Space Time and it's Existence

This is a loaded question but one I've thought about in the past many times.

Einstein himself said 'Time is an Illusion albeit a Persistent one'. This got the ball rolling years ago for me, wondering about Time and what it really was.

It may seem like a backward idea to some, maybe just something people don't think about I don't know. But it seemed like an interesting topic to delve into at this moment in 'Time'.

If time doesn't exist, how do we determine the age of planets?

They've got carbon dating but how precise is it, really? We only know what we've been told and nothing more. If you told a child that the colour red was really yellow, they would assume yellow was red and red was yellow. I get the big Why question in my mind about these things while looking into the realism of this place. Being part of it, but not part of it. Seeing it from an outside perspective. Anyways.. that's it.

This is a good website haven't read the entire thing yet but would like to hear your views on Time from your understanding of it.



A radio wave generated by Marconi a hundred years ago is still zooming through space at the speed of light

www.askamathematician.com...

Points to consider:

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light – why does it not arrive on the other side of the universe at the same time it left. Does it move or doesn’t it

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says we can’t know both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle.
My question is this, if you know that a photon is going the speed of light, the momentum, then does that mean you can never know the position of the photon?

But don’t stop thinking and being creative with your ideas. That’s half the fun of all of this if you ask me; and new ideas are what propel science forward.

Time is how we measure our perception of change.

The thing about time is that it's personal. There is no way to objectively separate it from your personal existence. That's where the math falls down. Math is meant to be objective, and it's terrible at figuring out what it's like for us each to experience existence from behind our own individual eyeballs.

I've always liked that Einstein quote as well. I mean here's this scientific genius saying that time is just an illusion. I wish he would elaborate.

Although there must be many more here more qualified than I, I'll take a crack at those questions.

A photon moving at the speed of light is 144,000 meters per second I believe? So it's fast but not instantaneous. From what I understand from "entanglement" or "spooky action from a distance" that IS instantaneous...but that is like a particle over here gets spun, and another particle anywhere in the universe is spun at the exact same time. So it's not like a beam or particle traveling through space. More like they are connected no matter how far apart.

And as far as the Uncertainty Principle, which I feel is a glorious concept that shows how this "dimension" or "reality" is built to its core, the more you know the position the less you know the velocity and vice versa. So if you "know" a particle is going lightspeed the position is blurry. If you "know" with certainty where the particle is the speed will be blurry. Like you can't pin it down to a certain time and place.

I think you can know both but it will be approximate. And then you got the whole "observing something changes it" scenario which is indeed mind bending. Quantum physics can be quite the trip.

no one questions Einsteins theorys,basicly what he says is fact. Have to ask yourself if he was alive today with the tech we have available today would he still be saying the same stuff? i am not so sure.

a reply to: JesusXst

If Time does not exist, planets don't have an "age" to measure, obviously.

If Time does not exist, then nothing can be "whizzing " anywhere in the Universe.

Time, in fact, does NOT exist.

Our perception of Time as a linear process, a thing made up of Past(s?), Present(s?), and Future(s?) is but a convenient illusion suited to the current state of our still developing minds.

Time, in its reality, cannot be divided into discrete bits and pieces; there is no "point of demarcation" possible to isolate this moment from that moment, now matter how brief (milli-, nano-, pico-, et al) that moment might be,

Because, if it were possible to completely isolate one moment from all the rest,

There would be no "time" filling the "gap" between the isolated moment and the rest.

Oblivion.

Consider a line of marbles on a tabletop, each marble a moment, the line of them stretching from past to future.

This is how we perceive the nature of time: moment to moment in a line.

We can make the marbles bigger (hours?, days?, eons?), or we can make them smaller (minutes, seconds), it does not matter to the structure as we perceive it. It is still a line. We can even add more marbles to the tabletop, until the entire plane is covered, and thus postulate the existence of "multiple timelines".

But look closer.

No matter how big or how small the marbles are, or how many are fit on the table, each marble is separate and discrete. There is a point where there exists "marble" and where there is "not marble".

But that is Not how Time exists: there is no point at which there exists "moment" and a point at which exists "not moment": "not moment" would end existence, never passing, making impossible the next "moment".

Time is "globular" and singular even if our minds cannot yet perceive it as such, Yet.

Yet!

a reply to: JesusXst

Yes, time is real. Because without a temporal dimension, when would anything exist.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Time, in fact, does NOT exist.

Fact eh? Well I can assure you it did when you typed that non sequitur. And it still does now...

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Time, in fact, does NOT exist.

Fact eh? Well I can assure you it did when you typed that non sequitur. And it still does now...

You reference the "convenient illusion" I previously mentioned.

I illustrated my hypothesis concerning the impossibility of linear (or even multi-linear) time.

Can you refute it?

I think when Einstein said that time is an illusion, he meant that time is relative. It flows slower in some places and faster in others (depending on local gravity), as well as flowing at a different rate depending on your relative speed.

Speed of light is extremely slow at cosmic scales (it would take light about 10,000 years to cross from one end of our galaxy to the other), but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.

I'll be back

.......

a reply to: JesusXst

The Einstein quote was actually; "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

This does not mean that time itself is an illusion, but that past, present and future all exist simultaneously, so our instantaneous perception of time, where we classify time into past present and future, is the illusion.

Time is a dimensional axis and must actually exist as something fundamental for what we know of physics to work.

Previously we had measured time in its own unique units (Hours, Minutes and Seconds) but Einstein gave us tools to measure the dimension of time in exactly the same units as we measure all other spatial dimensions. One second of time is equal to 299,792,458 meters, the maximum distance anything can move in a second - the speed limit of 'the speed of light'.

Note that calling it 'the speed of light' is really a misnomer. Light can, and does, sometimes travel slower than 'the speed of light'. The real value "c" (out of the E=Mc^2 equation) is like a speed limit and is the theoertical velocity that a massless particle like a photon moves with.

Time is an illusory measurement developed to measure man's mortality. Nothing more. What else in the universe cares about a planet's age ? Or the half-life of an isotope ?

As mentioned by others, Einstein did not imply that space and time don't exist, but that distance and duration are relative.

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light – why does it not arrive on the other side of the universe at the same time it left. Does it move or doesn’t it

There is no frame of reference in which a photon is at rest.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says we can’t know both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. My question is this, if you know that a photon is going the speed of light, the momentum, then does that mean you can never know the position of the photon?

The exact position of a photon can indeed not be known, as demonstrated by the wave nature of electromagnetic radiation.

Btw a change of the momentum of a photon means a change of its wavelength. Its propagation velocity remains constant.

originally posted by: JesusXst
If time doesn't exist, how do we determine the age of planets?

Everything exists!
'Time' exists!
So do unicorns with tiny purple bat-wings! ('Thought' exists!)
To imagine 'time' (as a theory; thought exists), one must first imagine 'motion' (that requires 'time' to happen)!
Even to someone who assumes 'linear time', one moment magically turning into the next...
Lets take every single (Planck) moment of Universal existence, and string them all together.
That should equal the entire existence of the Universe, and it does!
The smallest slice of 'time' possible, is the 'Planck moment', literally 'timeless'!
It has no 'duration', no temporal aspect/qualities.
So string em all, and the total 'non-duration' of all existence, ever, is one single timeless Planck moment!
All existence IS the 'Singularity'!

Every moment of existence exists Now!
Reality is a synchrony of moments!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

No time means no motion; one necessarily requires the other.
Same thing with 'gravity', another one of those 'thought illusions'.
That is why they are running in little circles trying to explain 'gravity'.
False assumptions have been accepted.

They've got carbon dating but how precise is it, really? We only know what we've been told and nothing more. If you told a child that the colour red was really yellow, they would assume yellow was red and red was yellow. I get the big Why question in my mind about these things while looking into the realism of this place. Being part of it, but not part of it. Seeing it from an outside perspective. Anyways.. that's it.

For the Perspectives that perceive 'motion', science has many pragmatic toys and games that work in that 'Reality'.
Like a dream science that works super in that dream world!
IF you accept the false premises, that will be the foundation of your Knowledge, your sciences.
Often a spurious direction.

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light – why does it not arrive on the other side of the universe at the same time it left. Does it move or doesn’t it

Can you spot the false premise?
Right, the assumption of the photon in motion!
The notion of a photon travelling!
Remember the quantum leap, where the electron, allegedly, 'jumped' from one energy level ('orbit') to another?
That was the assumption for a long time, until we developed tools allowing us to see further into the goings on in that 'jump'.
Bottom line is that there is no 'jump'.
Not anything moves from one energy level to another.
One moment the electron is there on the one, and not the other, and the next moment, the electron vanishes, gone, from the one energy level, and a brand new electron appears on the next one!

then does that mean you can never know the position of the photon?

The only Universally applicable answer to any request for 'ultimate coordinates' for anything is;
Here! Now! *__-

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JesusXst

The Einstein quote was actually; "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

This does not mean that time itself is an illusion, but that past, present and future all exist simultaneously, so our instantaneous perception of time, where we classify time into past present and future, is the illusion.

Time is a dimensional axis and must actually exist as something fundamental for what we know of physics to work.

Previously we had measured time in its own unique units (Hours, Minutes and Seconds) but Einstein gave us tools to measure the dimension of time in exactly the same units as we measure all other spatial dimensions. One second of time is equal to 299,792,458 meters, the maximum distance anything can move in a second - the speed limit of 'the speed of light'.

Note that calling it 'the speed of light' is really a misnomer. Light can, and does, sometimes travel slower than 'the speed of light'. The real value "c" (out of the E=Mc^2 equation) is like a speed limit and is the theoertical velocity that a massless particle like a photon moves with.

It might be handy to mention that c is meant to be a constant describing the speed of causality.

Light may travel much faster, but so far it seems our brains cannot process an optical event more quickly than c. I imply that c is actually just a variable which describes the rate at which a sensor might perceive. I would agree that c as a constant is a proposed "speed limit", so to speak.

It would be interesting if we found out that our camera sensors were better than us, but that we simply couldn't perceive if they are. Even an experiment to test a sensor's ability would produce data which would be judged by our limited knowledge and perception.

Unless anyone could come up with a way to create something which would interpret data itself and use that data to create duplicate tools within which was built a code, and the code was cracked at the exact same time on each tool by two entities whose distance is greater than a couple of light seconds apart in a region of space least affected by gravity or within a space wherein the gravity between two entities is invariable.

Any ideas?

Let's really prove "c" first.

On the topic of time, there is more than one definition. That's why the confusion.

Time in physics is the physical object which stretches space out, or rather upon which space is stretched. Think of space as a ball of gum and think of time has the hand that stretches it apart. Gum sticks to the hands the same way space sticks to time.

Or another way. Think of time as the mattress and space is the fitted sheet, where both the mattress and sheet are invisible until milk is spilled on it.

Or another way. Think of space as a sheet of notebook paper and time is the notebook binding. There is one time, but infinite spaces which are all identical until written upon can be bound to the infinite binding of time.

Or another way. Dig a hole in the ground. The hole is space, but the whole earth is time. That hole cannot exist without the earth.

Another way. Time is the object which connects you to the stars, making you and the star elements of a molecule in the universe. Space is that which divides you from the stars, revealing the elements of that molecule.

Now for an accessible metaphor.

Time is the spirit of change, which is a necessary property of its infinite physicality which must also be unchanging simultaneously in its physical form. Space is there to make that transition comfortably accessible to the sensor.

That means time beats, like the heart. Unmoving and yet breathing, expanding, contacting.

Therefore, time is the heart and space is the brain. Without the heart, the brain is no brain. Without the brain, the heart has no meaning.

a reply to: TarzanBeta


C is meassured in a Space of void that is absolute constant (vacuum). That is why C is a constant.


Every Source we know of that emitt energy/particles would do so With a constant speed if subjected to a absolute vaccum. Time would be a constant within a vaccum no matter what depending on the substance of the matter.

This should tell us that a absolute constant timeline does exist. Its just that within Our universe and labs we have to create the vaccum.

If Our universe expands equally in all directions this shoudl tell us something about the void of Space surrounding Our expanding universe. It would probably be a absolute vaccum. It would be absolutely constant.


The fundemental bases for all time must be a absolute constant timeline. It is the only timeline that can be infinite....

originally posted by: wildespace
I think when Einstein said that time is an illusion, he meant that time is relative. It flows slower in some places and faster in others (depending on local gravity), as well as flowing at a different rate depending on your relative speed.

Speed of light is extremely slow at cosmic scales (it would take light about 10,000 years to cross from one end of our galaxy to the other), but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.

This is getting close imo...

Time is funny..... move to Mars and the concept of seconds, minutes, hours and so on would be useless, except to reference to something back home on Earth.

I like the idea of scale vs time. It's a tremendous mind boggler. I can't remember now who mentioned it, maybe it was Watts. But imagine the big bang as an explosion. Maybe a balloon full of paint.
When the balloon blows up it will splatter paint all over the place. But here's the cath. When is the explosion actually over?
From that perspective, we could be part of that paint splatter... a paint blob flying through the universe, which still haven't settle (anywhere)... so the big bang is still on going?

The larger the scale, the slower the time. It does exist, but we can only relate to our own perspection of it based on amongst other things our relation to our planet, our sun and our life expectancy.
But a being living 4-5 times our age would perceive time completely differently, because their relation to their surroundings would differ from ours.

a reply to: spy66

Perceptually and very nearly void. Not actually void. There is absolutely no basis for assuming that near perfect vacuum is the same as perfect vacuum. We don't have the perceptual ability to prove it, but merely to assume it.

We don't even have the perceptual ability to read the data without observational interference.

The constant is an abstract necessity, but it cannot be declared a reality.

The amount of detail and effort that is necessary to produce a perfect constant that cannot be observed on the macroscopic scale in nature is, right now, as far as I know, still impossible to perform.

To stumble upon fractures of pieces of a puzzle and declare the solution is like if a small chunk of the Rosetta Stone was found and all ancient language was declared decoded and alive.

But some things unseen might be deduced, but the truth would suffer obscurity.

One would require to find more pieces of that stone, or someone particularly clever would discern the patterns and hope to recreate the rest of the information.

That information would still always be flawed without the pieces as proof.

There may be practical application for antiquities, but that application would not solve the history of the world.

A lot to simply say, "c" is virtual reality - it is not a realistic constant.

In a perfect vacuum, gravity doesn't even exist. Therefore to claim knowledge of the workings of a particle-wave in an environment that cannot even exist due to lack of a fundamental force/event seems a little forgetful.