# Is time an illusion?

• 216 Replies
• 54686 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12188
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #100 on: 31/03/2012 08:39:21 »
You see, what I'm trying to point out is that every measurement made needs a mechanism (a arrow) to make it in. And that is true even when measuring on something not 'changing'. So assuming a whole 'undifferentiated plastic 'SpaceTime a arrow becomes a concept that exist 'everywhere', even taking with it into the 'future' that, which 'locally' are perceived as not 'changing' at all.

But if we instead use a strictly 'local' definition, then that what measures has a arrow for sure, but what it measures, if not changing, doesn't necessarily need to have it. But there is the added complication that this 'frozen thing' you measure on still exist after the measurement, not disappearing as we are 'moving on' in times arrow.

But I think (?) that might be explained from a static point of view, in where 'time' is what makes local arrow(s). Time then possibly described in terms of some sort of 'static field', and very conceptually so.

Because if what we have is a 'static reality' in some conceptual way, then everything we observe to 'change', or for that sake not 'change at all' is a expression of something we don't describe correctly, as we lack the observations needed to see that 'reality'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #101 on: 31/03/2012 11:29:19 »
Time isn't a ''state'' which comes about from a measurement. Hence again, it is not an observable.

States don't come about by measurement. States are observed through measurement. States exist whether you measure them or not.

Time isn't a state, but time determines the state of everything.
Time can be money,if you can use it.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #102 on: 31/03/2012 11:31:22 »
Well, if we are taking about something which can be measured, then we are talking about Eigenstates here. It seems quite simple enough that time is not an observable - it is not something we can see directly.

Assuming time can be measured because we can ''measure durations'' to me, is like falling back on that illusion we call time and once again projecting it on the world we tend to measure just because we ''think it exists objectively.'' There is however, no real evidence for this. In fact, I have found in my own studies that time more or less does not even exist within the modern framework of relativity. Physics also reshaped the idea that somehow time has a flow; which it doesn't.

Time isn't a ''state'' which comes about from a measurement. Hence again, it is not an observable.

Perhaps you should take a look at what POVM entails before dismissing it out of hand?

It's basically reformulating the concept of measurement in QM in terms of operators that get you real-valued results.  The theory has showed (successfully) that the result of a measurement is not necessarily the result of applying a self-adjoint operator to your state.  Even in this theory, there are still no "time eigenstates," but that's beside the point--we know that we can measure arrival times and this theory explains how.

It's also been a lot of use in quantum information theory, and is a pretty active area of research.

I see Rovelli has done work on this operator.

Perhaps something interesting I can tell you, is that Rovelli is actually one of the biggest proponents for a timeless universe next to Julian Barbour. I read the paper, didn't understand all of it. What I did understand, I am still not convinced that time is a real observable.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• 3366
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #103 on: 31/03/2012 16:53:22 »
I don't think one can reasonably argue that we can't experimentally measure something that we call "time."  What proponents of a "timeless universe" seem to be arguing is that the thing we measure might not be an intrinsic property of the whole universe, but rather it has to do with how we interact with our neighborhood/the thing we're measuring.

That's perfectly reasonable, but it's also not sitting on rigorous scientific ground at the moment insofar as no one (that I know of) come up with a testable hypothesis based on the idea.  Until that happens it's interesting, but not really science.

But regardless of what future experiments demonstrate, the concept of time is certainly fruitful and leads to meaningful measurements in the types of experiments we're doing these days.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #104 on: 01/04/2012 02:22:20 »
What I don't find reasonable, is a paper which attends to manipulate mathematics to reconfigure dummy variables to make new observables. If POVM was the plaster, then relativity sure is the wound.

If you can prove to me Einstein's prediction's were in fact wrong, then you can prove in some sense that time is an observavble. But since our current theory does not hold, you will have to learn like I did.

Time is not real, yet this is real science.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2012 02:26:28 by Æthelwulf »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #105 on: 01/04/2012 02:48:39 »

Change is not synonymous with time. Changes can be decribed without a time evolution -

I see. So state changes happen without any time. So where does the infinite energy come from to effect these changes, or is energy an illusion too?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #106 on: 01/04/2012 02:56:28 »

Change is not synonymous with time. Changes can be decribed without a time evolution -

I see. So state changes happen without any time. So where does the infinite energy come from to effect these changes, or is energy an illusion too?

I can show mathematics which demonstrates that hypothesis.

In fact, this is called the null energy hypothesis. It does have a mathematical backing.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #107 on: 01/04/2012 02:57:40 »
I am never happy with infinities however. I don't believe they physically exist, not when a certain frame of existence or [time] is considered.

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #108 on: 01/04/2012 03:38:03 »
In fact, this is called the null energy hypothesis. It does have a mathematical backing.

If you remove time from physics you are going to have to deal with a lot of infinites. Of course, you might be able to construct a model that uses something else, but when you peel back the covers, it's going to be doing pretty much the same thing that time does.

Time is ill-defined at the quantum level, but as scale increases, something seems to rectify the jitter to produce a bias - analogous to a direct current - that causes time to flow in a particular direction.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #109 on: 01/04/2012 04:10:22 »
Well, I have dealt with infinities in my own studies... why, I have even studied infinities, or similarly, singularities which arise from specific energy conditions. The very fact we can make energy itself disappear from the equations, leads me to think this is a valid solution to remove energy infinities from equations, solving many singular problems.

Could you perhaps, for my sake, highlight how the suspected infinities in your example arises?
« Last Edit: 01/04/2012 04:14:07 by Æthelwulf »

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #110 on: 01/04/2012 04:17:05 »
I even try and think of other possible applications you could be eluding too... like the infinite self-energy of an electron.

Maybe for some interest, an electron only experiences infinite energy when we reduce particles to zero sizes... no dimensions, basically. Only non-zero electron dimensions actually experience finite energies.

But hey, I don't think this is what you are talking about. I'd still love to know what it is you are eluding too.

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #111 on: 01/04/2012 06:41:27 »
I was thinking of something far more prosaic.

You might have two states, A - sitting down, B - standing up. If you translate your mass between A and B without time, you have consumed more than all the available energy in this particular Universe, even though it may not be an infinite amount of energy.

I'm not saying that time isn't a very strange beast. It's certainly not what our perceptions might lead us to believe it is, but if we eliminate it from our vocabulary we better have some pretty good alternative models that work in its absence.

Mathematical models are only a description of reality. They do not define it.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12188
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #112 on: 01/04/2012 09:18:01 »
Doesn't mathematical physics approximate reality through renormalization?
Which is lifting in those 'statistically proven significant' values we can see/find to be true outside the math, instead of the infinities we otherwise would get mathematically?

And it works, just as 'weak measurements' seem to be working for making predictions of a future event.
Math huh

But Geezer seems perfectly correct to me. If ones math doesn't describe our observations and fail our experiments then it's no description of our reality, which, on the other hand, doesn't state that it can't have a validity, somewhere else.

« Last Edit: 01/04/2012 09:20:26 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #113 on: 01/04/2012 13:10:56 »
I was thinking of something far more prosaic.

You might have two states, A - sitting down, B - standing up. If you translate your mass between A and B without time, you have consumed more than all the available energy in this particular Universe, even though it may not be an infinite amount of energy.

Can you give me a working example?

There is one special connection between time and energy - known as Noethers Theorem - time is the conjugate of energy. Now, believe it or not, but timelessness might actually be the answer to solving many fundamental and cosmological problems. For instance, I have speculated that maybe if time does not exist, then you cannot measure an energy for a universe, because there is no way to make the correct translation in time, meaning the universe does not conserve energy.

What is good about this? Well, the universe is now receeding faster than light, and as Michio Kaku has pointed out, this could be an indication that the universe is using up energy much more faster. That is analogous to stating that the universe does not prefer to conserve energy and could answer for the recent rapid expansion. The mathematical approach would be my approach.

Just as an example of something good from timelessness.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #114 on: 01/04/2012 13:12:19 »
Doesn't mathematical physics approximate reality through renormalization?

Yeah, but many scientists are uncomfortable with renormalization - thinking it is a cop-out. In fact Dirac was one of the strongest proponents against renormalization. I also don't agree with it, I think infinities like that are indications of the theory breaking down.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12188
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #115 on: 02/04/2012 03:31:42 »
Well. if you remove time you also remove the dynamics of a universe, as it seems to me? It becomes easier to handle as you get one 'flat static slice of SpaceTime'. But you also get only one description. To me the idea behind relativity is lights speed in a vacuum, and as far as I'm concerned that must hold in both SR and GR, for those that split it.

That constant in a dynamic universe, defined by and through change, gives each observer different 'dynamic 3D slices' described through times arrow. To each observer that arrow is the same as I see it, and the proof for that is simple, you just need to superimpose them to see that all clocks have a same rate of change, using radiation. So everyones arrow must become a local definition which also must be true, as far as I can see.

That a Lorentz transformation always will give you your conceptual SpaceTime is easily explained through radiations constant, and is something of a misnomer to me as it to many seems as a proof of one whole united indivisible SpaceTime, same for all. To me that 'truth' is more subtle, what makes a Lorenz transformation possible is lights speed in a vacuum. And the only thing such a transformation state is the same as Einstein once went out from. That light is a constant.

To lift out 'the arrow' you, I don't know? A quantum computer comes to mind, or better still, indeterminacy. 'Virtual photons' do not fit such a concept though, as the idea behind it, to me, is something 'existing in time', at least as I think of it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #116 on: 02/04/2012 06:51:15 »

Can you give me a working example?

I imagine F=ma would be a good place to start (an oldie, but still a goodie).

A force exerted in time is a measure of energy. If a force could accelerate a mass (any mass) in zero time, it would consume a heck of a lot of energy.

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #117 on: 02/04/2012 06:55:02 »

Can you give me a working example?

I imagine F=ma would be a good place to start (an oldie, but still a goodie).

A force exerted in time is a measure of energy. If a force could accelerate a mass (any mass) in zero time, it would consume a heck of a lot of energy.

Maybe I am missing something, but I've never heard that. In fact, let's use F=ma.

I push a ball down a hill and use F=Ma to calculate the force. However, this equation is time-independant any way. Now assume it for a collection of particles F=Miai - there is still no energy problems.

Don't know. Maybe it is just me?

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #118 on: 02/04/2012 07:50:50 »

However, this equation is time-independant any way.

Acceleration (a) is the time derivative of velocity which is the time derivative of position. It is not just dependent on time; it is dependent on the square of time.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #119 on: 02/04/2012 08:29:19 »

However, this equation is time-independant any way.

Acceleration (a) is the time derivative of velocity which is the time derivative of position. It is not just dependent on time; it is dependent on the square of time.

Fair point, I wasn't thinking along those lines. I still don't understand the energy propostions however.

All I know is that we will have to develop a theory which treats our theories without time. A number of physicists are already doing this.

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #120 on: 02/04/2012 08:59:53 »

However, this equation is time-independant any way.

Acceleration (a) is the time derivative of velocity which is the time derivative of position. It is not just dependent on time; it is dependent on the square of time.

Fair point, I wasn't thinking along those lines. I still don't understand the energy propostions however.

All I know is that we will have to develop a theory which treats our theories without time. A number of physicists are already doing this.

But you must include energy. Energy is one of the few things that unite all the branches of Physics (I may be wrong, but I think String Theory is still based on energy.)

If you dispense with energy, you'll have to exclude any notion of it from all physics before you can exclude the idea of time. I'm not saying that is impossible, but I am saying you better have some very serious convictions if you are really prepared to do that.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #121 on: 02/04/2012 09:05:02 »
The energy may be nullified fundamentally. The arguement is, is that matter and geometry is not fundmental. Energy may also not be really fundamental, the reason why is because of the equation

$$E = Mc^2 + \frac{Gm^2}{2R}$$

When mass equals zero, energy is also zero and what you are left with is the metric. So when matter equals zero, this corresponds to the contention that matter does not fundmentally exist, what we end up with is energy going to zero as well. That is one solution.

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #122 on: 02/04/2012 09:27:10 »
The energy may be nullified fundamentally. The arguement is, is that matter and geometry is not fundmental. Energy may also not be really fundamental, the reason why is because of the equation

$$E = Mc^2 + \frac{Gm^2}{2R}$$

When mass equals zero, energy is also zero and what you are left with is the metric. So when matter equals zero, this corresponds to the contention that matter does not fundmentally exist, what we end up with is energy going to zero as well. That is one solution.

Of course it does, but then you are left with "if time does not exist, mass cannot exist".

Does mass not exist?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

#### steved1980

• First timers
• 8
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #123 on: 02/04/2012 11:15:03 »
Is it possible that time is not a measurable thing?  Maybe clocks were invented for practical purposes.  The projection of the future exist in our brains.  The memory of the past exist in our brains.  But the actual past and future never exist, right?  We are trying to theorize about something that doesn’t exist.   “Right now” exist and everything that “changes” in the now only changes based on our perception, the universe doesn’t know the difference between a glass and a shattered glass.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #124 on: 02/04/2012 11:19:14 »
The energy may be nullified fundamentally. The arguement is, is that matter and geometry is not fundmental. Energy may also not be really fundamental, the reason why is because of the equation

$$E = Mc^2 + \frac{Gm^2}{2R}$$

When mass equals zero, energy is also zero and what you are left with is the metric. So when matter equals zero, this corresponds to the contention that matter does not fundmentally exist, what we end up with is energy going to zero as well. That is one solution.

Of course it does, but then you are left with "if time does not exist, mass cannot exist".

Does mass not exist?

Well, this was a position Einstein held. In remarks to his famous E=Mc^2 equation, he often dictated that there was no such thing as mass, that everything was really just differential forms of energy.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #125 on: 02/04/2012 11:20:47 »
Is it possible that time is not a measurable thing?  Maybe clocks were invented for practical purposes.  The projection of the future exist in our brains.  The memory of the past exist in our brains.  But the actual past and future never exist, right?  We are trying to theorize about something that doesn’t exist.   “Right now” exist and everything that “changes” in the now only changes based on our perception, the universe doesn’t know the difference between a glass and a shattered glass.

Indeed it is possible and yes, clocks really are an invention, the kind atleast we attribute to clocks hanging on walls.

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• 1044
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #126 on: 02/04/2012 17:00:16 »
The energy may be nullified fundamentally. The arguement is, is that matter and geometry is not fundmental. Energy may also not be really fundamental, the reason why is because of the equation

$$E = Mc^2 + \frac{Gm^2}{2R}$$

When mass equals zero, energy is also zero and what you are left with is the metric. So when matter equals zero, this corresponds to the contention that matter does not fundmentally exist, what we end up with is energy going to zero as well. That is one solution.

Of course it does, but then you are left with "if time does not exist, mass cannot exist".

Does mass not exist?

Exactly but I would put it the other way around.  If mass does not exist, time cannot exist.

For time to exist it requires both mass (gravity) and energy.

The energy may be nullified fundamentally. The arguement is, is that matter and geometry is not fundmental. Energy may also not be really fundamental, the reason why is because of the equation

$$E = Mc^2 + \frac{Gm^2}{2R}$$

When mass equals zero, energy is also zero and what you are left with is the metric. So when matter equals zero, this corresponds to the contention that matter does not fundmentally exist, what we end up with is energy going to zero as well. That is one solution.

Of course it does, but then you are left with "if time does not exist, mass cannot exist".

Does mass not exist?

Well, this was a position Einstein held. In remarks to his famous E=Mc^2 equation, he often dictated that there was no such thing as mass, that everything was really just differential forms of energy.

That does not alter what I have said above.  Mass is a very concentrated form of energy.  So concentrated that it possesses measurable gravity and it is gravity that is important in both creating an en-tropic arrow of time and rate of passage.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2012 17:03:21 by MikeS »

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #127 on: 02/04/2012 17:52:33 »
Yes it would, are you under the impression I haven't considered this? In my spare time a while back, I even sat down and wrote a few equations which would describe a universal mass flow rate. But there are problems with just accepting this. The problem is fundamental.

When the universe came into existence, time could not exist. The reason why is because there was no geometry. This is a well established fact, that at some point there where little to no degrees of freedom. It wasn't until the universe grew sufficiently old could matter appear: matter can be thought about the organization space of particles. Geometrogenesis dictates that this is when geometry also appeared, that is, geometry itself is synonymous with the presence of matter.

There are more reasons now to think that there is no time and there is no matter fundamentally. It is only the high energy physics range we are interested in, the one universally-believed to be the way to unifying the forces of nature.

• First timers
• 8
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #128 on: 02/04/2012 23:10:04 »
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?

#### Kalopin

• Jr. Member
• 16
• obligated to examine the percentage of possibility
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #129 on: 02/04/2012 23:26:37 »
I say time and money are only entities made up by man in an attempt to better organize chaos. What would either matter if there was no intelligent life to measure them?
Man thinks on such a much smaller and more accelerated scale of time than the activity in the universe. It seems a whole different level. Maybe philosophically speaking.

#### steved1980

• First timers
• 8
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #130 on: 02/04/2012 23:38:14 »
Is it possible that time is not a measurable thing?  Maybe clocks were invented for practical purposes.  The projection of the future exist in our brains.  The memory of the past exist in our brains.  But the actual past and future never exist, right?  We are trying to theorize about something that doesn’t exist.   “Right now” exist and everything that “changes” in the now only changes based on our perception, the universe doesn’t know the difference between a glass and a shattered glass.

Indeed it is possible and yes, clocks really are an invention, the kind atleast we attribute to clocks hanging on walls.

It's like a schizophrenic trying to come up with an equation that proves the voice in it's head is real.  His mind is creating the voice and his mind can create theories to explain it but outside his brain the voice doesn't exist.

It's funny that science is this complicated structure that can come crashing down if one little thing is removed, perception.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #131 on: 03/04/2012 00:21:25 »
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.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #132 on: 03/04/2012 00:22:06 »
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.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12188
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #133 on: 03/04/2012 07:03:43 »
All depends on definitions I would say. To me a arrow is 'what changes'. And I agree on the comments of consciousness too, although Science is restricted to what we can experimentally verify. That means that a lot of experimentally not proven phenomena falls out from the discussion. We know that we can think, we know that we 'exist'. But from there we first need to define what we experience as 'reality' and test, repeatedly, and at different locations keeping to the same circumstances.

Without that 'linear' consciousness, using a arrow, we only have indeterminacy. It's our primary tool for solving any and all mysteries
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• 1044
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #134 on: 03/04/2012 16:16:00 »
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.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #135 on: 03/04/2012 16:47:35 »
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.''
« Last Edit: 03/04/2012 16:49:24 by Æthelwulf »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12188
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #136 on: 04/04/2012 01:16:57 »
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?
« Last Edit: 04/04/2012 01:18:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• 1044
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #137 on: 04/04/2012 05:56:28 »
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.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #138 on: 04/04/2012 10:11:56 »
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.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #139 on: 04/04/2012 10:25:08 »
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?

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #140 on: 04/04/2012 10:26:38 »
In fact, think of time as being emergent of matter and geometry. It's a by-product.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #141 on: 04/04/2012 10:28:24 »
In fact, think of time as being emergent of matter and geometry. It's a by-product.

Perhaps the technical term would be ''induced time''.

#### acecharly

• Sr. Member
• 171
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #142 on: 04/04/2012 13:12:27 »
In fact, think of time as being emergent of matter and geometry. It's a by-product.

Perhaps the technical term would be ''induced time''.

so now your saying maybe some kind of time does exist then?

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #143 on: 04/04/2012 13:15:00 »
In fact, think of time as being emergent of matter and geometry. It's a by-product.

Perhaps the technical term would be ''induced time''.

so now your saying maybe some kind of time does exist then?

No.

Time is an emergent phenomenon. In other words, it's a psuedo-dimension. It's not really real.

#### acecharly

• Sr. Member
• 171
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #144 on: 04/04/2012 13:19:38 »
In fact, think of time as being emergent of matter and geometry. It's a by-product.

Perhaps the technical term would be ''induced time''.

so now your saying maybe some kind of time does exist then?

No.

Time is an emergent phenomenon. In other words, it's a psuedo-dimension. It's not really real.

And do these emergent phenomina not add up?

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #145 on: 04/04/2012 13:25:31 »
In fact, think of time as being emergent of matter and geometry. It's a by-product.

Perhaps the technical term would be ''induced time''.

so now your saying maybe some kind of time does exist then?

No.

Time is an emergent phenomenon. In other words, it's a psuedo-dimension. It's not really real.

And do these emergent phenomina not add up?

they are not fundamental, the kind of science is primarily interested in, in an approach to unification of the forces.

#### acecharly

• Sr. Member
• 171
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #146 on: 04/04/2012 13:35:22 »
Can you explain how you believe the order of what is  said to be 'time' takes place in the order it does. i.e why we get up eat breakfast then dinner then tea for example not just any random order.

Time only exists in the moment from what I can make out your saying.
Its almost asthough your not saying time does not exist but all time does not exist at once. Well it couldnt everything would have to happen at once and it doesnt from how we observe changes of our view of the world around us.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #147 on: 04/04/2012 13:39:56 »
Can you explain how you believe the order of what is  said to be 'time' takes place in the order it does. i.e why we get up eat breakfast then dinner then tea for example not just any random order.

Time only exists in the moment from what I can make out your saying.
Its almost asthough your not saying time does not exist but all time does not exist at once. Well it couldnt everything would have to happen at once and it doesnt from how we observe changes of our view of the world around us.

Yes, order appears because of the psychological arrow of time. It is this specific arrow which makes us believe there is an essential physical arrow of time to existence, which it doesn't of course. Time if anything is not linear, there is no arrow. It has geometrical features. And no, not everything needs to happen at once. From our viewpoint, nothing does happen at once. Alone, we are bradyons stuck in time; these bradyons feels time pass. Other than a subjective feeling, there is no physical reality to time.

#### Æthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• 358
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #148 on: 04/04/2012 13:41:36 »
As I said, change can happen. Time just doesn't exist. This is the same as Barbours approach. He believes there is no time only change.

#### acecharly

• Sr. Member
• 171
##### Re: Is time an illusion?
« Reply #149 on: 04/04/2012 14:02:49 »
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.