Time isn't real so what does that mean?

Still didnt get an answer to my question if time doesnt exist on the quantum level , then how can it exist in practical physics
in the equation speed = distance / time



classical physics relies on time as a function for many of the equations and laws !

so for physics to say it doesnt exist is false , as its clearly an observable thing within the 3rd dimension
only at the quantum scale time is not relevant !

Thanks

a reply to: neoholographic

You know at some point it might be worth your while to consult a real book instead of YouTubes. BTW, no where in that video does Brian Greene say that "time does not exist". He's attempting to describe space-time in a more intuitive way for the benefit of the viewer.

And once again, as with all of your threads, you never answer a question. You merely skip over them and march on with your hypotheses without any validation. If you have a new idea about time, fine. Write it up in a way that a physicist can understand what you're trying to convey. But posting a whole load of disjointed quotes does nothing to prove your point.

Look at the diagrams below. You might consider buying this book: "A Most Incomprehensible Thing" by Peter Collier.
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527079130&sr=8-1&keywords=a+most+inc omprehensible+thing&dpID=51hKYXxg76L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

a reply to: neoholographic

This video starts out with an objective description but when it gets to the alien cycling away, it switches to a psychological perceptual description. This is the first flaw. We are comparing apples with oranges.

The next flaw is how he cycles away and his perspective changes to a past reality then he turns around and his perspective switches to a future reality. Yes, it does but the would be future only in relation to the past viewpoint he ha previously experienced. It would not be future relative to the stationary alien. In other words, his past perspective would only become less in the past until he approached the stationary alien. At which point they would then perceive the same now. There is never a point where the cycling alien ever has a future perspective relative to the stationary one.

All conclusions after that point are invalid.

a reply to: neoholographic

I Disagree . Time is Actually an Integral Part of the Universe. The very Linear concept of time is tied into the concept of the ​Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is seen by many Physicists as one of the most important Laws in all of Physics! Without Time as a real property of the Universe, the Second Law becomes meaningless.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neoholographic

I Disagree . Time is Actually an Integral Part of the Universe. The very Linear concept of time is tied into the concept of the ​Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is seen by many Physicists as one of the most important Laws in all of Physics! Without Time as a real property of the Universe, the Second Law becomes meaningless.

That's what I was trying to say. Time is a measure of entropy.

originally posted by: sapien82
Still didnt get an answer to my question if time doesnt exist on the quantum level , then how can it exist in practical physics
in the equation speed = distance / time



classical physics relies on time as a function for many of the equations and laws !

so for physics to say it doesnt exist is false , as its clearly an observable thing within the 3rd dimension
only at the quantum scale time is not relevant !

Thanks

Einstein told you why.

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent ‘now’ objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

If there's no objective now how can there be time?

This is why I keep asking and nobody answers.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE?

a reply to: neoholographic

If anyone could reconcile quantum physics with classical physics, he would be the smartest man on earth. Unified field theory. Please explain it to us.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If there's no objective now how can there be time?

This is why I keep asking and nobody answers.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE?

I answered. Maybe I don't know much but I did answer. It is a fallacy that there is no objective now.

You probably need to speak to someone that at least believes the same theories that you do.

a reply to: neoholographic

it is quite obvious to me that time really only affects objects with exceptional mass !
where as quantum elements have relatively low mass or almost non existant

it appears to me that time and gravity are interlinked then through objects or matter having mass!

the less mass you have the less time/gravity affects you in the third dimension!

I think once you get down to the quantum scale the speeds at which these elements / particles travel or the energy levels / frequency / vibration they operate on some how absolves them from the affects of time !


However I wasnt asking for Einsteins answer to the question, I was asking you to explain it from your own point of view, otherwise we could just sit here all day quoting other people !
It obviousl;y has to do with high mass, low energy matter, and objects with low mass and high energy

well thats what it looks like at first glance

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: neoholographic

If there's no objective now how can there be time?

This is why I keep asking and nobody answers.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE?

I answered. Maybe I don't know much but I did answer. It is a fallacy that there is no objective now.

You probably need to speak to someone that at least believes the same theories that you do.

What? There's no objective now in 4D space-time. Where? Show me one scientific paper that says this. This would violate relativity. This is why Einstein said this:

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent ‘now’ objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

This is the science forum not the make it up as you go forum.

Einstein also said:

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Again I ask.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE? PICOSECONDS? MILLISECONDS? NANOSECONDS? GIVE ME THE POINT

a reply to: sapien82

You said:

However I wasnt asking for Einsteins answer to the question

Why not? You're in a Science forum and a lot of what I'm saying about time is connected to Relativity. Einstein's answers to the questions have been tested and we see observational evidence for things like time dialation.

So of course you don't want Einstein's answers because you're making claims that have no basis in the discussion of time.

I just don't say things in a vacuum. I like to post SCIENCE that supports what I'm saying in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY FORUM. If I want to debate Philosophy, there's a forum for that.

Again I ask.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE?

a reply to: toms54

That seems counter intuitive. I would expect 4D space-time to locate the now more precisely. If you use time to measure motion then we would be talking 6D space-time. Motion occurs in 3 dimensions so time would necessarily have to also. The time spent along each dimension. The result would be a more precise now.

"Now" is a dynamic process. It's also relativistic. As the Greene video showed, the past, present and future can be imagined as slices in space-time. The past is fixed. The "now" is fixed when it becomes the past. The future the same.

For each coordinate of phase space, there is a single equation which describes how it changes over an infinitesimal interval of time. This was discovered by Laplace.
At each instant of time, the state of a particle is defined by six variables, or coordinates: x(t), y(t), z(t), Vx(t), Vy(t) and Vz(t). The history of the particle is the trajectory through the six dimensional state-space.
Wherever you happen to be in space, you can figure out where you were (I tried to scan and upload the equation, but didn't work). In the end, you have 6N equations for N particles. Note that each variable has the (t) element. That's the key to understanding the dynamic process.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neoholographic

I Disagree . Time is Actually an Integral Part of the Universe. The very Linear concept of time is tied into the concept of the ​Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is seen by many Physicists as one of the most important Laws in all of Physics! Without Time as a real property of the Universe, the Second Law becomes meaningless.

Time isn't entropy and this is why you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support it. The laws of physics are time reversible. This means they work both forwards and backwards. What you're talking about is the arrow of time. Here's Sean Carroll talking about this:



So the arrow of time is just an arrow that has nothing to do with any absolute or intrinsic quantity called time. In fact, experiments have reversed this arrow.

Experiment shows that arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one

An international team of researchers has conducted an experiment that shows that the arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one. In a paper uploaded to the arXiv server, the team describe their experiment and its outcome, and also explain why their findings do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

phys.org...

a reply to: neoholographic

Time is Math. Our Earth measurement in time is based on the Earth. Time measurements allows all of us on the Earth to mentally be on the same page. It is a way to communicate. Someone on another planet would have their own version on how to measure or account for time based on their planets cycles. The right now moment, or it's in the past, or it's in the future is a universal saying to any one at any planet or spot.

originally posted by: frugal
a reply to: neoholographic

Time is Math. Our Earth measurement in time is based on the Earth. Time measurements allows all of us on the Earth to mentally be on the same page. It is a way to communicate. Someone on another planet would have their own version on how to measure or account for time based on their planets cycles. The right now moment, or it's in the past, or it's in the future is a universal saying to any one at any planet or spot.

Exactly!

There's no evidence that time is some absolute or intrinsic feature of the universe.

a reply to: Phantom423

That is what I said - 6 dimensions. Sorry if I didn't post any mathematics. I don't see hardly anyone else here posting equations either.

Thank you for talking to me.

a reply to: Phantom423

Your post proves my point lol. Do you guys read what you post?

The pages you posted are talking about space like separation and time like separation. Events that are time like separated are causally connected. This means all observers will see the events in the same order. So I will never be seen to take something out of the fridge before I open it.

Events that are space like separated can be seen in any order by different observers. While I'm opening the Fridge someone else could be checking Facebook on their smartphone. These two events can be seen in a different order by observers. They're not causally connected. So an observer can say these events happened at the same time, another observer can say that I opened the Fridge first and Facebook was checked second. Another observer can say Facebook was checked first and I opened the Fridge second and ALL OBSERVERS WOULD BE CORRECT IN THEIR FRAMES OF REFERENCE.

Why is this the case?

THE SPEED OF LIGHT!

It's exactly what I've been saying. There's no TIME LIKE SEPARATION between these events because there's NO TIME. The clock ticks slower as you move towards c or the speed of light. Eventually there's no ticks! This is why I keep asking.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE? PICOSECONDS? MILLISECONDS? NANOSECONDS?

You guys have avoided that simple question like it's the plague LOL!

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: neoholographic

If there's no objective now how can there be time?

This is why I keep asking and nobody answers.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE?

I answered. Maybe I don't know much but I did answer. It is a fallacy that there is no objective now.

You probably need to speak to someone that at least believes the same theories that you do.

What? There's no objective now in 4D space-time. Where? Show me one scientific paper that says this. This would violate relativity. This is why Einstein said this:

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent ‘now’ objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

This is the science forum not the make it up as you go forum.

Einstein also said:

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Again I ask.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE? PICOSECONDS? MILLISECONDS? NANOSECONDS? GIVE ME THE POINT

Thank you for your response. I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.
I did not notice that everyone here is providing footnotes for every statement they make. If there is no room for logical discussion here without documentation then I suppose I should leave you to your science forum.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: neoholographic

If there's no objective now how can there be time?

This is why I keep asking and nobody answers.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE?

I answered. Maybe I don't know much but I did answer. It is a fallacy that there is no objective now.

You probably need to speak to someone that at least believes the same theories that you do.

What? There's no objective now in 4D space-time. Where? Show me one scientific paper that says this. This would violate relativity. This is why Einstein said this:

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent ‘now’ objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

This is the science forum not the make it up as you go forum.

Einstein also said:

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Again I ask.

AT WHAT POINT DOES TIME CHANGE? PICOSECONDS? MILLISECONDS? NANOSECONDS? GIVE ME THE POINT

Thank you for your response. I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.
I did not notice that everyone here is providing footnotes for every statement they make. If there is no room for logical discussion here without documentation then I suppose I should leave you to your science forum.

That's not the point. Of course there's room for logical discussion but you just can't refute scientific studies and experiments with what you think is logical. At the end of the day that doesn't matter when actual scientific experiments are showing x and your opinion is saying something else.

With all due respect, your opinion is meaningless in a scientific debate. There's a Philosophy forum if you want to debate your logic vs my logic.

a reply to: neoholographic

Events that are space like separated can be seen in any order by different observers. While I'm opening the Fridge someone else could be checking Facebook on their smartphone. These two events can be seen in a different order by observers. They're not causally connected. So an observer can say these events happened at the same time, another observer can say that I opened the Fridge first and Facebook was checked second. Another observer can say Facebook was checked first and I opened the Fridge second and ALL OBSERVERS WOULD BE CORRECT IN THEIR FRAMES OF REFERENCE.

Interesting. I didn't know this.