[Bigjoemonger (OP)]

Events that occur are dependent on the numerous interactions of the various particles. Changes in the positioning of these particles means a difference in events. So all the particles in a certain order represent a single point in time. As they interact with each other we perceive those interactions which gives us the concept of time.

I think that time is like a 4 dimensional probability matrix. Each point in the matrix represents a specific order in the particles of the universe. If we could rearrange every particle in the universe to as they were at a specific time 20 years ago then we'd effectively go back in time but we're not actually going back in time. As particle interactions occur, subsequent interactions occur in varying probability. Most probable subsequent interactions occur very near to the current order, whereas least probable interactions are further away. So think of it as a tree branching out into the future and into the past.

My image of time is why the concept of time travel bothers me. Let's say you go back in time and kill your great grandfather. The grandfather paradox is the issue that doing this prevents your own birth therefore making the subsequent time travel and murder impossible. But that's not the case because you are not going back in time you are merely rearranging the particles as they were all those years ago and then making a change. And then interactions continue on from that point forward. So to simplify let's consider each point in time as a number on a line.

For example:
123456789

Let's say we are currently at position 6, and we time travel back to position 3. Then the result would look like this:
1234563456789

To better explain:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9                        
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9                     
      1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9                  
         1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9               
            1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9            
               1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9         
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9      
                     1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   
                        1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
Each column represents a specific point in time. Each number in that column represents an order that can occur. The top row represents the current timeline. The diagonal represents the minute probability that an interaction does not occur and everything stays the same. So at position 6 the most probable next step would be position 7 in column 7 but it could jump down to position 3 in column 7 effectively "going back in time".

So the great grandfather that led to your creation was not killed. He still led his life and you were born. We merely reset the particles to a specific order, mimicking that point in time, and then you killed this new version of your great grandfather.

This theory is still a bit rough, maybe is a couple ideas mixed together and maybe has some contradictions i don't see, but from what I can tell it removes the issue of time paradoxes.

Feel free to poke holes or tear it apart. It's just been rolling around 8n my head for some time and I needed to write it out.

[guest39538]

For example:
123456789

Let's say we are currently at position 6, and we time travel back to position 3. Then the result would look like this:
1234563456789

To better explain:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9                        
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9                     
      1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9                  
         1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9               
            1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9            
               1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9         
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9      
                     1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   
                        1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

All your numbers are in the present, time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the past.   There is no going back or forward in time, there is only going forward or backwards in space relative to another observer.
All observers (matter of the Universe), observe and occupy the present at all ''times''.  Space is always present and timeless, all things age relative to space which remains at 0 age always.

[GoC]

Time as we measure it is a cycle. A galaxy rotation, a planet rotation or an electron rotation all measure time. So time is motion. You are quite correct to assume particles all being in the same position could recreate a past arrangement from a future. There is no past or future except as a concept of man. There is only the present motion caused by fundamental energy based on c relative. c gives our still frame motion. c is organized rules that cause ciaos by position. Entropy is not reversible.

[jeffreyH]

There are so many reasons why time travel, even of the synthetic kind, is impossible. You could write a whole textbook covering all of them.

[opportunity]

Bigjoemonger, I've had a similar thought about time and using such a table to explain the workings of time. I wrote a paper, "the Relativity of Time", where I used a similar table in the first few pages. Of course we all think our own ideas are right or at least deserve a decent hearing, but I thought I would share what I've written.

The download to the paper is at " www . equusspace . com ", the "publications" page, download link "The Relativity of Time". There I explain the use of the arrow of time, and how using a similar table that you presented, I introduce the idea of "recall", a "passage back in time", which I prefer to label with the idea of "consciousness" (and I explain why in that paper). It may not sound like complete physics, yet it is, as it doesn't alter any observed calculations from the atom to the cosmos, only the theory putting those calculations together has changed.

If you don't have the time to check that, all I can say is that I think you're proposing a good and innovative way of examining the nature of time. In short, you are using an "algorithm" for time as the 9 spatial events that change that can be thought of as codes of signatures of time. I do a similar thing, except I use a different algorithm (explained in the first paper) that keeps the "now" event patent, uncorrupted, the future as a type of chance, and the ability to recall the past patterns of time as a feature that is an emergent property of time and space as "consciousness" (paper 3). The concept is the same though (the whole paper is paper 7).

I'm happy to correspond more about this as your title subject and your interest in using time tagged as a pattern with spatial events is the sort of thing I'm doing.

[David Cooper]

Time enables movement and change, but it's also tightly locked to causality and can only run in one direction. If you want to go back in Newtonian time, you have to go against causality, but with a Spacetime model you can "go back" in terms of the time of the time dimension, but you'll still be going forwards in Newtonian time. In doing this, you could change the nature of the "past" and lead to a different future which leads to you no longer going back to the "past" to affect it, at which point the nature of the "past" is restored to its previous state, which leads to you going back into the "past" to affect it again, and thus we have an oscillating system where the "past" keeps alternating between two states, but it's important to understand that  none of that can be the real past - it's actually all moving forwards in Newtonian time. If you have Spacetime without Newtonian time working in combination with it, you can't go back to change anything at all because the state of the past is fixed, so any "moving back into the past" has to have happened already when that past originally happened, and causality has to act in the forwards-in-time direction for all players, which makes the "moving back in time" part more than a little troublesome as the probability of it happening becomes so close to zero that it's not worth considering it as anything other than zero.

The key thing to understand (which many physicists fail to) is that any going "back in time" to change the history at any Spacetime location automatically brings in Newtonian time to enable that change at a single point of Spacetime.

[guest39538]

Time is  a quantifiable duration of existence in an absolute space.

[timemachine]

Aside from the particulars in each post in this topic, it seems to me that you all are in agreement on one aspect of time and I too agree. That aspect is that time is not a physical reality but is a mental concept.   If I misunderstand your position please let me know.  That is why I chose the ID of timemachine and I can extend that thought by saying that we are all time machines in that it is we, as thinking entities, that need to adopt the time concept to understand anything.  Our brains have no direct mental contact with physical reality due to the delays inherent in our sensory inputs and also inherent in our thought processes.  Therefore, everything that our brains work on is an abstraction of reality and all of these abstractions have already  been created created by one aspect or another of our entire nervous system.  Being "already created" they are records created by past motions of real physical things.  Mentally these physical things involve the the electrical, chemical, and biological events within our brains that leave a record to be examined later by our brains. External to our bodies these records are created by real physical motions of real physical objects.  These physical records are of many types such as layers of earth laid down by wind or the flow of water,  foot prints of dinosaur, and light from a distant star including its red or blue shift characteristics.   In a very real sense all of our thoughts are a product of previously created records that can be thought of as the past.  The concepts of time, past, present, and future are all mental.  Space-time is a mathematical model and not reality. Space is a physically real thing but time is not.   What say ye? Regards
 

[Colin2B]

it seems to me that you all are in agreement on one aspect of time and I too agree. That aspect is that time is not a physical reality but is a mental concept.   If I misunderstand your position please let me know. 

I have read through the posts here and i think you are misunderstanding.
Physical time is as real as the dimensions of space and has quantifiable effects beyond our perceptions.you might need to start a new thread with your ideas.

[timemachine]

Colin2B says:  Physical time is as real as the dimensions of space and has quantifiable effects beyond our perceptions.you might need to start a new thread with your ideas.

Thanks!  I say the dimensions of space are a man made coordinate system.  Simply, a mental concept that is convenient to describe the relative positions of things.  Space itself is a real form of energy that could have a multitude of coordinate systems (mostly inefficient) applied.  If you think time is a physically real thing where is the evidence?
What are these mysterious "quantifiable effects beyond our perceptions?  The original post question is "What is time" and I think my ideas are directly related to the question.  Perhaps you have just not encountered my ideas previously and so you judge them to be misapplied to the question.  I would love to hear your comments on my ideas. Regards.

[guest39538]

Thanks!  I say the dimensions of space are a man made coordinate system. 

I do no think you understand science at all, a bit confused like I was when I first started learning science.

The dimensions of space exist whether we  measure it or not, the same as time.   The coordinate system of XYZ is a mathematical construct by mankind, no one denies that.  But like I said the dimensions of space exist even if we do not measure it.

Hope that helps you to understand.

[Colin2B]

Perhaps you have just not encountered my ideas previously and so you judge them to be misapplied to the question.

Yes, I have encountered this view before. It fails to differentiate between objective measurement, subjective perception and misperceptions due to the physical parameters of the sensory/brain system.

I say the dimensions of space are a man made coordinate system.  Simply, a mental concept that is convenient to describe the relative positions of things.

You are confusing a method of defining and measuring something with the object or the property being measured. @Thebox is on the right track.

If you think time is a physically real thing where is the evidence?

I have a special interest in psychoacoustics. Just as we have optical illusions that fool our perceptions of the spatial field, we have auditory illusions. These show us a great deal about how the ear/brain interprets, and then perceives, objective measurements of both spacial and temporal effects, and I can assure you that there is plenty of evidence that temporal effects are real and able to fool that interface. In acoustics the results of temporal effects are just as real as spatial effects and often more important.

The original post question is "What is time" and I think my ideas are directly related to the question.   

I was just pointing out that your interpretation of the previous posts was mistaken.

I would love to hear your comments on my ideas.

Due to time constraints I only partake in threads where the subject interests me or I have a specific reason for participating.
There are many threads which involve either religious of philosophical views that help the poster to resolve their perceptions, but conflict with observation and measurement. I believe people have a right to hold those views unless they cause harm to others and so I do not tend to get involved in these discussions.
In this area of the forum we allow a wide range of ideas, I hope you find useful discussion.

[timemachine]

Time is  a quantifiable duration of existence in an absolute space.

I do no think you understand science at all, a bit confused like I was when I first started learning science.

The dimensions of space exist whether we  measure it or not, the same as time.   The coordinate system of XYZ is a mathematical construct by mankind, no one denies that.  But like I said the dimensions of space exist even if we do not measure it.

Science as I understand it is a process in which theories are offered, evaluated by others, and then those people can offer alternative ideas.  As this process repeats it is generally accepted that progress is made in the long run of exchanges.   
However, what you think about my understanding of science, in general, is irrelevant.  If you disagree with what I say on a particular issue then it is up to you to offer what you think is a better idea.

Absolute space and absolute time are out of date and favor ideas proposed by Newton. 
Einstein's Special Relativity obsoleted the ideas of absolute space and time.
Saying that time is a quantifiable duration is in my opinion totally inadequate.
It does not address time as a measurement that can vary depending upon the motion of the observed object relative to the motion of the observer. It does not speak of clocks and a clock is a standard of repetitive motion that is used to measure other motions relative to the standard.
These things make me wonder about the adequacy of your education in preparing yourself to be critical of other peoples understanding of how things might work especially after offering a very brief and inadequate notion of what time is.   

As far as the dimensions of space are concerned, I think, they exist only in our minds and we would have to freeze all motion in the universe and have means that are not available to us to  have any idea of the dimensions of space by any coordinate system. On the other hand, when referencing a dynamic ever changing universe it seems quite acceptable to offer ideas about how space volume might change.       

[timemachine]

I think that you Colin2b and TheBox are the ones that are getting the observed contaminated with the observer and therefore fail to recognize what should be attributed to which.   

All sounds are just records of past source motions.  You speak of unidentified "effects" of space  and "temporal effects" regarding acoustics  and they are simply due to the fact that sound waves are in motion within space and to analyze anything to do with motion requires a clock. However, clocks are not time they are just a standard repeating motion by which to measure other motions. Then, those measurements are computed by your brain using the concept of time which is nothing more than a shorthand word referring to relative motions.   

Yes, I'm coming to understand that my interpretation of the previous posts was mistaken.  Nonetheless, My answer regarding the question of What is time" stands on it's own merit.  Speaking of paradoxes and number sequences does not provide any real answer to the question.  And neither does the concept of the "arrow of time" as derived from theories about entropy or considerations of "before,now,after".  Before, now, and after are, in reality, related to relationships of motions and that is what the mental concept of time also addresses but that does not mean that there is a real physical thing called time. The real physical things are the objects, their motion, and the space through which they move. 

You Colin2b, spoke of religious and philosophical views and I fully agree that religious views are totally irrelevant to a discussion of "What is time".  However, the correct answer to that question could have an impact on certain religious views such as residing in a place of comfort or punishment for eternity where the religious person that holds those views probably (and in my view mistakenly) thinks that the word eternity has something to do with a real physical time.  Now, philosophy is another matter.  Especially, if one is speaking about a philosophy of physics.  Many  physics theories are, in fact,  philosophies that are contained in the domain of "Theoretical Physics" and the question of "What is time" and its proposed answers belong squarely in that domain.