Does TIME exist? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ErikTheNorwegian
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 02:43:27 pm
content: Does

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 02:54:46 pm
content: time is a illusion of the wave collapse functiontime flow depends on the observertime is not universal it can bendthese should anwser some of your questionsandBBC.Horizon.2008.Do.You.Know.What.Time.It.Is.WS.PDTV.XviD.MP3.MVGroup.org.avi

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 04:00:07 pm
content: Nah. Just read up on bistromatics.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 05:22:06 pm
content: "Does Time Really Exist?"Through the wormhole Season 2 episode 3. I rather liked it!Alexander.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 06:54:23 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on November 14, 2012, 05:38:25 pmi never watch the episode but i say bullshit! well i mean if you think you can send back something through time. you may slow it down or make it faster but not certainly reversing it back. once you experienced it its gone forever. those scientists are just wasting their "time"...

author: Kremmen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 09:12:45 pm
content: Another good question is, what is space? Only an empty arena where events unfold or something more?Below a link to another episode of the Fabric of the Cosmos by Greene. Although i have to say that after reading all the books by Greene, these tv shows are popularizations of his original popularizations of a rather difficult subject. These don't really capture all of the more elaborate points he makes in the books. Recommended reading for those with a functional brain though.

author: ee851
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 10:29:49 pm
content: Time is just what keeps everything from happening all at once. For example, today I exercised. Tomorrow is not an exercise day, so I needn't exercise tomorrow. For example, my sister is coming to visit next week. But she won't be here for another week. If you can think of something you plan to do later but not today, then you can relate the concept to your own life.Yes, you're right--we can only go forward in time, not backwards. Can you imagine how confusing life would be if we could go backwards in time ? It's way too confusing already! Events in general only move forward through time, not backwards. Well, actually it's spacetime if you want to get technical.Now I'll go back and watch the videos.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 10:34:42 pm
content: Yes, time exists -- as does time-travel.I, for instance, have spent my life up to this point in the past but intend to spend the rest of my life in the future

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 10:47:01 pm
content: better is thisfind it herehttp://ww3.tvo.org/video/173839/nothing

author: perfect_disturbance
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2012, 11:02:45 pm
content: I think its clear time exists. A much better question would be what is time? An incorrect (or maybe correct in non relativistic scenarios) perception or the sequencing of events? A component of space time?

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 09:37:15 am
content: Yes, I believethat TIME still exists.

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 10:08:33 am
content: the events of time are interchangeable time is also dependant on the observer these all prove scientific fact the double split experiment is a good example of the strangeness of a wave collapse function.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 10:35:52 am
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on November 14, 2012, 02:43:27 pmThat would be an ecumenical matter.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 01:46:36 pm
content: Quote from: jucole on November 15, 2012, 10:35:52 amIts just Hegelian dialectics man!

author: ee851
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 04:53:51 pm
content: Okay, now that I have watched the first video (Illusion of Time) completely, I have thoughts on time.Yes, time exists, but not independently of space. It exists as space-time. Einstein explained its details quantitatively in his two theories of relativity. Only in Newton's mind (and Gaileo's) was it possible to separate space-time into two independent scales, space and time. That isn't generally true. It is only possible in frames of reference in which relative motion is small compared to the speed of light.As far as entropy, this applies to "systems" of inanimate objects. Living organisms clearly violate entropy. Every second of every day of its life, a living organism reduces molecules in its food and rebuilds molecules in its body for its own purpose--to reproduce its own DNA either sexually or unchanged. Only when it dies does entropy take over its molecules.What implications does this have for entropy? I can only speculate that in all the cosmos, living organisms comprise the only "systems" in which entropy decreases, and only for a limited period of time--i.e., the organism's lifetime.The organism might--in general--look toward decreasing entropy in its surroundings. This might be the definition of consciousness, which all organisms exhibit to some extent.This might be the reason scientists ponder that the singularity called the Big Bang ever existed. Just an abstraction created by running time backwards conceptually. Not possible in reality except in a universe where time can be run backwards.I suppose one could even use this local decrease in entropy as a definition of consciousness. A "system" that decreases its entropy in time is one that is living. Only living systems have consciousness.Therefore it is only organisms can experience the passage of time. Yes, that's one giant leap. Perhaps unjustified. Probably won't be able to make a definite conclusion until I view the cosmos from a perspective of seeing all aspects of human time--past events, present circumstances, future events--as existing in one continuum. Because human experiences differ, this continuum would be specific to one human. It would not be shared by other humans, unless they were contemporaries. Therefore, it might not be scientific. Science is based on facts that can be agreed upon by individuals sharing the same set of assumptions, making the same observations and measurements, and drawing conclusions called laws.Allan

author: funkimunky
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 05:22:37 pm
content: Time is happening all at once instanteously at the event horizon that is the boundary of our universe. We are merely holigraphic manifestations of this where our experience time consecutively because of the effects of mass/gravity.When you mentioned result from experiments being the same for all people I think I heard that the results from certain quantum mechanical experiments changed depending on the position of the observer. It might be possible to change the past but the would put us in a parallel universe.Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 05:43:45 pm
content: spacetime is not what a human would call time, we are limited because of senses maybe even prejudices. time might be the left overs of the wave collapse function but it takes humans to make a meaning from to which we call time.The sky is littered full of stars emitting electromagnetic radiation far more than what comes from the sun. space bends these far sources of light and shifts them beyond visual spectrum.its not that it gets dark its that our eye are unable to detect itentropy as a definition of consciousness i quite like that idea

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 06:06:04 pm
content: Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

author: Mr Smiley
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 06:56:57 pm
content: Look at that clock on the wall.Does that clock exist in the future 1 second from now!Does that clock exist in the future 10 minutes from now!If you take the clock down in 2020, would the clock exist from now till then, and then disappear.Is now, only as far as you can see!! if so, is the point where you can't see any further the line between now and what is to happen for everything and everybody, the future. If not, then when does the future start.If you look in a mirror, how long does the reflection last.MmmmmA man in a lift with a lift boy and a candle, the man says to the boy, I'll give you a shilling if you can tell me where the light from the candle comes from, the boy replies, I'll give you two shillings if you can tell me where the light goes when i blow the candle out.Mr Smiley

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2012, 09:42:00 pm
content: Interestingly enough, a couple of months ago I wrote this speculative piece on the relationship between time and the quantum world:http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2012/0829.shtmlAll feedback gratefully received.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2012, 03:20:25 am
content: Quote from: amyk on November 15, 2012, 09:37:15 amHow about NewsWeek?

author: ee851
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2012, 04:39:05 pm
content: RCMR,I read your speculation. I am taking the liberty of sharing my thoughts here. Please don't regard this as a critique. I am not learned enough to be a "critic". Just my thoughts on what your wrote. Thank you for sharing your thoughts."So could it be that things behave very differently at quantum level because now we have particles so small that they are directly subjected to the individual, highly variable time domains that make up the stream we see as "time"?Might objects in the quantum world appear to disappear and reappear (as if by magic) simply because they are shifting between time domains? These subatomic particles not only move in space but also in time -- at a rate that is not at the same as our integrated real-time. "This sounds to me that you're saying time in the macroscopic world is a superposition of all the quantum subdomains of time as experienced by subatomic particles. AH! There lies the rub. We cannot measure anything experienced by subatomic particles. So the best we can do is apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This casts their behavior in a shrouding fog of mystery. That's why it's called the uncertainty principle.Heisenberg has cast the realm of subatomic particles into enough mystery already. For example, we can't tell if an electron in an atom is moving at 99.99% of lightspeed relative to the nucleus, or 90% of lightspeed, or 50% of lightspeed at any momentand simultaneously know which quadrant it occupies. So long as it remains impossible, in theory as well as in practice, to measure any aspect of what a subatomic particle experiences, we won't be able to peer into the cloud of mystery.Yes, Heisenberg's principle seems to cast the behavior of subatomic particles into the realm of Harry Potter and his mentors and buddies in witchcraft. But it is even weirder than that. Heisenberg's principle has effectively lowered a black curtain between the two worlds.We humans are the most consummate pattern recognizers we know of. I gather what you're thinking is patterns of space and time of macroscopic particles is a superposition of innumerable quantum subdomains. Well, I don't think so. Reality is even weirder than that, I'm afraid. We can make conceptual theories about quantum effects For example, Einstein's photoelectric effect, just over a hundred years old now. Such theories are few and far between. Maybe you will make one."This might also explain things such as quantum entanglement -- perhaps it's not a matter entanglement but simply a case of the very same particle being in two places at the same time -- at least from the perspective of those sitting on the raft. "That is one interpretation. It seems strange because we cannot perceive anything that happens in the quantum world. Yes, I view it as a case of the same particle being in two places at the same time. At least from my perspective. Now, can you describe the world from the subatomic particle's perspective? Maybe then you could support your theory. Forgive me. I am poking fun at you because, of course, I realize it is not possible to do so even in theory because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."So long as we think of time as an immutable, smooth, constant, the rift between the quantum and macro worlds becomes hard to resolve. If we instead, consider time to be a seething mass of microdomains oscillating at random but *all* drifting in the same general direction -- then perhaps a different insight may be possible.Of course this theory also raises some interesting prospects -- "This would only be a theory if you expand it mathematically to the point of detail where an independent worker could use it to predict the outcome of an experiment.Your macroscopic river of time analogy is interesting. Maybe that's it. Maybe we just can't see the river until we get out of it. Maybe we will only understand the relationship of time to the macroscopic world when we die. But that presupposes that nature recycles consciousness just as it does matter and energy, doesn't it?

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2012, 09:07:56 pm
content: Yes, when I wrote that, my math was pretty rusty so I didn't really contemplate coming up with any proofs.However, since then I've spent a lot of time "refreshing" my math skills for another quite complex project so I may go back and revisit the whole thing to see if I can come up with any substantive proofs for my speculations