 to 1. The actual measurement of the ticking of the clock is provided not by the ions but rather by the clock laser's precisely tuned center frequency, which is measured with a "frequency comb," a tool for measuring very high optical frequencies, or colors of light."

I think you are not quite understanding what I mean. Forget matter. Forget us that is measuring this radiation. I am talking about when the universe first came into existence, there was only radiation fields. None of these radiation fields ticked away time.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #173 on: 07/04/2012 18:52:46 »
I do enjoy these little physics lessons I get from people time to time at this place.

If you want to continue receiving physics lessons at this place, you better omit the condescending comments.
 
MODERATOR
 

Post by Ęthelwulf click to view.

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #174 on: 07/04/2012 20:00:37 »
Shrunk
I do enjoy these little physics lessons I get from people time to time at this place.

If you want to continue receiving physics lessons at this place, you better omit the condescending comments.
 
MODERATOR

Then I am personally going to take time out from posting here. I don't mean to be condescending, I am just sick of rehashing statements I have made countless times now.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #174 on: 07/04/2012 20:00:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums