Is time an illusion?

  • 216 Replies
  • 55060 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
Is time an illusion?
« on: 11/02/2012 20:12:59 »
I would like to know what orthodox physicists think of Julian Barbour's radical ideas about time.  This also relates to he quantum mechanics theories that i also have a post about.
"Barbour argues that we live in a universe which has neither past nor future. A strange new world in which we are alive and dead in the same instant. In this eternal present, our sense of the passage of time is nothing more than a giant cosmic illusion." Discover Mag.
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2012 20:29:05 by annie123 »

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #1 on: 12/02/2012 16:29:33 »
As an ordained priest in the church of orthodox physics, my answer would be,

"Who's Julian Barbour?"

(In other words, his ideas haven't made much of an impact on physics.)

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #2 on: 12/02/2012 17:06:29 »
I think half the quote is missing
"time is an illusion: lunchtime doubly so"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Chapter_2
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #3 on: 12/02/2012 22:20:51 »
'Time' itself can't be illusion. What I see the debate to be about is what we should relate the 'arrow of time' to. And there thermo dynamics and entropy are two strong runners. Think of it Annie :) when that second hand moves, why does it do so?
« Last Edit: 12/02/2012 22:44:02 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #4 on: 12/02/2012 22:23:10 »
Presumably annie123 is talking about the book  "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour 

Julian Barbour  is a respected cosmologist and philosopher.  I have had the book for some years and read it a couple of times  His book includes a good general introduction.

It takes an interesting approach to making sense of the quantum approach to physics where the universe effectively "samples" all possible states on the way to settling down for an "observation" which is the sort of thing that we see or another particle interacts with.

This fits with the equations that describe the events which are in effect infinite integrals over all space and time.

The full reality is that both space and time are emergent properties of our universe which is fundamentally built out of energy and momentum but this is so unfamiliar that most people have great difficulty in coming to terms with it.

As always with these books the ideas when put into an extreme situation seem weird but have absolutely no effect on our own perceptions of "reality"  describing something in terms of mathematics which works and produces very accurate predictions does not change the universe from what it IS in any way.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #5 on: 13/02/2012 02:36:15 »
It's probably not legit to talk about time as a discrete thingy. It's certainly not in any way absolute. It's really just a property of space-time.

I make this all quite clear in my book.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ęther.

*

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #6 on: 18/02/2012 23:16:17 »
SOul Surfer, you could tell JP a thing or two.  But how do you know what the universe IS? I'd like to know.  Unless it is just a name given to what we have learned so far about it. But how do we know that's all there is to know? After all, we only 'know' very little given all the theories about dark matter/energy etc.
To JP, Discover Magazine has a very long article about Julian Barbour this month. And yes, The End of Time is one of his books.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #7 on: 22/02/2012 15:06:08 »
Annie to find out what the universe IS you need to search back to find what are the most fundamental physical laws.  We are aware that space can be bent to create gravity and time can be different for different observers.  So it follows that although these are pretty stable under the conditions of normal life they may not be totally fundamental.

A very deep mathematical relationship exists between symmetries in nature and conservation laws. This is called Noether's theorem (look it up in wikipedia for more indformation). This is that all important symmetries have an associated conservation law.  Now for an understandable universe the physical laws should not change arbitrarily according to where you are how you move about and in what direction you are looking

These simple "symmetry" requirements lead to the most fundamental conservation laws in our (or probably any) universe these are the conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum respectively.  It therefore follows that our universe is built from energy and momentum continually interacting with each other and locked together to create the more familiar aspects of space, time and matter.
« Last Edit: 22/02/2012 15:07:51 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Durgesh Dubhashi

  • First timers
  • *
  • 4
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #8 on: 28/02/2012 13:36:03 »
Two Different Ways of Seeing Things.. Time is a dimension created by Man to Ans the Question When? As for Barbour's Illusion, its an example of Elephant and Ant. The time period of an Ant would be Big enough for itself but to an Elephant it is nothing.. Similarly when we compare Universe's life to that of our, time is an illusion.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #9 on: 28/02/2012 23:18:13 »
There is a arrow of time. You are born and you die. Split your lifespan into even chunks and you get the 'clock'. That arrow does not point from your demise to your birth, it has one way for you only. And the same goes for all objects you ever will meet. So the 'arrow' exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #10 on: 29/02/2012 07:44:06 »
I haven't read the book but time is no illusion.  The term 'Time' is something not invented but named by man.  We exist in the present and the past and future are concepts that we can only remember or visualise but cannot visit.  The arrow of time is very real.  Gravity is an expression of entropy and entropy is the main arrow of time.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #11 on: 03/03/2012 22:24:40 »
Mike   Julian Barbour is not suggesting that time is in any way an illusion.  It is very real and important from our point of view.  However from the point of view of the mathematics of quantum mechanics our universe is continually visiting every state that can possibly exist and moving between the ones that have the best probability based on all the states that have occurred. making time an emergent property of the energy and momentum states possible in the universe.  I would extend this and say space is also an emergent property as well but I am not sure if anyone has gone that far.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #12 on: 04/03/2012 07:10:28 »
Mike   Julian Barbour is not suggesting that time is in any way an illusion.  It is very real and important from our point of view.  However from the point of view of the mathematics of quantum mechanics our universe is continually visiting every state that can possibly exist and moving between the ones that have the best probability based on all the states that have occurred. making time an emergent property of the energy and momentum states possible in the universe.  I would extend this and say space is also an emergent property as well but I am not sure if anyone has gone that far.


I would agree with that.  I believe that the size of the universe (the space it contains is mostly down to the amount of free energy [radiation] that it contains.)  If for example the Universe were to be consumed by a black hole then as mass and energy were consumed so space would shrink.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #13 on: 04/03/2012 18:17:04 »
'Emergences' is a nice concept SoulSurfer, reminding me of 'fields'. A sort of natural symmetry to those two.

Emergences, fields, excitations and all possible from there being an arrow to experience it in. So what came first :)

I say the arrow.
=

No arrow, nothing to discuss.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #14 on: 08/03/2012 22:40:10 »
Annie knowing a little of the mind of Neilep level members I think he (she or it ) was cracking a joke  :)  Baa

« Last Edit: 08/03/2012 22:45:36 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #15 on: 08/03/2012 23:44:45 »
Blimey! I've been rumbled. (Queue feet running towards exit.)
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ęther.

*

Offline Livewire

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 10
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #16 on: 09/03/2012 00:01:37 »
time is a man made invention the universe moves forward with out it. It will move even after your body can no longer sustain life as for no future its our present actions that determine future events.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #17 on: 09/03/2012 16:28:43 »
I agree that, in spite of the title, "The End of Time", JB is not throwing time out of the window.

   He believes that you can question the reality of time, without throwing out general relativity.  He expresses his belief in relativity, and says:  “I am not claiming that the description of space-time given by Einstein and Minkowski is wrong.  Far from it – they got it right ….”  However, he adds a proviso:  “…. but they described the finished product, and the complete story must also include the construction of the product.”

I think it would be difficult to accept GR without according some significance to time.

As far as the arrow of time is concerned, we have to distinguish between the idea of an arrow that flies through the air, and one that is painted on a sign to point the way.  Obviously this brings in the arguments about tensed and untensed time, but without that distinction discussions tend to go round in circles.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #18 on: 11/03/2012 01:51:51 »
Now I'm feeling stupid Bill.

What is 'tensed and untensed time,'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #19 on: 11/03/2012 04:24:48 »

Obviously this brings in the arguments about tensed and untensed time, but without that distinction discussions tend to go round in circles.


Should we then be referring to the boomerang of time, rather than the arrow?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ęther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #20 on: 12/03/2012 20:15:18 »
Is it this you were referring to Bill?

"Consider this one issue upon which philosophers are deeply divided: What sort of ontological differences are there among the present, past and future? There are three competing theories. Presentists argue that necessarily only present objects and present experiences are real, and we conscious beings recognize this in the special “vividness” of our present experience. The dinosaurs have slipped out of reality. However, according to the growing-universe or growing-block theory, the past and present are both real, but the future is not real because the future is indeterminate or merely potential. Dinosaurs are real, but our death is not. The third and more popular theory is that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future because the differences are merely subjective. This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism.”

That controversy raises the issue of tenseless versus tensed theories of time. The block universe theory implies a tenseless theory. The earliest version of this theory implied that tensed terminology can be replaced adequately with tenseless terminology. For example, the future-tensed sentence, “The Lakers will win the basketball game” might be analyzed as, “The Lakers do win at time t, and time t happens after the time of this utterance.” Notice that the future tense has been removed, and the new verb phrases “do win” and “happens after” are tenseless logically, although they are grammatically in the present tense. (Similarly, the present-tense verb “is” in “seven plus five is twelve” isn’t only about the present.) Advocates of a tensed theory object and say that tenseless terminology is not semantically basic but should be analyzed in tensed terms, and that tensed facts are needed to make tensed statements be true. For example, a tensed theory might imply that no adequate account of the present tensed fact that it is now midnight can be given without irreducible tensed properties such as presentness or now-ness. So, the philosophical debate is over whether tensed concepts have semantical priority over untensed concepts, and whether tensed facts have ontological priority over untensed facts." By Bradley Dowden in "Time" (IEP)
« Last Edit: 12/03/2012 20:19:35 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #21 on: 12/03/2012 20:58:44 »
Well I read it but that was (tensed) a waste of time.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #22 on: 13/03/2012 10:49:32 »
This deals with linguistic expressions of things unfortunately science is (or should be) independent of the language in which we express it.  The best language for this is probably mathematics
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #23 on: 13/03/2012 19:16:29 »
I would like to know what orthodox physicists think of Julian Barbour's radical ideas about time.  This also relates to he quantum mechanics theories that i also have a post about.
"Barbour argues that we live in a universe which has neither past nor future. A strange new world in which we are alive and dead in the same instant. In this eternal present, our sense of the passage of time is nothing more than a giant cosmic illusion." Discover Mag.
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?

Julian Barbour is absolutely correct. I have most appreciated his understanding of time over the last two years has it has been formulated http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Barbour_The_Nature_of_Time.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9 into Markoupoulou's title of the Problem of Time on the FQXI team and forum http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf , that space can be understood in a unique way in a model called Geometrogenesis: The intricate understanding that space is a low energy phenomenon - so it happens late in the universes history, and geometry according to Einstein's field equations, is directly linked to the curvature (the geometry) of space and time.

Timelessness may exist, according to Barbour. In Fotini Markoupoulou's interpretation, we can keep time by removing space. Her model is revolutionary but faulty - time will not exist either, for using her same methodologies, time would have no appearance at the big bang. Geometry is not concerned with high energy phenomena, atleast in the fundamental sense - geometry appears late in the universes history as an indication itself that not only the normal spatial geometry comes into question when you unify physics into absurdly small places, but you also get a problem in time as well since geometry according to the ''Minkowski'' view of space, was to be coupled to a fourth dimension of space.

But space at big bang did not exist, since there was no space since big bang happened at an infinitessimal point. So how can current theory tackle the prevailing truth?
« Last Edit: 13/03/2012 19:19:00 by Ęthelwulf »

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #24 on: 13/03/2012 21:51:27 »
I should state that Julian neither places bold assertions on wehether a universe contains a past or future. To understand these things, one must first understand the wheeler de-witt equation then come to terms that worldlines are indeed static.


As I said, he was right.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #25 on: 14/03/2012 04:17:19 »
"and geometry according to Einstein's field equations, is directly linked to the curvature (the geometry) of space and time."

Yep, it's called SpaceTime for a reason :)

As for Julian Barbour I tried to read him some year or so ago, but found it to intricate for my taste. I prefer simpler explanations :) as most of us , or maybe it's me  getting senile :)

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #26 on: 19/03/2012 21:10:59 »
As an ordained priest in the church of orthodox physics, my answer would be,

"Who's Julian Barbour?"

(In other words, his ideas haven't made much of an impact on physics.)

Well, the subject he tackles is actually well known. It is called timelessness in GR and is born from the WDW equation. His approach was brilliant in removing time and only dealing with real observables.

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #27 on: 20/03/2012 07:13:07 »
Quote Julian Barbour.
"I believe that a theory of the universe should explain why entropy increases."

Simple, Entropy increases because that is the preferred 'ground state' of the Universe.
The ground state being the most stable configuration possible.

Entropy is therefore the main arrow of time.  All other arrows of time are essentially entropic in nature.

Change involves an increase in entropy and involves causality.  We call this time.

Quote Julian Barbour.
 "but the equations of physics are symmetric with respect to the direction of time? The equations of physics allow not only the shattering of a cup that is dropped on the floor but also the re-assembly of the pieces. However, that is never observed."

Hypothetically, an antimatter universe could exist in which the arrow of time is reversed in comparison to our universe.  Time would still flow forward as observed by beings in that universe.  This would allow time to be symmetric but still without re-assembly of the pieces. (Unless viewed by us)

Quote Julian Barbour.
"If we could stand outside the universe and ‘see it as it is’, it would appear to be static."

Assuming we viewed it from a similar and equivalent time frame why would it appear to be static.  If you could manipulate your own time frame then you could appear to make it seem static but what would be the point?

Quotes are from
http://platonia.com/books.html
« Last Edit: 20/03/2012 08:03:37 by MikeS »

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #28 on: 20/03/2012 07:31:41 »
What is a ground state though? (Rhetorical question). How do we know the universe did not appear in some excited state? It did afterall appear in one superdense past which is a high energy phenomenon.


*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #29 on: 20/03/2012 07:33:32 »
Plus. I think if you qoute doctor Barbour, you should give a reference so we can measure up exactly why he asked this question. Is it from his paper on time?

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #30 on: 20/03/2012 07:47:55 »
Have modified above message to give source of quotes.

"The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

Regardless of the universes starting conditions this is where it is heading.
It can do this in either one or the other of two ways.
The universe could expand until energy has completely dissipated.
or
The universe could contract into a black hole.  Either way entropy is satisfied.

The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe but talking about a starting point prior to the starting point is really meaningless.  If you follow...
« Last Edit: 20/03/2012 07:58:33 by MikeS »

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #31 on: 20/03/2012 08:05:39 »
Quote Julian Barbour.
"I believe that a theory of the universe should explain why entropy increases."

Simple, Entropy increases because that is the preferred 'ground state' of the Universe.
The ground state being the most stable configuration possible.

Entropy is therefore the main arrow of time.  All other arrows of time are essentially entropic in nature.

Change involves an increase in entropy and involves causality.  We call this time.

Quote Julian Barbour.
 "but the equations of physics are symmetric with respect to the direction of time? The equations of physics allow not only the shattering of a cup that is dropped on the floor but also the re-assembly of the pieces. However, that is never observed."

Hypothetically, an antimatter universe could exist in which the arrow of time is reversed in comparison to our universe.  Time would still flow forward as observed by beings in that universe.  This would allow time to be symmetric but still without re-assembly of the pieces.

Quote Julian Barbour.
"If we could stand outside the universe and ‘see it as it is’, it would appear to be static."

Assuming we viewed it from a similar and equivalent time frame why would it appear to be static.  If you could manipulate your own time frame then you could appear to make it seem static but what would be the point?

Quote are from
http://platonia.com/books.html

''Hypothetically, an antimatter universe could exist in which the arrow of time is reversed in comparison to our universe.  Time would still flow forward as observed by beings in that universe.  This would allow time to be symmetric but still without re-assembly of the pieces.''

This isn't really Julians point. His point is that motion is a symmetry of the theory. True time evolution does not exist in GR. The past and future are only artefacts of a theory we have developed, if you like it has some kind of psychological arrow which implies a directionality to time, a past then a future state. But in GR wordlines are static. There is no past or future. There is, only the present.

This is also true with our direct experience of the world. We may ''feel'' like a time has past, but we don't actually experience a past, nor do we ever experience a future.

''Assuming we viewed it from a similar and equivalent time frame why would it appear to be static.  If you could manipulate your own time frame then you could appear to make it seem static but what would be the point?''

 It has something to do with weak measurements. It would be like an atom. An atom ripe to radiate energy can be suspended in time by making a series of observations on the system - this is called the Zeno Effect.



By the way, when I said:

''What is a ground state though? (Rhetorical question). ''

I never intended you link a ground state. I am well aware of what a ground state is. I am saying your assumption that ground state systems alone answers for the origin of entropy does not add up.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #32 on: 20/03/2012 08:06:44 »
''The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe ''

I disgree. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing.

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #33 on: 20/03/2012 08:13:55 »
I am saying your assumption that ground state systems alone answers for the origin of entropy does not add up.

Why?

''The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe ''

I disgree. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing.

Try taking it in context.
What I said was.
The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe but talking about a starting point prior to the starting point is really meaningless.  If you follow...

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #34 on: 20/03/2012 08:25:17 »
You ask why saying something in a ground state answers for entropy is not enough?

Call it a matter of conjecture. Your point is a conjecture. It isn't theory. It doesn't answer for instance, why entropy would be driven by a ground state, in let's say something preferential to an excited state.

Entropy, is in a loose way of speaking, a measure of change. You will find change most prominently in an excited state atom, ready to give up energy. That is a form of entropy as well.

''The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe...''

You seem to be having a mental block - there was no ''prior state'' to the big bang. Ground, excited, give or take a little space, time nothing, nada, the big goose egg. If anything, there might have been a potential for a universe to come into existence (Such as a Hartle-Hawking Universe), but I've never fully understood that concept as it makes little sense when you are dealing with a non-system.

''but talking about a starting point prior to the starting point is really meaningless.''

Right.

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #35 on: 20/03/2012 08:25:30 »
''The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe ''

I disgree. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing.

In some sense that is debatable.  If there was nothing then where did the universe come from?  It is certainly true to say before the big bang there was no universe and that includes such concepts as time, distance and thought.  Assuming the big bang to be correct of course.

I guess it depends on what you mean by nothing.

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #36 on: 20/03/2012 08:29:39 »
The ground state must have been the starting point prior to the start of the universe but talking about a starting point prior to the starting point is really meaningless.  If you follow...

It was a kind of 'tongue in cheek joke'.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #37 on: 20/03/2012 08:33:03 »
Assuming the big bang is correct, which I don't think it is, but that is neither here nor there, then there was nothing we can attribute to as the four fundamental ingredients, such as space, time, energy or matter. Nothing exists outside the universe either, according to relativity, so we must assume that if the universe was not around, there could have been nothing before it.

There maybe reasons why the beginning is such. There is a theory right now which scientists are eager over called the Transactional Interpretation which can put a new spin on the beginning of things. Essentially, we could adopt the idea that the future cone of the universe is shaping up the past - the beginning is being formed by actions in our future horizon. So the future creates the past. There is actually experimental varification of this.

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #38 on: 20/03/2012 09:10:52 »
You ask why saying something in a ground state answers for entropy is not enough?

Call it a matter of conjecture. Your point is a conjecture. It isn't theory. It doesn't answer for instance, why entropy would be driven by a ground state, in let's say something preferential to an excited state.


It is self evident that the Universe is driven by energy.  As energy 'does work' so the entropy of the Universe increases.  Ultimately the Universe will run out of energy and entropy will be at a maximum.  This will be as close to the ground state as possible.

No it's not theory, neither is it conjecture.  It is fact.

*

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 964
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #39 on: 20/03/2012 09:49:16 »
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?

This is like saying "There is no distance, only centimetres" or "There is no volume, only litres"....
Time is a physical property, like distance and volume. Change is one of the ways to measure it..
So he's contradicting himself in one short sentence. Not an easy feat. ;)
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #40 on: 20/03/2012 09:54:35 »
You ask why saying something in a ground state answers for entropy is not enough?

Call it a matter of conjecture. Your point is a conjecture. It isn't theory. It doesn't answer for instance, why entropy would be driven by a ground state, in let's say something preferential to an excited state.


It is self evident that the Universe is driven by energy.  As energy 'does work' so the entropy of the Universe increases.  Ultimately the Universe will run out of energy and entropy will be at a maximum.  This will be as close to the ground state as possible.

No it's not theory, neither is it conjecture.  It is fact.

Saying entropy is caused by a Ground State is about as enlightening as an unplugged Christmas Tree. As I have explained, it doesn't answer it at all. It answer it as much as an excited state would. It's pointless, meaningless speculation.

I was being kind when I said conjecture. All you are stating is a speculation, with no reason other than you thinking it sounding good.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #41 on: 20/03/2012 09:55:20 »
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?

This is like saying "There is no distance, only centimetres" or "There is no volume, only litres"....
Time is a physical property, like distance and volume. Change is one of the ways to measure it..
So he's contradicting himself in one short sentence. Not an easy feat. ;)

Time is not physical. How can it be physical?

Physical things purport to Observables. Time is NOT an Observable.

*

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 964
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #42 on: 20/03/2012 10:07:32 »
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?

This is like saying "There is no distance, only centimetres" or "There is no volume, only litres"....
Time is a physical property, like distance and volume. Change is one of the ways to measure it..
So he's contradicting himself in one short sentence. Not an easy feat. ;)

Time is not physical. How can it be physical?

Physical things purport to Observables. Time is NOT an Observable.

So for you, wind is not physical either? Cause you can't see wind?

EDIT: I meant "Time is a physical quantity" not "property". It's a language thing, I'm not a native english speaker..
« Last Edit: 20/03/2012 10:11:40 by Nizzle »
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #43 on: 20/03/2012 11:17:40 »
You ask why saying something in a ground state answers for entropy is not enough?

Call it a matter of conjecture. Your point is a conjecture. It isn't theory. It doesn't answer for instance, why entropy would be driven by a ground state, in let's say something preferential to an excited state.


It is self evident that the Universe is driven by energy.  As energy 'does work' so the entropy of the Universe increases.  Ultimately the Universe will run out of energy and entropy will be at a maximum.  This will be as close to the ground state as possible.

No it's not theory, neither is it conjecture.  It is fact.

Saying entropy is caused by a Ground State is about as enlightening as an unplugged Christmas Tree.

I never actually said that.
The ground state is reached when entropy is at a maximum.

Sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #44 on: 20/03/2012 20:09:20 »
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?

This is like saying "There is no distance, only centimetres" or "There is no volume, only litres"....
Time is a physical property, like distance and volume. Change is one of the ways to measure it..
So he's contradicting himself in one short sentence. Not an easy feat. ;)

Time is not physical. How can it be physical?

Physical things purport to Observables. Time is NOT an Observable.

So for you, wind is not physical either? Cause you can't see wind?

EDIT: I meant "Time is a physical quantity" not "property". It's a language thing, I'm not a native english speaker..

Wind is made of molecules, atoms. Charged particles.

What is time made of, but the ethereal experience of it?

Seriously dude, go learn some physics before you make statements you can't support. Time should not be physical. Just because it is part of an understanding Minkowski made years and years ago that by treating it as a dimension has left physics following a wrong path - a deluded idea that perhaps time is also physical, that it is part of the manifold we call space. Sure, calculationally-wise, time is very useful when thought of as a dimension. Other than that, it has no physical appearance. Time is not an observable. It is not tangible.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #45 on: 20/03/2012 20:11:37 »
You ask why saying something in a ground state answers for entropy is not enough?

Call it a matter of conjecture. Your point is a conjecture. It isn't theory. It doesn't answer for instance, why entropy would be driven by a ground state, in let's say something preferential to an excited state.


It is self evident that the Universe is driven by energy.  As energy 'does work' so the entropy of the Universe increases.  Ultimately the Universe will run out of energy and entropy will be at a maximum.  This will be as close to the ground state as possible.

No it's not theory, neither is it conjecture.  It is fact.

Saying entropy is caused by a Ground State is about as enlightening as an unplugged Christmas Tree.

I never actually said that.
The ground state is reached when entropy is at a maximum.

Sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.

What's that supposed to mean anyway, ''when entropy is at a maximum'', I don't get it. Either a system is changing or not.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #46 on: 20/03/2012 20:13:02 »
The biggest fall I seem to be seeing right now, is people making

Time = Change

Time does not necesserily mean change at all. In fact, if anyone can follow the math of Julian Barbour, he shows you can deal with real observable things and omit time from the equations. Change can happen with real observables, the way physics should be.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #47 on: 20/03/2012 23:51:23 »
You ask why saying something in a ground state answers for entropy is not enough?

Call it a matter of conjecture. Your point is a conjecture. It isn't theory. It doesn't answer for instance, why entropy would be driven by a ground state, in let's say something preferential to an excited state.


It is self evident that the Universe is driven by energy.  As energy 'does work' so the entropy of the Universe increases.  Ultimately the Universe will run out of energy and entropy will be at a maximum.  This will be as close to the ground state as possible.

No it's not theory, neither is it conjecture.  It is fact.

Saying entropy is caused by a Ground State is about as enlightening as an unplugged Christmas Tree.

I never actually said that.
The ground state is reached when entropy is at a maximum.

Sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.

Reading this back, my brain has boggled in what you have meant... until now. You aren't perhaps talking about the relationship between the least action principle and the principle of maximum entropy... Well, since a least action is one which uses the least amount of energy (Ground State) I suppose this is what you are talking about.

In which case I have little add. I don't know this relationship well.

*

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #48 on: 21/03/2012 05:35:57 »
Quote from: Ęthelwulf link=topic=43056.msg383435#msg383435
clip
Time [i
"has no physical appearance. Time is not an observable. It is not tangible."[/i]

Two identical clocks, one on the Earths surface and one in orbit above the Earth will show a different passage of time.  Time passing faster for the clock in orbit.

That's observable and tangible enough for me.  You may not be able to see time directly but you can certainly see both the arrow and passage of time.

*

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 358
    • View Profile
Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #49 on: 21/03/2012 06:45:18 »
Quote from: Ęthelwulf link=topic=43056.msg383435#msg383435
clip
Time [i
"has no physical appearance. Time is not an observable. It is not tangible."[/i]

Two identical clocks, one on the Earths surface and one in orbit above the Earth will show a different passage of time.  Time passing faster for the clock in orbit.

That's observable and tangible enough for me.  You may not be able to see time directly but you can certainly see both the arrow and passage of time.

Time isn't an observable, and dilation is an effect.