Time; do you believe in it?

[Tenky]

I think the most rational way of thinking about time is a unit of measure. It measures decay and evolution of the environement, including all that lived in it. There are theories about time travel, but they're associated mostly with shortening time or slowing it, never a full reversal... so no one can go back... yet!

 

[Twilight_guy]

Clearly you are no physicist. The only way to explain many advance concept in physics is using a 4 or high dimensional model and the 4th dimension is always time. As a matter of fact there is a theory that the universe is not in fact one where event happen in order and things progress but is in fact a block universe where everything exists in all the states it will be in simultaneously and the human mind simply creates an illusion of time in order to process it. (Never understood that one actually) not to mention that more advance theory speculate the future events may influence past events meaning that the dimension of time must exist in order to facilitate this interaction. Also, don't confuse time and mad-made measures of time. Measuring time is done by a number of methods as noted but they are not time and have no control over time, they just measure it. Saying you can control time by changing a clock is like saying I control the 2nd dimension by altering a ruler. Then there is the fact that time is affected by relativity in the same way as space and is relative to the observer which would happen if time didn't exist since theoretically everything would proceed int he same constant way since there is nothing to alter with relativity. Anyways, no I disagree because physics.

 

[Brandon237]

Time is often considered the "fourth dimension" as it does exist, but is simply not tangible to the senses in the same way that the other three are. Time is a continuum of events, it can be observed and measured. Our dynamic universe that constantly changes is time. Space as we know it wouldn't WORK with no time. Think of a graph for the X, Y and Z co-ordinates as just the Y value, and time as the X value... that idea works for me just from a thought perspective. We only physically perceive the y axis but perceive the effects of x axis.

That is most likely scientifically inaccurate on the graph idea, but it is useful to understand the continuum.

 

[The Apothecarry]

I was going to say something intelligent until I read the comments. Now I feel like a complete idiot.

If you wanted to time-travel (in theory), wouldn't you need to simply develop a machine that could travel twice the speed of Earth's rotation? Don't think about it too hard.

 

[oktalist]

It is impossible to travel from the 3rd to the 4th dimention, which in laymans terms means it is impossible to time-travel.

No, in laymen's terms it means you have no idea what you're talking about.

I believe this for the same reason that we cannot transition from the 3rd to the 2nd dimention. It is impossible for us to take away one of our dimentions, and for this reason it is impossible for us to add a dimention onto ourselves.

For us to add a dimention we would have to bring the 4th dimention down to our level. This is becasue atoms, as stated before, can only decay, and becasue of this the only way to time-travel would be to decay time to a 3rd dimentional level.

WTF m8? Dimensions are not "places" that you can transition to and from; they are degrees of freedom. We exist in 4-dimensional spacetime, meaning we have 4 degrees of freedom: left-right, up-down, backwards-forwards, and past-future. But those are only names. We can move freely in the first 3 of those dimensions, and are forever moving into the future at a rate that depends upon our speed in the first 3.

This act could not be possible as dimentions are not physical, and therefore cannot be manipulated by something within themselves.

Spacetime certainly can be manipulated by something within it: mass bends it.

Ps: the phrase "the faster you go the slower you are going" means something different in the context of my ideas.

You did not use the phrase "the faster you go the slower you are going" anywhere that I can see.

 

[ThreeWords]

Time is the progress of states; as long as there is change, there will be time, inherent in the ordering of those changes. Your argument is like saying that distance isn't real because a meter could redefined as being 120cm

Here's a fun one though: consider the direction of time. We imagine that time runs from past to future, because we have memories of the past. However, there is no reason why entropy, rather than seeking to average out, should not instead attempt to gather together. This would cause hot things to get hotter and cold things to get colder, and all our physics to run in reverse, including the passage of time.
Of course, the rebuttal is that one has memories of the past and not of the future, but if time ran the opposite way then your memories would be actively dissolved as your body sought to focus all it's energy into glucose molecules.

There's no proof that time runs either way, but it saves a lot of effort just to assume entropy tends to averages.

 

[FalloutJack]

*Sigh*

ALL things named by man were made so his own innovation in order to try and render some understanding to the universe. Maybe the universe doesn't agree, but time exists because we invented it, after a fashion. (Never ask a man with philosophy courses under the belt any question such as this.)

 

[grumbel]

Events that happen after or before another don't prove time has direction. That is again human perception. All it shows is that we feel movement requires time; that we we see time as a line. I want proof that doesn't rely on human perception.

At the atomic level, time isn't as obvious at it is from a human perspective, as on the atomic level a particles behavior mostly symmetric, when you know the position and velocity of a particle you can not only calculate where it will be in the future, you can also calculate where it was in the past. However time does still have a direction. As the direction of time can be seen by measuring Entropy, which constantly goes up as time progresses, while it goes down when you go backwards. Take a cup that falls to the ground and breaks into pieces, it happens a lot, you might have seen a few yourself, but you never seen the inverse, shards of porcelain that come together and form a whole cup again, as that would require a change of direction for the Entrophy of a system and that doesn't happen.

I can't wait for the first alien species we meet that doesn't have time to just ruin thousands of years of our science.

The problem with that is that alien species that don't have time can't exist in this universe. The direction of time we have isn't a property of humans, but of the universe itself.

 

[Zukhramm]

Sometimes I find myself writing a reply to a thread here on the Escapist and then I stop, and realize what I'm actually doing. This thread is... why do I even. I need to learn to ignore these forums.

 

[OliverTwist72]

*Sigh*

ALL things named by man were made so his own innovation in order to try and render some understanding to the universe. Maybe the universe doesn't agree, but time exists because we invented it, after a fashion. (Never ask a man with philosophy courses under the belt any question such as this.)

Time is not a philosophical subject tho, it is a fundamental of physics. If there is motion, there must be time because that motion has to take place during a certain interval. Without time, there is no motion, there is no existence. How much time, how to measure it, what are you measuring it relative to are ALL debatable. What is not debatable is that time exists.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Chronos is displeased with this heresy.

HA! Good reference.


Time exsists, you're looking way to into this. Your basicallly analyzing a sandwhich and calling it something more than a sandwhich.

 

[FalloutJack]

*Sigh*

ALL things named by man were made so his own innovation in order to try and render some understanding to the universe. Maybe the universe doesn't agree, but time exists because we invented it, after a fashion. (Never ask a man with philosophy courses under the belt any question such as this.)

Time is not a philosophical subject tho, it is a fundamental of physics. If there is motion, there must be time because that motion has to take place during a certain interval. Without time, there is no motion, there is no existence. How much time, how to measure it, what are you measuring it relative to are ALL debatable. What is not debatable is that time exists.

The truth is actually ANYTHING can be made into a philosophical subject and almost any point can be argued, which is something I learned in my Metaphysics course. I will conceed, however, that a good number of it sounds like a load of horse shit at times.

 

[Joey Wonton]

Think of it mathematically, with time as a dimension on a graph. At any value for time the universe will have a specific arrangement, and, vice versa, any specific arrangement will correspond to a value of time.

The passage of time is only viewed by us because time is used to evolve, because we take advantage of the law of enthalpy. If we were able to evolve better with time going in reverse then it would happen (if time is a mathematical value and can be manipulated like that). You could argue that time is actually going in reverse relative to some other life form out there (extremely different life form).

We can change the rate of passage of time (differential) within our own minds by changing awareness state, so why it could be argued that time in reverse is a possible perception also.

Time, as a mathematical concept, can just be ignored and the whole of the universe, from one end to another, from the 'first' time to the 'last' time, can be observed as one occurrence in another dimension of observation.

 

[hermes]

Time is a real dimension, as real as depth or wide.

From our perspective, the only difference is that we can only perceive one point of that dimension at any given moment... That is because we live in a 3D universe and therefore can't move in nothing but those 3 first dimensions. Other dimensions we can perceive, but can't move through it (or, more precisely, we move through the 4th one, but can't control our movement).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNvHdCosX08

 

[crudus]

I think this guy is making an existential argument, rather than a physics one.
Like, if nobody measures time, can it really exist? It's the old "tree falling in the woods" thing.
It's not something you can really use logic to refute, because it's challenging the entire foundation upon which logical thought is based.

Yeah, that crossed my mind about an hour after I posted that. Before I start I just want to say: Fucking Hell I hate Berkeley.

Ok, then I have this counter argument. It is an interactive thought experiment. Hold your hands apart; it doesn't matter how far apart. Now, that distance is the same if we call it a meter, an inch, a gracie, tits, etc. It will remain that distance. Now lets do the same with the "distance" between the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Toy Story's theatrical release. That "distance" in time is the same. Sure it the difference is 32 years on Earth, ~96 years for Mercury, ~.13 years for Pluto, etc. However, it is the same distance (in the fourth dimension) no matter what time scale you use.

 

[DanielDeFig]

I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

"Time is infinite" is a concept that should boil down the reasons why time doesn't actually "exist" beyond the human concept. If there is no beginning and no end to time, then how do you define it? You don't. It's simply an effect of our memories of events we have experienced, and being able to organize them in the correct order of continuation.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Yeah, that crossed my mind about an hour after I posted that. Before I start I just want to say: Fucking Hell I hate Berkeley.

Ok, then I have this counter argument. It is an interactive thought experiment. Hold your hands apart; it doesn't matter how far apart. Now, that distance is the same if we call it a meter, an inch, a gracie, tits, etc. It will remain that distance. Now lets do the same with the "distance" between the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Toy Story's theatrical release. That "distance" in time is the same. Sure it the difference is 32 years on Earth, ~96 years for Mercury, ~.13 years for Pluto, etc. However, it is the same distance (in the fourth dimension) no matter what time scale you use.

The problem is that where my hands and the space between them exist firmly in the empirical, observable world, the space between JFK's assassination and Toy Story's theatrical release is entirely theoretical. It is a point in the social conscious of our people.

Here's a counter counter argument: if aliens landed, with a completely alternate set of languages and cultural contexts to ours, how would you communicate time to them? You could communicate distance simply by drawing a line in the sand. But how would you describe stretches of time? Additionally, if they wiped out all life on earth (and all our history books, etc.), my line in the sand would still exist. But if there was no empirical, observable record of JFK having been assassinated, would that still exist? No scientist would ever be able to prove that happened, or even have any notion that there was anything to prove. Nobody would ever mention or think about it again. How could you say, in that case, that it exists? Isn't the definition of something that exists is that it has an observable effect on the universe?