Time, What is it really?

[Annex]

Time is a hotly discussed topic among physicists and I wish to converse among fellow members here regarding it, to start off this discussion lets try to think about what time really is, remember when trying to get to the true nature of time you cannot really include measurements of it, because they are simply measurements not the actual nature of it. I'm looking for intelligent responses too, not a "something i gotta follow" sort of deal here. After I get some responses ill update the op to further the discussion.

 

[JamRsPins]

Time is a hotly discussed topic among physicists and I wish to converse among fellow members here regarding it, to start off this discussion lets try to think about what time really is, remember when trying to get to the true nature of time you cannot really include measurements of it, because they are simply measurements not the actual nature of it. I'm looking for intelligent responses too, not a "something i gotta follow" sort of deal here. After I get some responses ill update the op to further the discussion.

You speak of "measurements" but that is exactly what time is. Time is just a word invented by humans to express the continued process of existence.. it's merely a measurement. Is it accurate? Does it mean anything? No. It's just a convenient means of measurement for humanity; past, events, future, everything that happens.
Time for us is based on the rotation of the Earth. The course of natural events that we cannot influence or change. Existence.

 

Well I don't know how time came to be.
But you can't really describe time as a nature, it is a measurement how ever you use it.

Without looking up and researching, it's based on the revolution of the earth and then sun. Someone likely timed it over the years and realised the sun is only here for a certain amount of time. The person didn't have a set unit of measurement (minutes, hours, days etc) so they probably just did a bit of trial and error untill they came up with a measurement that works.

I'm assuming that's what you meant?

 

[Boofer]

time is relative to its meaning. We sleep at night and that time is necessary for our bodies to grow, feel refreshed and to dream.
When we are with parents, teachers, and are spending our time to take meaning values out of these opportunities, we tend to pick and choose what means the most to us.
building brain and body muscles, getting stronger takes training, beating your weaknesses within the boundaries of time.

 

[Emperor Nero]

You speak of "measurements" but that is exactly what time is. Time is just a word invented by humans to express the continued process of existence.. it's merely a measurement. Is it accurate? Does it mean anything? No. It's just a convenient means of measurement for humanity; past, events, future, everything that happens.
Time for us is based on the rotation of the Earth. The course of natural events that we cannot influence or change. Existence.

Time is measured, but time isn't a measurement. Also time isn't based on the rotation of the earth for us, that is the measurement of a day. Time is built off the second and here is how we get the second:

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Time is the flow of events in the universe - a pathway of possibility. Time as we know it began at the Big Bang and if there was 'time' before then is up for debate and even then we will never be certain unless we can go before the Big Bang and understand the laws of physics at that time. Our concept of time is based on our understanding of the universe as we know, and is relative to the viewer.

Time is linked to space and is widely held as a 4th dimension of our universe. X,Y,Z, and Time.

 

[TheGoon]

You speak of "measurements" but that is exactly what time is. Time is just a word invented by humans to express the continued process of existence.. it's merely a measurement. Is it accurate? Does it mean anything? No. It's just a convenient means of measurement for humanity; past, events, future, everything that happens.
Time for us is based on the rotation of the Earth. The course of natural events that we cannot influence or change. Existence.

Time is measured, but time isn't a measurement. Also time isn't based on the rotation of the earth for us, that is the measurement of a day. Time is built off the second and here is how we get the second:

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Time is the flow of events in the universe - a pathway of possibility. Time as we know it began at the Big Bang and if there was 'time' before then is up for debate and even then we will never be certain unless we can go before the Big Bang and understand the laws of physics at that time. Our concept of time is based on our understanding of the universe as we know, and is relative to the viewer.

Time is linked to space and is widely held as a 4th dimension of our universe. X,Y,Z, and Time.

Agree with the above^

Time is manmade, so "time" can be whatever it is made out to be.

"Time is an illusion" is a good way to look at it !

check out "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" good documentary about this exact topic.

 

[JamRsPins]

Time is built off the second and here is how we get the second:

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

That is a measurement.

Time is the flow of events in the universe - a pathway of possibility.

I don't think time has anything to do with possibilities, nor is it a possibility. It is a process after all. Is time ever-lasting? Who knows.

This is all under the assumption that the big bang theory is anything more than a theory. That it's anything more than man's attempt to make sense of the world we live in. It's not proven, and we have no reason to believe it is true. Ignore the Google approach, throw the theory out the window, and none of that makes any sense to humanity.

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." - Guess who.


I don't believe in any theories, I just go with my own head, and I can't see how it would be possible for time to not exist before this "theory". Existence couldn't have came from nothing, right?

check out "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" good documentary about this exact topic.

I've only seen one of those, it was interesting, maybe I'll watch the one on time.

 

[T V]

You speak of "measurements" but that is exactly what time is. Time is just a word invented by humans to express the continued process of existence.. it's merely a measurement. Is it accurate? Does it mean anything? No. It's just a convenient means of measurement for humanity; past, events, future, everything that happens.
Time for us is based on the rotation of the Earth. The course of natural events that we cannot influence or change. Existence.

Theoretically, doesn't time slow down relative to an object as it approaches the speed of light? Then time wouldn't be just a measurement; it becomes a dimension.

 

[JamRsPins]

Theoretically, doesn't time slow down relative to an object as it approaches the speed of light? Then time wouldn't be just a measurement; it becomes a dimension.

There is a debate about this, with time being slower in gravity, I think it just reinforces the fact that no-one knows too much about it. ^_^

 

[Emperor Nero]

There is a debate about this, with time being slower in gravity, I think it just reinforces the fact that no-one knows too much about it. ^_^

There is no debate about that, so I am not sure what circle you are in. It is a widely accepted theory, by a fairly famous man known as the Theory Of Relativity. It says time and space are relative to the speed of the viewer.

You should really look into theoretical physics more - because time is all about possibilities. Take for instance the decision you made to type that spiel about how theories don't matter - that leads to another decision but if you back up and change that decision the outcome would be completely different. Also to counter your point about theory - take for example Germ theory, it is what modern medicine is built off of (Unless you believe in new age bullshit). Another example would be a Theory of Gravity that is incredibly important to all scientific fields. The Theory of Evolution another incredibly important theory. Do you not believe in any of these things?Theories are important and to discard or attempt to discredit theory would make science impossible, how would we advance? To say that you don't believe in theory is completely silly.

 

[JamRsPins]

There is no debate about that, so I am not sure what circle you are in. It is a widely accepted theory, by a fairly famous man known as the Theory Of Relativity. It says time and space are relative to the speed of the viewer.

You should really look into theoretical physics more - because time is all about possibilities. Take for instance the decision you made to type that spiel about how theories don't matter - that leads to another decision but if you back up and change that decision the outcome would be completely different. Also to counter your point about theory - take for example Germ theory, it is what modern medicine is built off of (Unless you believe in new age bullshit). Another example would be a Theory of Gravity that is incredibly important to all scientific fields. The Theory of Evolution another incredibly important theory. Do you not believe in any of these things?Theories are important and to discard or attempt to discredit theory would make science impossible, how would we advance? To say that you don't believe in theory is completely silly.

Gravity is a law, the "theory" just attempts to explain it, calculations and the orbit of the planets(I don't know too much about this). We know gravitational pull exists. Hell, we experience it. We feel it. The theory of evolution is not at all important. Please explain? Just someone trying to figure out how there are so many species. A waste of time, it doesn't change anything and is not at all constructive. Humanity just wants an answer for everything.

Know nothing of Germ theory, seems it was proven a long long time ago? Confused. Also I think that is a totally different issue too. People just lacked the knowledge back then, it's a different issue with time. Things we can't see, touch, understand. It's your religion. There are certainties and then there are uncertainties. At least religion comes with a book :laugh:

Things can be proven, theory is just in place of things that humanity can't prove or understand. Humanity is puny and stupid; hell, we kill each other. For all their is to know, we know but a fraction of of a percent. It is silly to believe we know everything. We don't, we never will. I think that is the point of this thread. It's not about jumping on google and copying the scientific theory, we can all see that. As OP stated time is a widely debated subject, nobody knows.

To some extent theories can be useful I can agree on that, but in terms of time and "The Big Bang" I really don't support the view. I'd sooner go with the notion of a God.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Gravity is a law, the "theory" just attempts to explain it, calculations and the orbit of the planets(I don't know too much about this). We know gravitational pull exists. Hell, we experience it. We feel it. The theory of evolution is not at all important. Please explain? Just someone trying to figure out how there are so many species. A waste of time, it doesn't change anything and is not at all constructive. Humanity just wants an answer for everything.

Know nothing of Germ theory, seems it was proven a long long time ago? Confused. Also I think that is a totally different issue too. People just lacked the knowledge back then, it's a different issue with time. Things we can't see, touch, understand. It's your religion. There are certainties and then there are uncertainties. At least religion comes with a book :laugh:

Things can be proven, theory is just in place of things that humanity can't prove or understand. Humanity is puny and stupid; hell, we kill each other. For all their is to know, we know but a fraction of of a percent. It is silly to believe we know everything. We don't, we never will. I think that is the point of this thread. It's not about jumping on google and copying the scientific theory, we can all see that. As OP stated time is a widely debated subject, nobody knows.

To some extent theories can be useful I can agree on that, but in terms of time and "The Big Bang" I really don't support the view. I'd sooner go with the notion of a God.

We can view the effects of the Big Bang and we can view the effects of the theory of relativity. Take the Doppler effect or red/blue shift - we have used that since the days of Hubble to view the movement of the universe - and then take the experiments done with atomic clocks in space. We have space ships that orbit at an incredibly fast speed, still only a fraction of the speed of light, but the clocks are slowed when compared to the clocks on earth by noticeably large amounts. These are all observable phenomena and not just something someone says.

Of course we want the answer to everything, that is what makes us human! We are creatures who seek knowledge and understanding. We want to know the hows and whys of everything around us. Why would we just want to sit on earth and not learn anything about the things around us?

Sorry for getting so off topic Annex. Time is intrinsically linked to the fabric of space and if there isn't space then there isn't time as we know it.

 

[Imagine]

Time as one of the many dimensions of the universe. Although parts of it will probably be proven wrong at one point or another, (Super)String theory is one of the most advanced/accurate theories we have at the moment.

However, in order for some of the more complex calculations to work, we must live in a Calabai-Yau space. If my memory serves me correctly, I read about this general topic (String theory & time) a while ago in a book called "The Elegant Universe". For some reason or another, these Calabai-yau spaces had eleven dimensions, one of them being time.

-----

Thinking about it, time being a dimension makes perfect sense.
Imagine being in a two dimensional world. (Flat). Being able to travel in 3 dimensions would allow you to pass through any object (by going above or below it). Similarly, thinking of time as allowing you to pass through any object (because at some other instance, the same wall/object will not have been there), reinforces the idea of it just being another dimension.

However, it is unlike spatial dimensions. We cannot see it, and we cannot (as far as I know), go backwards. However, like in the spatial dimensions, we can control how fast we go. The theory of relativity supports this. Imagine travelling in a world with one dimension at speed S. Now, this world is expanded into two dimensions, and you travel diagonally across it. While your speed may still be M, your speed in one direction of the plane will be a fraction of S. (If it is at a 45 degree angle, it will be sqrt(2)S/2). The speed travelled along the initial direction will be inversely proportional to the speed traveled along the new direction. That is; the faster you travel in the new direction, the slower you will travel in the initial one.

Translating this to Space-Time, according to relativity, the faster we travel in the three spatial dimensions, the slower time travels for us, and the slower we travel in the three dimensions, the faster time travels for us.

 

[Annex]

Time as one of the many dimensions of the universe. Although parts of it will probably be proven wrong at one point or another, (Super)String theory is one of the most advanced/accurate theories we have at the moment.

However, in order for some of the more complex calculations to work, we must live in a Calabai-Yau space. If my memory serves me correctly, I read about this general topic (String theory & time) a while ago in a book called "The Elegant Universe". For some reason or another, these Calabai-yau spaces had eleven dimensions, one of them being time.

-----

Thinking about it, time being a dimension makes perfect sense.
Imagine being in a two dimensional world. (Flat). Being able to travel in 3 dimensions would allow you to pass through any object (by going above or below it). Similarly, thinking of time as allowing you to pass through any object (because at some other instance, the same wall/object will not have been there), reinforces the idea of it just being another dimension.

However, it is unlike spatial dimensions. We cannot see it, and we cannot (as far as I know), go backwards. However, like in the spatial dimensions, we can control how fast we go. The theory of relativity supports this. Imagine travelling in a world with one dimension at speed S. Now, this world is expanded into two dimensions, and you travel diagonally across it. While your speed may still be M, your speed in one direction of the plane will be a fraction of S. (If it is at a 45 degree angle, it will be sqrt(2)S/2). The speed travelled along the initial direction will be inversely proportional to the speed traveled along the new direction. That is; the faster you travel in the new direction, the slower you will travel in the initial one.

Translating this to Space-Time, according to relativity, the faster we travel in the three spatial dimensions, the slower time travels for us, and the slower we travel in the three dimensions, the faster time travels for us.

This is accurate at upon a large scale, however when we venture into the quantum realm how do you explain time, there is only uncertainty, which is one of the reasons why quantum mechanics and relativity cannot be combined because Time itself doesn't exist in the resulting equations.

Why would this be? Possibly because time itself may actually have multiple dimensions. It would be similar to us seeing a line drawn from a pen on a piece of paper, for us it would seem 1 dimensional, but if you got a microscope you can actually see that this line is three dimensional, so perhaps at the deepest levels time is actually multi-dimensional which causes the uncertainty because we can only observe one dimension at our large scale.

Another possibility is that Spacetime is in fact Space and Time, but like two pieces of paper on top of each other its nearly impossible for someone far away to distinguish that they are not one. At the sub atomic level it could be entirely possible that the particles exist only in Space but not in time.

As far as time being a dimension I think that is a fairly accurate way of describe it, for if you want to meet someone you must give them a place (x,y,z coordinates) and a time, otherwise there is uncertainty whether you will meet them or not.

There is another way to think of time however, it is the buildup of entropy within a system (the system being the universe). As we know that entropy increases within a system that doesn't have an outside energy influencing it. So time would be a measurement of the buildup of entropy within the universe.

Entropy is both created and will kill us. The whole universe as we can see it is a product of entropy and entropy is what causes us to die. Without entropy the billionths of a second old universe would have as much matter as antimatter from the big bang of pure energy and no hydrogen (and to a lesser extent helium) would have come into existence. Entropy made that so, just as it made it so that when the hydrogen formed, it was EVER so slightly irregular and gravity cause nuclear fusion to start ECT until you get to us billions of years later. Its really quite fascinating.

 

[Imagine]

This is accurate at upon a large scale, however when we venture into the quantum realm how do you explain time, there is only uncertainty, which is one of the reasons why quantum mechanics and relativity cannot be combined because Time itself doesn't exist in the resulting equations.

Why would this be? Possibly because time itself may actually have multiple dimensions. It would be similar to us seeing a line drawn from a pen on a piece of paper, for us it would seem 1 dimensional, but if you got a microscope you can actually see that this line is three dimensional, so perhaps at the deepest levels time is actually multi-dimensional which causes the uncertainty because we can only observe one dimension at our large scale.

Another possibility is that Spacetime is in fact Space and Time, but like two pieces of paper on top of each other its nearly impossible for someone far away to distinguish that they are not one. At the sub atomic level it could be entirely possible that the particles exist only in Space but not in time.

As far as time being a dimension I think that is a fairly accurate way of describe it, for if you want to meet someone you must give them a place (x,y,z coordinates) and a time, otherwise there is uncertainty whether you will meet them or not.

There is another way to think of time however, it is the buildup of entropy within a system (the system being the universe). As we know that entropy increases within a system that doesn't have an outside energy influencing it. So time would be a measurement of the buildup of entropy within the universe.

Entropy is both created and will kill us. The whole universe as we can see it is a product of entropy and entropy is what causes us to die. Without entropy the billionths of a second old universe would have as much matter as antimatter from the big bang of pure energy and no hydrogen (and to a lesser extent helium) would have come into existence. Entropy made that so, just as it made it so that when the hydrogen formed, it was EVER so slightly irregular and gravity cause nuclear fusion to start ECT until you get to us billions of years later. Its really quite fascinating.

Those are all good points. The time having multiple dimensions didn't occur to me, but it's definitely a possibility.

About your point that particles may exist in either space or time, I have both arguments, and counterarguments for it. Light, for example, exists in time, but not in space. (Unless you count the photons, which are basically just energy - as matter and having dimensions). However, all other matter must exist in both Space and Time. If it did not exist in time, there would be no way for us to find it - which is a possibility, that we just haven't seen it yet. (Antimatter possibly, can't really think of anything for this). However, if it does not exist in space, there would be no way to measure it. (Light, I guess, and also antimatter for this one.) I suppose my argument is sort of weak, but i'm typing in 'stream of consciousness'.

I do like the entropy argument, but you're making an assumption that I don't think it's completely fair to make. You're saying that there 'is no outside energy influencing it'. However, you're not to taking into account the possibility of a multi-verse. In addition, how would you explain time relativistically? Would you say that an observer moving quickly relative to a stationary observer has outside energy acting upon it? or is the "Entropy" argument just valid for the universe as a whole?

 

[Annex]

Those are all good points. The time having multiple dimensions didn't occur to me, but it's definitely a possibility.

About your point that particles may exist in either space or time, I have both arguments, and counterarguments for it. Light, for example, exists in time, but not in space. (Unless you count the photons, which are basically just energy - as matter and having dimensions). However, all other matter must exist in both Space and Time. If it did not exist in time, there would be no way for us to find it - which is a possibility, that we just haven't seen it yet. (Antimatter possibly, can't really think of anything for this). However, if it does not exist in space, there would be no way to measure it. (Light, I guess, and also antimatter for this one.) I suppose my argument is sort of weak, but i'm typing in 'stream of consciousness'.

I do like the entropy argument, but you're making an assumption that I don't think it's completely fair to make. You're saying that there 'is no outside energy influencing it'. However, you're not to taking into account the possibility of a multi-verse. In addition, how would you explain time relativistically? Would you say that an observer moving quickly relative to a stationary observer has outside energy acting upon it? or is the "Entropy" argument just valid for the universe as a whole?

The interesting part though is that we can't find quantum particles from the electron and down, we only know of their existence through confirmation of the paths they take when two atoms are collided near the speed of light. If they only existed in space then it would be like two people going to the same place without a time, there is an uncertainty of if they would meet, much like there is uncertainty to the EXACT position of an electron.

I believe all proponents of the multiverse believe that universes are bubbles and therefore unaffected by each other as far as we know (perhaps gravitationally but that is currently unprovable).

Entropy works in both cases, as you increase in speed you do have outside energy acting upon you relative to the other person, much like if you are near a large source of gravity you have lots of outside energy and the result is the same in both cases in that the stationary observer experiences time at much faster rate.

 

[Imagine]

The interesting part though is that we can't find quantum particles from the electron and down, we only know of their existence through confirmation of the paths they take when two atoms are collided near the speed of light. If they only existed in space then it would be like two people going to the same place without a time, there is an uncertainty of if they would meet, much like there is uncertainty to the EXACT position of an electron.

I believe all proponents of the multiverse believe that universes are bubbles and therefore unaffected by each other as far as we know (perhaps gravitationally but that is currently unprovable).

Entropy works in both cases, as you increase in speed you do have outside energy acting upon you relative to the other person, much like if you are near a large source of gravity you have lots of outside energy and the result is the same in both cases in that the stationary observer experiences time at much faster rate.

Alright, I'll agree with that. I'm bumping this to see if anybody else wants to argue/post.