The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is time an illusion?  (Read 53981 times)

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #175 on: 08/04/2012 21:59:46 »
Thanks to everyone for all your replies. It has been most interesting to read  them.  Now that one member has started his own thread on this topic just for smart people as he says in his first post I guess contributions will thin out.I am sure many of you fit that description if we could agree on what 'smart' means. (Perhaps I should start a thread on that in the 'just chat' section.) It will be interesting to see if the quality and courtesy of the posts on the other site will change in any way. Anyway, wherever the discussion takes place or with whom it seems no one, not even the smartest, has  an explanation that encompasses all there is to say on the matter as explored to date, so that's encouraging, and surely the point of a forum to tap into what information/research/ theories etc. are being  explored by anyone sufficiently interested to engage in fruitful exchange. Jolly jolly good everyone!;)

Be as smart as you can, but remember that it is always better to be wise than to be smart.
Alan Alda

Be smart, but never show it.
Louis B. Mayer

« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 00:48:25 by annie123 »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #176 on: 09/04/2012 07:43:24 »
Well, we'll see, as time goes by :)
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #177 on: 09/04/2012 08:03:44 »
yor_on

Nice one.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #178 on: 09/04/2012 09:51:36 »
Radiation is energy, measurable. As soon you get that you need a arrow, if we assume a propagation. Without assuming a propagation you have indeterminacy, but if assuming 'constant emanations' of radiation at some spatially defined 'place' there must be some aspect of a 'arrow' to make it definable.

Otherwise I would agree, if I assume radiation without propagation.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #179 on: 10/04/2012 07:51:22 »
Radiation is energy, measurable. As soon you get that you need a arrow, if we assume a propagation. Without assuming a propagation you have indeterminacy, but if assuming 'constant emanations' of radiation at some spatially defined 'place' there must be some aspect of a 'arrow' to make it definable.

Otherwise I would agree, if I assume radiation without propagation.


Or, propagating in both time directions simultaneously. (Which is not time)
You need mass to give that propagation a direction in time and a finite speed.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #180 on: 11/04/2012 00:33:01 »
Radiation is energy, measurable. As soon you get that you need a arrow, if we assume a propagation. Without assuming a propagation you have indeterminacy, but if assuming 'constant emanations' of radiation at some spatially defined 'place' there must be some aspect of a 'arrow' to make it definable.

Otherwise I would agree, if I assume radiation without propagation.




Yes... In which case ironically enough I was talking about a second ago, there is no preferred directionality of time, meaning time certainly could not have an arrow, but it doesn't defete the idea that perhaps information is shared in a ''handshake'' as Doctor Cramer puts it through what we might call time.

Or, propagating in both time directions simultaneously. (Which is not time)
You need mass to give that propagation a direction in time and a finite speed.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #181 on: 11/04/2012 00:37:22 »
Radiation is energy, measurable. As soon you get that you need a arrow, if we assume a propagation. Without assuming a propagation you have indeterminacy, but if assuming 'constant emanations' of radiation at some spatially defined 'place' there must be some aspect of a 'arrow' to make it definable.

Otherwise I would agree, if I assume radiation without propagation.

Only from slow matter can radiation move from one point to another. If you were a photon, you would not see anyone elses frame of reference.

Atleast accept that space and time arose from no space or time. And even the short moments in which space was about to arrange along with time needed to inlude real, slow moving (or atleast relativistically-speaking) matter.

Then GR cannot speak about time or matter when the universe appeared. In fact, any theory entertaining time as a real dimension and maybe even those who take space as fundamental, must be seriously missing the holy grail. Afterall, the universe appeared from no space and no time, atleast fundmentally.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #182 on: 12/04/2012 05:52:06 »
Ęthelwulf

Well we agree on something, I have always thought that before the Universe there was no space and no time.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #183 on: 12/04/2012 09:28:38 »
Ęthelwulf

Well we agree on something, I have always thought that before the Universe there was no space and no time.

Of course, using the word 'before' implies there was time...
 

Offline @/antic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #184 on: 12/04/2012 10:56:21 »
However, that might just be a function of human experience and 'common sense' and intuition, which should have no place in science?
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #185 on: 12/04/2012 12:04:46 »
JP

Yes that one keeps cropping up.  There was obviously something in which things happened but defining what it was requires time and the language of time, length and causality.  I think it is probably fair to say something happened in the void before the universe that led to the universe.  Although we are essentially only familiar with time flowing in one direction there is nothing to say that time cannot flow in both directions instantly simultaneously.  However, it then is not time, by our definition of time.  Once time came into existence and we can relate it to something that led up to it, I think it is fair to call it before, even if before was meaningless before time, before the beginning of the universe.  It is no longer meaningless from the perspective of time.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #186 on: 12/04/2012 18:58:10 »
Ęthelwulf

Well we agree on something, I have always thought that before the Universe there was no space and no time.

Of course, using the word 'before' implies there was time...
Time and energy are reasons of movements.You use the same word "time" for definition of sequence of events.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #187 on: 12/04/2012 19:10:23 »

You use the same word "time" for definition of sequence of events.


Sorry - that won't work either. You can't have a "sequence" without time, so you are using time to define time.
 
Nice try though.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #188 on: 12/04/2012 19:44:53 »

You use the same word "time" for definition of sequence of events.


 so you are using time to define time.
 
People are using the one word to two different  values.I'll try to make math of time in New Theories.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2012 20:09:39 by simplified »
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #189 on: 14/04/2012 05:47:53 »

You use the same word "time" for definition of sequence of events.


 so you are using time to define time.
 
People are using the one word to two different  values.I'll try to make math of time in New Theories.

Let me lead you on a hypothetical way to approach this ''math'' you will conjecture: none of it however I take seriously.

If I was to entertain some ''arrow'' of time, you'd think of time as being linear. Even though time is not linear, you'd also model the past as being something real, which it's not. But hey ho, I am here to entertain the idea for a bit.

a45db14d1d73019cd499a3941106a16b.gif

This would mean the past + a time delay, equals the present moment, if 76a9c0f8e913d97ec097e88ed8232da5.gif was the past, f623e75af30e62bbd73d6df5b50bb7b5.gif was a time delay and 69ac49315fb75559bc7125a373ed5735.gif was the present time. This seems pretty much correct for a linear view of time and for a sentient being. Afterall, our present moment is in fact information with a time delay: information our brain processes from one point to another is in fact information collected of a situation which lay in our pasts, and the time delay is what it takes for that information to get processed in our own present time sphere. In a similar tune, you can rearrange this formula for the past.

2f4e073a3e0c347ed1b2ce3488d79c07.gif

By simply rearranging our formula here, we have the past equalling the present moment minus some time delay. Of course, this time delay might be large or small, but for the comparrison of sentient beings, we may consider it as a small time delay. The future then would be:

4d6602b81f009d04ba6aed6b5df6eab7.gif

If 990bbd241420ec38a3a9ce341c2838e9.gif was our future, then it is made by calculating the present moment including some time delay. To make a distinction of a time delay made in the past to the future however, we perhaps should denote cab7d7549d0ec66ac82d45af5cd9135c.gif for two unique systems.

But time is not linear, time cannot be described in this way, nor does it make sense taking about the ''now'' in terms of things which might have passed and things yet too.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #190 on: 15/04/2012 13:44:56 »

You use the same word "time" for definition of sequence of events.


 so you are using time to define time.
 
People are using the one word to two different  values.I'll try to make math of time in New Theories.

Let me lead you on a hypothetical way to approach this ''math'' you will conjecture: none of it however I take seriously.

Don't forget that your math is not my math. :P
 

Offline wwwwwhizz

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #191 on: 15/04/2012 22:00:05 »
We can all believe what we we choose. The truth will always be the truth. One cannot change something that is already right, only modify it to further extent such as with detail. People need to think outside of the box. If one doesn't think outside of the box and stays within human boundaries, it can be relatively easy for each and every one of us to see that time exists. The human mind can function much easier this way and the dynamics of life itself are much easier understood if 'time' co-insides with space. Human kind has a sense of time to basically make sense of our lives, from our past experiences as evolution took its place to our future as we continue to change and plan our actions to improve as one. In my sense of the truth, time is non-existent to the universe itself as the way most people know it. Time does exist and time has a different definition within humankind. With all respect to others beliefs, I would like to give you an example of this theory. The big bang is the most famous theory of how the universe began and the big bang theory is the most widely excepted theory in science. Everything started with that 'bang'. Think of it as a match. The chemicals needed to create a fire are available as you flick the match to ignite. After it is ignited, it will not stay lit if the energy runs out. We are one with the universe. So, it would make sense to see that the universe had all of the right chemicals to create that reaction and expand as we know it today. It will also one day, run out of the main sources of energy it is made out of today and due to that, it will turn to some other form. The universe will never end as you know energy cannot be destroyed and never can run out, it can only be converted into a different form. In assumption, the universe was always here and it cannot end. What can happen is it will be converted into something else once these certain chemicals align in perfect harmony, just as we know it today. This is how we ended up being in existence. Think of it as cracking a combination lock. Once it is cracked, uric a! It is opened. The energies happened to be at the right place at the right 'time' to simply put it. This means that time is space and space is time. Space is infinite and so is time. There are different ways to use space and time, basically like converting energy. So humankind is just like the universe and this match. We are lit to existence and once our energy runs out we die, being converted into simple dust, becoming part of the earth and the universe. We are just in this form of energy now, known as life. We also were really never born and never will die if you think about it. We are just converted along with everything else, everywhere, infinitely. It's very interesting. Good question.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #192 on: 16/04/2012 18:24:53 »
I predict most of us will move away from this discussion. I can see people agreeing with timelessness and those who still see change synonymous with time.

Those who stand in the camp of timelessness know who they are, equally for those who don't, despite how flawed we may think the former or latter is.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #193 on: 16/04/2012 18:26:41 »
I predict most of us will move away from this discussion. I can see people agreeing with timelessness and those who still see change synonymous with time.

Those who stand in the camp of timelessness know who they are, equally for those who don't, despite how flawed we may think the former or latter is.

I will leave one last food for thought. Time if it is a dimension, still is not responsible for movement or moving bodies more precisely. In physics, we know that the kinetic energy of bodies are responsible for moving bodies, not time. Time if it exists, is a degree of freedom, not the reason why things move.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #194 on: 17/04/2012 06:11:04 »
I predict most of us will move away from this discussion. I can see people agreeing with timelessness and those who still see change synonymous with time.

Those who stand in the camp of timelessness know who they are, equally for those who don't, despite how flawed we may think the former or latter is.

I will leave one last food for thought. Time if it is a dimension, still is not responsible for movement or moving bodies more precisely. In physics, we know that the kinetic energy of bodies are responsible for moving bodies, not time. Time if it exists, is a degree of freedom, not the reason why things move.

I don't think anyone ever said it was.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #195 on: 17/04/2012 06:15:44 »
I predict most of us will move away from this discussion. I can see people agreeing with timelessness and those who still see change synonymous with time.

Those who stand in the camp of timelessness know who they are, equally for those who don't, despite how flawed we may think the former or latter is.

I will leave one last food for thought. Time if it is a dimension, still is not responsible for movement or moving bodies more precisely. In physics, we know that the kinetic energy of bodies are responsible for moving bodies, not time. Time if it exists, is a degree of freedom, not the reason why things move.

I don't think anyone ever said it was.

Yes they have. Someone recently said it and it has stuck in my mind. I believe they said ''energy and time is the reason for movement''.

Then someone before this said plainly that time was responsible for movement. Atleast two people have made this statement. I even received a warning for replying to one of them, supposedly, ''in a condescending manner.'' So I remember this well.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #196 on: 22/04/2012 05:06:54 »
I predict most of us will move away from this discussion. I can see people agreeing with timelessness and those who still see change synonymous with time.

Those who stand in the camp of timelessness know who they are, equally for those who don't, despite how flawed we may think the former or latter is.

I will leave one last food for thought. Time if it is a dimension, still is not responsible for movement or moving bodies more precisely. In physics, we know that the kinetic energy of bodies are responsible for moving bodies, not time. Time if it exists, is a degree of freedom, not the reason why things move.

I don't think anyone ever said it was.
I did. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43852.0
 

Offline Mad Mark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #197 on: 22/04/2012 23:45:14 »
Is time an illusion?
Maybe ,maybe not. Either way i'm going to need time to think about that!
 

Offline Aksgenius1997

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #198 on: 14/12/2012 11:58:35 »
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.

You don't get it, do you?
Let me explain.
The formula for kinetic energy is = mv2/2
i.e. Mass/*Velocity square divided by 2
Velocity = Displacement/time
So, Kinetic Energy is related to time. This kinetic Energy Exists in space because of time. As We are the 3rd dimension We don't understand the further dimensions (as an object is any dimension can't understand (or see) the further dimensions.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1827
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #199 on: 24/12/2012 23:31:21 »
I'm still with St Augustine!  :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #199 on: 24/12/2012 23:31:21 »

 

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