Time isn't real so what does that mean?

a reply to: neoholographic

With all due respect, classical physics requires theory and experimental proof, quantum is almost entirely based upon experiments but what you are discussing here is only partially based upon experimentation. The theory is basically a philosophical argument that has been tested wherever possible after it was composed. I admit that it was based upon prior understanding but it is primarily a mathematical model. Most work done is with computer simulations not in the lab. So I find your last comment to be somewhat disingenuous.

They say there is no time but there are cycles and seasons, night and day etc etc The rooster crows every sunrise and the moon controls the tides so those are ways to measure time even though they are not perfect exact measurements isn't that the very nature of "nature" the Earth is not a perfect circle etc etc it is all a really mind blowing and complex concept to try and wrap ones head around.

Double post

a reply to: neoholographic

.......or each coordinate of phase space, there is a single equation which describes how it changes over an infinitesimal interval of time

Watch the Greene video again.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

I believe you because look at your DP post times!

How did you do that?



As for me, time exits. To try to ignore it or call it a dimension that can be ignored is a disservice to science. It is embedded in QM. A probability can not be generated without action of the Hermetian operator. There used to be two different methods to calculate it; until a couple researchers found that they were part of a simpler equation. Called the "Quantum Process Rule" they created local region of Hilbert space. The QPR is a "frame" for the Hermetian operator to provide solution (eigenvalues) regardless of how it is measured (tool independent, as one can call it one thing, or, another, but reach the same result).

The Hilbert area includes time for any measurement to take place.

arxiv.org (arXiv:1702.01845, PDF): Updating the Born Rule.

originally posted by: Quantumfunction
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.

A lot of people still can't grasp what Einstein was saying about time. Einstein was saying that every object has their own time that's connected to space. So an atomic clock on a desk will be a different time when you move it to the floor. So say you're at a Baseball game. You take a bite out of your hot dog and at the same time the batter gets a hit. This can be seen by other observers in 3 different reference frames and all 3 will be correct. There's no absolute reference frame to order these events.

This is because information can't go from point A to point B faster than light. So there can't be anything called time. This is why I keep asking:

There's no time on the largest scales or the smallest scales.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neoholographic

If time doesn't physically exist, wouldn't the universe be a physical singularity?

Quantum Mechanics seems to suggest that possibility...

It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

Link

Im not expert in philosophy or physics, but my understanding is that our description of what we call time is inaccurate.

We exist in the 'right now' always, and cannot ever not.
What we describe as time is a form of measurement or ordering of experiences or events that we have created to help order the chaos we exist in.

It would be curious to experience time from the perception of another being or creature that is so incredibly different from us. If something lived for thousands of years, how would its perception of time feel?

a reply to: neoholographic

Because einstein isnt here to answer my questions I am asking for your understanding of it , anyone can post peoples quotes and then just say thats what it is !

I never made any claims , I am just going from what I have observed!
I dont know the point at which time doesnt appear to affect objects with mass !
I did however postulate that it was when the objects have extremely low mass and extremely high levels of energy!
the higher their energy level would push them into states where time is irrelevant.

probably going from the pico scale to the quantum world!
maybe to the point where observation cannot be made directly??
since this whole reality relies on observation , maybe time is bound to human consciousness so that this progression/life or whatever humans do can be made understandable !

there is definitely more than meets the eye for sure !
Time is most likely a result of consciousness
dont know why you dont want to disucss the philosophical and scientific its all the same thing !

like david bohm said, we are looking at everything as singular events outside of each other , when in reality its the whole thing we should be looking at !

however time , is it really anything at all as it really only means anything from a human perspective , in nature its one continual cycle , infinite loops

We are just a daydream of the almighty super computer. Nothing exists in our digital universe. Time is motion. If every molecule stopped moving, time would stop.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I have no idea lol something to do with time not existing perhaps? *cue twilight zone music*

Now I remember, I was editing sunset to sunrise and I accidentally qouted myself instead. So it wasn't a double post perse but an accidental self qoute which would have sounded weird... but good catch, good eye for detail!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

.......or each coordinate of phase space, there is a single equation which describes how it changes over an infinitesimal interval of time

Watch the Greene video again.

If we must do things again...

The 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 that would be future only in relation to the past viewpoint he has 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.

originally posted by: neoholographic
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!

To an outside objective observer, time does not change.

It only appears to change relative to the participant as he approaches infinity from either direction. Since this entire modal is analogous to the Doppler effect perhaps it would be easier to think of this. If you are moving next to the train, going faster or slower, at what point does the sound cease to exist?

a reply to: toms54

If you don't like that first sentence: "To an outside objective observer, time does not change.'; then you would agree with the video I posted. The universe does not exist in time. Time exists within the universe. I.e. there is no objective time. It only exists relative to something else.

a reply to: toms54

I don't understand his logic either. His arguments are largely semantical and don't address the conundrums which emerge in the research. But there is a "problem with time" in that there's a lack of agreement between general relativity and quantum mechanics as to the reality of time.

This paper describes a unique experiment in which static time and emergent time can be understood by comparing the observations of the observers - one inside the universe and one outside the universe.

Time from quantum entanglement: an experimental illustration

Ekaterina Moreva1; 2, Giorgio Brida1, Marco Gramegna1, Vittorio Giovannetti3, Lorenzo Maccone4, Marco Genovese1 1INRIM, strada delle Cacce 91, 10135 Torino, Italy 2International Laser Center of M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119991, Moscow, Russia 3NEST, Scuola Normale Superiore and Istituto Nanoscienze-CNR, piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy 3Dip. Fisica A. Volta", INFN Sez. Pavia, Univ. of Pavia, via Bassi 6, I-27100 Pavia, Italy

In the last years several theoretical papers discussed if time can be an emergent propertiy deriving from quantum correlations. Here, to provide an insight into how this phenomenon can occur, we present an experiment that illustrates Page and Wootters' mechanism of static" time, and Gambini et al. subsequent re nements. A static, entangled state between a clock system and the rest of the universe is perceived as evolving by internal observers that test the correlations between the two subsystems. We implement this mechanism using an entangled state of the polarization of two photons, one of which is used as a clock to gauge the evolution of the second: an internal" observer that becomes correlated with the clock photon sees the other system evolve, while an external" observer that only observes global properties of the two photons can prove it is static.

arxiv.org...

I had read this paper a while back and thought - if the outside observer only sees static time, does he/she really see anything? We can't see what goes on in a black hole so we don't know if there's time or if it's infinite. We can see the holographic black hole I suppose and surmise what's inside. Maybe our universe is a black hole where all the information is recorded on the surface and no one can see inside. If that were the case, then the experiment above would not be valid (I think). As for time, I still think of time as an infinitesimal interval between point A and point B.

P.S. "state tomography" is the density matrix. I had to look that up.

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neoholographic

If time doesn't physically exist, wouldn't the universe be a physical singularity?

Quantum Mechanics seems to suggest that possibility...

It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

Link

Good article and I remember this experiment.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it.

But it didn’t take physicists long to realise that while the Wheeler-DeWitt equation solved one significant problem, it introduced another. The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence.

www.quantumactivist.com...

Of course it doesn't!

Interesting OP.

Ok, I read through the thread...lots of good discussion. I’m a bit confused though: @OP Are you saying Einstein was correct?

I think I will understand better and constructively contribute....thanks!

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Yes, Einstein was correct about time. There's no absolute now or absolute time frame of events. Here's an example.

You have a fast moving train and 3 observers who see lightning strikes.

The first observer is stationary on the side of the train and sees the lightning strikes at the front and back of the train strike at the same time.

The observer on the train that's moving forward sees the lighting strike in front of the train first and then the back of the train.

The other observer is moving fast in the opposite direction of the train so they see lightning strike in the back of the train first and then the front of the train.

Einstein showed that this isn't merely 3 different points of view. The 3 observers are each seeing it correctly in their frame of reference. If each observer had clocks, the stationary observer would clock it as occurring at the same time while the moving observers will clock a difference in time between the lighting strikes.

THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE NOW OR REFERENCE FRAME.

So space-time intervals are the same between different reference frames. The space-time interval is zero at the speed of light and when it's negative, different observers can see the same events in different order and each observer would be correct from their reference frame.

So like I said, the faster you go the slower the ticks and you age more slowly until you reach c (the speed of light) and no more ticks.

a reply to: neoholographic

Great post.

Humans have been using methods of measuring "time" since around 1500BC

On a fundamental level there's no time because there's no distance between events

A type of "duration" must exist though right?

a reply to: Phantom423

I really don't understand what you''re saying. Are you saying that this breakdown in causality which he says is due to the speed of light is due to quantum entanglement or are you making a different point?

If all they see is static then how do they know one system evolves with respect to the other system? Wouldn't the state tomography be more like background noise?

Maybe our universe is a black hole where all the information is recorded on the surface and no one can see inside. If that were the case, then the experiment above would not be valid (I think). As for time, I still think of time as an infinitesimal interval between point A and point B. ---now I know your trolling me. I don't know about that black hole hologram. How can you measure time as an interval when it is being compressed to a vanishingly small interval?