Does time really exist?

Post Reply New Topic

also from the book "time travel- a new perspective" -

[from page 72] "(einstein) suspected it wasn't really a question of matter distorting space-time. he suspected that matter actually was the distortion in space-time. this is a vision reminiscent of mystical consciousness. it suggests there's no such thing as gravity, no such thing as matter, no such thing as energy. there's only space-time. what we see as a planet circling a sun, its orbit held in place by the force of gravity, is really a bump in space-time finding its way around a bigger bump by the easiest route. it's a mind-blowing prospect and, unfortunately, einstein, who died in 1955, was never able to prove it."

me who knows little, wonders if this segues into the holographic universe theory?

Trully some of these theories sound utterly fantastic and hard to believe, for they talk of things so alien to our range of experience.

I have figured out a way to bend space though. I take an empty shoebox out into space and shaking out the air scoop up some space. Then I bring it back to earth and bend the box and the space bends with it. You can tell because the space is a vaccumn and different from the air around.

If I'm not mistaken, Relativity theory proves time exists.

However, I do think what we perceive as time, that is, the concept that things change, is an illusion created by our conscious experience. Due to the fact entropy increases as you get further away from the Big Bang in time, any conscious stream is going to flow from the earlier to the later realms of time, thus the 'arrow' we experience, but the reality is that the past, present and future all exist at once and the present, just like your location in space is relative to the observer. It's no more 'absolutely' the year 2012 than the location is 'absolutely' Planet Earth, though currently we don't know whether it's possible or not to move our bodies and minds into a past time. Travelling to the future is much less tricky and in fact we do it on a regular basis.

The reason time appears to 'flow' is because there are asymmetrical processes in nature, such as say, the life span of an egg. It takes a lot of complex information to create an egg, the DNA has to be there, evolved over so many millions of years, it has to grow inside the chicken, etc, but dropped and breaking the egg is a very simple function. I think causation is an illusion though.

Both theories of relativity assume the existence of the space-time manifold. In special relativity simultaneity is not absolute for systems moving at uniform velocity with respect to each other. Both space and time or space-time is presumed.

ruveyn

The distinction that you draw between fact and theory is a real one, but you view it with such rigidity that you render it meaningless. There are no facts beyond empirical data. Science is the practice of finding and describing patterns in the data, and creating generalized rules to explain them.

Gravity is not a fact. The apple and the earth accellerating towards each other is a fact, but everything that is built from there is theory and conjecture.
Electromagnetism is not a fact. But it explains why my compass points to northern Canada.
Atomic structure is not a fact. But it explains why water behaves as it does.
Thermodynamics are not facts. But it explains why my turkey gets hot in the oven.

Einstein's theories of space-time are just as valid as Newton's theories of gravitation. If you accept the latter, you have no basis on which to question the former--unless, of course, you can contemplate a circumstance in which that theory would not hold. And if you can do it (and prove it experimentally), the Nobel Committee will want to read your paper.

Gravity is not a fact. The apple and the earth accellerating towards each other is a fact, but everything that is built from there is theory and conjecture.
Electromagnetism is not a fact. But it explains why my compass points to northern Canada.
Atomic structure is not a fact. But it explains why water behaves as it does.
Thermodynamics are not facts. But it explains why my turkey gets hot in the oven.

Think you got carried away here. These are probably all demonstratable, most all proveable and in some cases observable.

Just to mention Electromagnetism you can 'see' the fields with simple test equipment, recreate and control it. Electromagnetism is fact.

Now the forces at play at molecular level may not be visable and include theories of electron flow etc. But even then its monitorable as current.

But when you get to time and space bending and whatnot, you can't see it, prove it or give a single measurable example. What observable phenomena do these theories explain. And then you theorize on how such theories might be occur which is even further out. I am not saying necessarily such is wrong, just it has no basis for saying it is right. Nothing should get a 'buy' and still be called science, no matter how frustrating it is.

I wonder if Einstein, having unlocked some of the greatest secrets in physics, desired to solve the last big ones before he died. But failing to solve them, he gave his best shot at theorizing them. But you have to look at Einstein's theories like anyone elses... just a theory, under proven true.

But that's where you're wrong.

What is demonstrable is the accelleration of the apple and the earth towards each other, the compass pointing towards northern Canada, compounds going into solution in water and the turkey getting hot.

But observing these things millions of times over does not prove the existence of gravity, electromagnetism, atomic structure or thermodynamics.

Your observations are fact. And they are consistent with theory. But they are not proof.



Actually we have plenty of experimental evidence to support this. Time dilation has been demonstrated by the Ives-Stillwell experiment as early as 1938, and it is so well understood that it is incorporated into the timing signals for GPS satellites, which run slower than the corresponding timers on earth.

But by far the most important evidence in support of special relativity is that it accuractely predicts events.

I would never suggest that special relativity has been proven. But by that standard, neither has gravity.

If other dimensions do exist, where does that leave time?

In the physical sense, yes it does. It is literally inconceivable for time not to exist as long as the universe acts the way it does.

In the sense of perception, it still exists but in a much less constant state. We've all experienced it, a long day that drags on and on versus a great day that zooms right by.

Pay careful attention! No scientific theory is ever proven true. A scientific theory is supported by experimental evidence, observation and measurement which show its predictions are correct to within instrumental resolution. The best that can be said of any scientific theory is that is is extensively corroborated and not yet experimentally falsified.

Theorems are proven true. Scientific theories are supported by empirical evidence.

ruveyn

No.

Yup, if the universe completely froze, and nothing moved/changed, there would be no time. There would still be mass and space, but not time. Time is how we order changes of one state to another.

The important thing about time that Einstein proved is that there is no universal/absolute time. The Newtonian model thought there was like a universal clock, or universal frame of reference for time.

I would be willing to bet, that if we went out to the end of our universe that what we would find is more universe, that is an endless stretch beyond of more space. I think it possible there might even be another universe out there, that is another batch of mass though I don't know how far away it would have to be for us not to see it. I guess I don't see how space which is nothing, at least no matter, has to be created. In other words why does nothing need creating ?

As far as the aspects of theories vs facts goes, I must conceed, because due to lack of knowledge/practice in this area I am unable to understand all that is being said. I know I have a primitive view. Sort of like that 'show me' attitude. You probably are trying to show me, but I am like but whats all these formulas and theories, I want to 'see' time in some way.

Well, if there is something universal about time, its that relativity spans the whole cosmos.