Is Time Real? - Universe Today Article

Hi everyone,

I watched the "through the wormhole" programme the other night which was narrated by Morgan Freeman. There was some really interesting ideas on the show and it mentioned about the possibility of time not even being real, only to our individual conciousness.

Anyway, here is a very cool article from Universe Today which goes into much more detail about this.

I'm no expert on lots of the scientific jargon, but it is an area that is very exciting to read about, and I really feel we are on the verge of a massive breakthrough in all our lifetimes here.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fa03b6c1c59.jpg[/atsimg]

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history (Douglas Adams 1952-2001).

The way that we deal with time is central to a major current schism in physics. Under classic Newtonian physics and also quantum mechanics – time is absolute, a universal metronome allowing you determine whether events occur simultaneously or in sequence. Under Einstein's physics, time is not absolute – simultaneity and sequence depend on who's looking. For Einstein, the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant and time changes in whatever way is required to keep the speed of light constant from all frames of reference

Quantum mechanics does (well, sometimes) require absolute time – most obviously in regards to quantum entanglement where determining the spin of one particle, determines the spin of its entangled partner instantaneously and simultaneously. Leaving aside the baffling conundrums imposed by this instantaneous action over a distance – the simultaneous nature of the event implies the existence of absolute time

The 'time isn't real' camp runs the line that time is just a by-product of what the universe does (anything from the Earth rotating to the transition of a Cesium atom – i.e. the things that we calibrate our clocks to).

Much more info in the article linked above. I suggest anyone who is into this stuff read it, interesting stuff!

The whole subject boggles me indeed. Time, where we came from, how it all started, what started it, where did the thing that started it come from, ....

All I know is time is change.

EDIT: Uh, turns out the article boggles me too. We really could do with more Einsteins.

[edit on 13/6/2010 by nightrun]

well, I believe we may live in a virtual world, so, yes time would be considered an illusion, but as everything else; this way it would be easy to explain everything ... just imagine a videogame, thats something I am inclined to believe as a good possibility;

I will watch the show tomorrow, so I can comment on the theories presented, tired right now ... flagged since you remembered that the EP was aired ... ^

Personally I find all this talk about time boring..

I think its just a lot of scientists without realistic ideas that want funding,
so they come up with a theory/concept that can be neither proved or dissproved...

Great way to get grants....

It just took me 2 minutes to write this post...
Thats Time well spent and never to return......

We humans have determined time to be a constant. But in reality time is not a constant as our clocks indicate. NO clock in the world show the exact same time or change at the same speed.

reply to post by spy66


true

reply to post by virgom129


the problem with talking about TIME, is that we dont have any idea of the real physics of the universe, so, to talk about TIME is hard, we only know what we can perceive

I need to watch this, but I need to sleep ...

reply to post by spy66


Clocks represent a tools for measuring the passage of time, in the vast majority of cases (i.e. mechanical clocks), inaccuracy and differences between clocks are attributes of the mechanical process usually employed to provide the measuring function.

Clocks are basically abstracted from the time they measure.

I seem to remember that the correlation between velocity and time (as such) was proven via the use of atomic clocks in aircraft back in the 1970s... anybody remember the specifics? Ultimately, the corrected results were consistent with relativity theory demonstrating that time was slowest aboard a speeding aircraft as predicted, as indicated by differences in consistency between ground based atomic clocks and the those aboard the aircraft.

EDIT: Misspelling 'mechanical clocks' gives a whole different meaning to a sentence!

Some time ago i watched a experiment with light in a darkened stadium. Where a high speed camera was used to record the expansion of light from a light bulb.

One thing struck me as we were looking at the recordings. We were actually able to see the light sphere before it even reached the camera. According to science that should not be possible.

Outside the light sphere there was total darkness. And we didn't see the camera until the light sphere reached the camera.

I have also seen a similar experiment done in a gymnasium. This experiment is displayed on YouTube. But i cant find it anymore. That experiment proves the same thing.

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by spy66

 

Clocks represent a tools for measuring the passage of time, in the vast majority of cases (i.e. mechanical clocks), inaccuracy and differences between clocks are attributes of the mechanical process usually employed to provide the measuring function.

Clocks are basically abstracted from the time they measure.

I seem to remember that the correlation between velocity and time (as such) was proven via the use of atomic clocks in aircraft back in the 1970s... anybody remember the specifics? Ultimately, the corrected results were consistent with relativity theory demonstrating that time was slowest aboard a speeding aircraft as predicted, as indicated by differences in consistency between ground based atomic clocks and the those aboard the aircraft.

EDIT: Misspelling 'mechanical clocks' gives a whole different meaning to a sentence!

But still, a clock does represent the time as common people perceive and understand time. Our system is based on the time you have on your clock.

Science bases time on observations.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Even light has a defined, measurable speed...
If you have a camera with enough FPS you will see it move...

Thats really not what this thread is about...

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by spy66

 

Even light has a defined, measurable speed...
If you have a camera with enough FPS you will see it move...

Thats really not what this thread is about...

Well it does because light has to do with expansion. And time is also expansion.

reply to post by spy66


That experiment sounds interesting but when you say 'camera' do you actually mean a camera that uses standard digital processing? Since the leading edge of a light sphere could cover, say, 100m in around 1/3x10^6 of a second they must be using the most advanced equipment which can capture around 200x10^6 frames a second. That is some speed! Great if you can find the YouTube vid.

BTW, virgom129, it is valid for Spy666 to raise the the subject of light speed in this thread. It is generally acknowledged that light speed is constant, however, that constancy becomes an issue in certain circumstances.

It was previously commonly believed that light speed was as fast as it gets and that nothing could *accelerate* up to and beyond the speed of light even if particles that *always* travelled beyond the speed of light could exist (e.g. hypothetical tachyons).

This of course is particularly relevant in entanglement theory where simultaneous actions are believed to occur, disregarding the concept of faster than light speed time lag commuications.

The idea has been promoted that it is time that changes in order to allow certain apparent paradoxes to exist. This brings into question the whole paradigm of absolute time and/or relative time and so is of concern to this thread.

see! time really does speed up as we get older. no one can tell me it doesnt if time is relative to the observer.

reply to post by SugarCube


I thought they found particles that travel faster than light ages ago and have in fact been collecting them...

I just wonder about all this Time theory, because thats all it is is theory..

Its obvious we will never be able to phisically travel backwards in time because if that was possible we would have seen evidence...

So it is only travelling forward that is theory, and that can not be proved as yet..

I just think scientists have more pressing concerns now...

Originally posted by virgom129
Personally I find all this talk about time boring..

I think its just a lot of scientists without realistic ideas that want funding,
so they come up with a theory/concept that can be neither proved or dissproved...

kind of like string theory. load of BS if you ask me.

reply to post by virgom129


You are correct, there are particles that apparently travel faster than light (e.g. tachyons) but *accelerating* from a sub-light speed to light speed and beyond is apparently not possible.

I'm not so sure about the travelling backward through time theory... people always say, "there is no evidence", but what evidence are they looking for? Just because somebody did not go back in time and proclaimed to the Pope or a King that they are from the future and 'here is the evidence of future inventions for all to see' does not mean that it did not occur.

It could be that our current time is the product of events after somebody has in fact been back in time but it was performed in such a way as to be as non-destructive as possible.

Sir Isaac Newton: "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."

I think science has partially over complicated this issue to some extent.
To me time is in part our perspective of the above law.

It is only something we conjured up to support our memories of past events.

What it really is , is just the universe being the universe. Trying to have a theory of everything may not even be possible. Imagine our world versus the quantum world as the ocean and sand beneath. The two act completely different, and are different, but both while separate do effect one another and the sand supports the ocean just like the quantum world supports ours where they touch.

Perhaps the quantum world and our world are two different dimensions, the extra dimension they keep looking for have been there all along.

Light maybe where energy from our world is touching the energy of the quantum world the surface between the sand and the ocean. We can force more of our world and the quantum world together through explosions and nukes which oh by the way create ever brighter light.

As we speed up it appears that our world and the quantum world interact in such a way as to slow down Sir Issac Newtons law above. The effect is that it slows down those action and reactions as we move part of our world through the sand (quantum world) at a faster rate. There is a sort of friction between the two dimensions so things age slower at higher speeds.

There is no reason nor does there have to be a theory of everything. No reason the quantum dimension and the matter dimension have to have the same laws. If there is any law they should study it would be the interface between the two rather than trying to tie them together.

As far as I can tell EVERYTHING in the universe is in motion so there is a constant friction between the two dimensions. This motion is the glue.

I also believe that this motion and friction between the two may create hydrogen and helium possibly through an interaction with light in deep space away from gravity, and the universe is constantly creating more outside of gravity. Wont go into my thoughts on gravity but it follows the same line of thinking though.

Imagine a universe were it rains hydrogen and helium in deep space and keeps on keeping on.

reply to post by SugarCube


Sorry i dont know what type of camera that was used. I was just an observer to the whole experiment. I had nothing to do with it. But we were allowed to observe.
To me it didn't look like the camera was unusual in any way. But they did have to measure the distance from the camera to the light very accurate. At least they spent a lot of time placing the camera just right.

I am looking for the YouTube video as we speak. The experiment is very cool. I would like to see it again as well.

WOW

I just watched through.the.wormhole with morgan freeman


just AMAZING show, very well made

the theory that I got most interest is the virtual world one; I really believe too that in some time we will be able to simulate our world and when we do that, well, we will become GOD and we will be able to even create a matrix like world, where you just connected to a computer, and live a life of some virtual thing

recommend to everyone to watch it ... morgan freeman is awsome ... I loved it

just to finish

I truly believe this world doesnt exist, everything is just information, no matter if we live in a simulation or in a real experience ...