Time isn't real so what does that mean?

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
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?

Thanks for your post and the answer is no.

There's no absolute interval, time or duration between events. If there was Einstein wouldn't be Einstein because his theory wouldn't make any sense as it pertains to time.

The space-time interval is zero at the speed of light.

Nothing changes. No duration, no ticks, nothing. When the space-time interval is negative, different observers can see the same events in different order.

A person can hit a golf ball on the golf course and another person could be sitting in the golf cart checking their phone and observers can see these things occur in different orders. You can see them happen at the same time, you can see it where the golf ball is hit first then the phone is checked or the phone is checked first.

These aren't just 3 different points of view. If each observer had a clock in their frame of reference they would measure the time difference.

This destroys any notion of absolute time or some very small unit of time.

If there was a very small unit of time, when the space-time interval was zero or negative we would still measure this small unit of duration or time. We don't.

It would mean there would always be an absolute order of events for all observers whether the space-time interval is positive, negative or zero. We would always have to see these events in the same order becausae of this small amount of time but that's not the case.

That's why I kept asking where is the point where time changes.

I don't want to hear very small. A nanosecond is very small and so is a picosecond. What is the exact measurement of this very small unit of time that separates events?

That's how you know there's no time.

The crazy thing is this. The space-time interval will be the same for all observers. We could be across from each other or I can be in New York and you're in L.A. and the space-time interval is the same!!

Einstein had to say,"What the hell is going on?" Nothing is changing. So every now event in what we call past, present and future happens simultaneously. So there's no objective now. 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.”

I was recently watching a lecture on Relativity and one of the comments said:

I want some of what Einstein was smoking LOL

His ideas were so counterintuitive even he didn't understand it all so people like Einstein's former Professor Minkowski came along and added to it.

a reply to: neoholographic

I find it mind boggling that science can break through the illusion using linear algebra.

But its not new knowledge. The illusion has been known by Indian philosophers for thousands of years. The Indian approach was a lot less long winded. They realised that our external senses were tainted so searched internally using meditation for answers. Its only when they realised the emptiness at the core of every human (Atman) were they able to witness the whole (Brahman).

Regardless the method, the search for truth is all that matters. Science seems to have realised the illusion but will they see whats hidden behind???

A more recent description by a Hindu used the words "specious reality" to describe our universe ...

In order to give individuality and independence to Its thought images, Spirit had to employ a cosmic deception, a universal mental magic. Spirit overspread and permeated Its creative desire with cosmic delusion, a grand magical measurer described in Hindu scriptures as maya (from the Sanskrit root ma, "to measure"). Delusion divides, measures out, the Undefined Infinite into finite forms and forces. The working of cosmic delusion on these individualizations is called avidya, individual illusion or ignorance, which imparts a specious reality to their existence as separate from Spirit

By Paramahansa Yogananda

a reply to: toms54

The design of the experiment was to determine what two observers would perceive - one in our universe and one outside our universe. The balance of the post about black holes is merely my own speculation. It has nothing to do with the actual experiment.
The observer outside our universe sees no time in our universe - only a space which is static and not moving in any appreciable way. The observer inside our universe (you and I) perceives the evolution of time simply by comparing the evolution of the two photons in the experiment. The experimental setup which I posted in the image describes what both observers would see.

Again, my comment on the black hole etc are my own speculations. There's no proof that these ideas exist or are valid.

dragonridr:

Now does time exist of course it does check your watch. Does space exist again walk in any direction.

Time, as a self-independent existential reality does not exist. We, each of us, our self-aware consciousness, is a stable persistence (although there are exceptions due to injuries and diseases) in a flowing river of varying motions of durations. It is through our perceiving of these varying motions of duration, from the smallest oscillation (Planck's wavelength) up to the centrifugal revolution of the whole of the content in the universe that we infer our sense of time. Of course, we don't perceive the oscillations of quantum or atomic phenomena, nor do we perceive the revolution of the whole of content in the universe, we perceive a diverse array of varying durations within a narrow spectrum or scale.

Just because we impose units of measurement upon the diverse array of durations of motions does not make time real. If all the durations of motions were the same, how could we measure and quantify it. To measure and quantify something we need a 'beginning' and an 'end', but if all durations were the same, how could we determine true beginning and true end?

Our inference of time is relative to our own persisting frame of reference...our conscious awareness, and also through perceiving the growth of own own organic structure from infancy to adulthood and old age. Physicists make all sorts of counter-intuitive claims through misinterpretation of phenomena during their experiments (a lot of which are self-fulfilling prophecies - they gain the result they want to see).

When Einstein coined the term 'spacetime', all he did mathematically was to conjoin two inferences together: the inference of space, and the inference of time, because logically (for us in the present day), space and time are actually two units of measurement inseparable from each other. The former infers distance between two (or more) persisting stabilities, and the latter infers the duration to bridge the distance between them.

Always remember, you infer space by the content within it, without that content, you could not infer 'spatiality' from space alone, you need frames of reference, i.e., at least two (or more) vector coordinates between separate and stable persisting objects. Only then can you infer space.

a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

a reply to: neoholographic

Time what is it? It's a concept. It doesn't mean anything.

a reply to: toms54

That example shows how events can appear in a different order but has no bearing upon the causality aspect. The strikes are not dependent upon one or the other happening first. For you to get something out of the refrigerator you must open the door.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: toms54

The design of the experiment was to determine what two observers would perceive - one in our universe and one outside our universe. The balance of the post about black holes is merely my own speculation. It has nothing to do with the actual experiment.
The observer outside our universe sees no time in our universe - only a space which is static and not moving in any appreciable way. The observer inside our universe (you and I) perceives the evolution of time simply by comparing the evolution of the two photons in the experiment. The experimental setup which I posted in the image describes what both observers would see.

Again, my comment on the black hole etc are my own speculations. There's no proof that these ideas exist or are valid.

Yea, the jargon threw me off. I realized I read static wrong when I reread everything but I hadn't formulated a correction yet.

So that experiment illustrates the exact same concept expressed in that 16 minute video I posted earlier.
What is Time? The universe does not exist in time. Time exists within the universe.

except that he does it without quantum entanglement.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

Is there an implication here, that all subjective observation is illusion?

If so: illusion according to what reality?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

Is there an implication here, that all subjective observation is illusion?

If so: illusion according to what reality?

Maybe it is when seen from a skewed perspective. Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. Even if it is difficult to determine. All of reality is not some psychological magic act. If you see the earth as flat does that make it true for anyone but you?

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

Time what is it? It's a concept. It doesn't mean anything.

Good points. Here's some video about the train and lightning strikes.



Here's one about length contraction.



This is very important. It talks about how the train ISN'T REALLY SOLID OR RIGID.

Just imagine all of the frames that can be seen between Planck's constant and the speed of light!!

You can have an infinity of frames. We're wired to observe things around 60 frames per second. Around 13 milliseconds or 75 f.p.s. we still see an image.

YOUR BRAIN HAS A FRAME RATE AND IT’S PRETTY SLOW

Life isn’t a stream; it’s a movie. Like a projectionist stitching together reels without audiences noticing, the brain collects the frames of reality sent to it and weaves them into one apparently seamless whole. The human frame rate shows us life at a certain speed, but life can be much faster or slower if we change it.

Have you ever been next to a moving car with wheels that looked like they were going backwards? Blame the human frame rate. According to research that determined how many light flashes per second the human brain can discern as separate before they look like a steady beam, scientists have found that for us, life is a movie running at around 60 frames per second. When a car’s wheel is spinning fast enough to simulate that frame rate, it can look like the wheels spin backwards. What’s happening is that the wheel’s position is only slightly behind where it was when the last frame was stitched together by your brain.

nerdist.com...

MIT neuroscientists find the brain can identify images seen for as little as 13 milliseconds.

Imagine seeing a dozen pictures flash by in a fraction of a second. You might think it would be impossible to identify any images you see for such a short time. However, a team of neuroscientists from MIT has found that the human brain can process entire images that the eye sees for as little as 13 milliseconds — the first evidence of such rapid processing speed.

news.mit.edu...

This actually supports Biocentrism which says there's no objective universe out there. It's all in your head.

For instance, there could be nanobeings that are wired to perceive the passage of a nanosecond. A second is equal to 1 billion nanoseconds. So we couldn't see this nanobeing. But they could see us and they wouldn't see us as people but as objects that move around in their sky. We might be U.F.O.'s to nanobeings.

Say you have beings that aren't wired to perceive 1 year of our time. So 1 year of our time is like a day to them. They couldn't see us but we might see them as objects in our sky like U.F.O.s or space debris.

Like I said, think about the infinite frames between Planck's constant and the speed of light. You can have zettabeings, picobeings, yoctobeings and attobeings. Beings that can't perceive a day or a month.

I agree with Biocentrism in one regard, I think life(consciousness) experiences all of these frames in some form.

a reply to: neoholographic

This actually supports Biocentrism which says there's no objective universe out there. It's all in your head.

If that's your view, why are we even discussing this? Or maybe we aren't. It is only real in your mind.

All the train video shows is the center outside observer also has a skewed, subjective view. If you know the speed of the train, lightening, etc. the objective reality could be determined. Yes the human senses lack the granularity required for a precise measurement. Does this make physical reality the same as a psychological thought dream? Maybe we should forget this and study magic instead.

I don't have anything to say about the other video. Haven't had a chance to watch it carefully yet.

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

Yes, I’m familiar with Einstein’s famous thought experiment. I got all that. Thanks.

Still need to read the OP a second/third time... I’ll get back to you with my questions and try and tie up some loose ends after rereading OP👌

a reply to: toms54

Again, this is a Science debate. We're on the Science & Technology Forums. You don't provide a shred of scientific evidence to support anything you say. Your opinion without evidence is meaningless in this forum. You can't refute Einstein and Relativity which has been tested over and over again with your opinion.

If you want to debate the philosophy of these things there's a Philosophy & Metaphysics Forum. You said:

All the train video shows is the center outside observer also has a skewed, subjective view.

This is what I'm talking about. This makes no sense. It's not a skewed subjective view and this has been tested over and over again. You saying this means nothing. It doesn't refute anything.You don't provide any evidence to support anything you say.

It's not subjective. You can put clocks in each reference frame and it will show the difference because of the speed of light. Again, this has been tested again and again and actual twins aged at different rates because of this.

In Space, Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Brother on Earth - And Here's Why

www.sciencealert.com...

This effect can even be seen at small distances.

NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet

www.nist.gov...

Again, this is not the debate Tom's philosophy forum. You can't refute Einstein and Relativity with a vacuous opinion. You said:

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.

Of course you don't. You haven't presented a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying. There's room for logical discussion but there's no room for trying to use meaningless opinion to refute Einstein and Relativity which has been tested over the years.

I could see if you say, Einsteins wrong in this regard because of this experiment or because of this published paper. You just make vacuous statements that are meaningless in a science debate.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

Is there an implication here, that all subjective observation is illusion?

If so: illusion according to what reality?

Maybe it is when seen from a skewed perspective. Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. Even if it is difficult to determine. All of reality is not some psychological magic act. If you see the earth as flat does that make it true for anyone but you?

Is perspective not always skewed?
Do you have any examples of objective truth, pertaining to time? (Other than the video you posted).

One sees what they see, and it seems to go through a lot of filters, before one reaches a conclusion.
Are these conclusions truths, or beliefs?

Is not science also observation, with the possibility of skewering reality?

Neo posted about human frame-rates. Perhaps this is one of the ways we perceive reality, and if so, then perhaps we are searching for intervals in nature, whether they are there or not?
In other words: perhaps we are imposing our thin and limited observational skills, on reality, and then calling our observations truths?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: toms54

Again, this is a Science debate. We're on the Science & Technology Forums. You don't provide a shred of scientific evidence to support anything you say. Your opinion without evidence is meaningless in this forum. You can't refute Einstein and Relativity which has been tested over and over again with your opinion.

If you want to debate the philosophy of these things there's a Philosophy & Metaphysics Forum. You said:

All the train video shows is the center outside observer also has a skewed, subjective view.

This is what I'm talking about. This makes no sense. It's not a skewed subjective view and this has been tested over and over again. You saying this means nothing. It doesn't refute anything.You don't provide any evidence to support anything you say.

It's not subjective. You can put clocks in each reference frame and it will show the difference because of the speed of light. Again, this has been tested again and again and actual twins aged at different rates because of this.

In Space, Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Brother on Earth - And Here's Why

www.sciencealert.com...

This effect can even be seen at small distances.

NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet

www.nist.gov...

Again, this is not the debate Tom's philosophy forum. You can't refute Einstein and Relativity with a vacuous opinion. You said:

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.

Of course you don't. You haven't presented a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying. There's room for logical discussion but there's no room for trying to use meaningless opinion to refute Einstein and Relativity which has been tested over the years.

I could see if you say, Einsteins wrong in this regard because of this experiment or because of this published paper. You just make vacuous statements that are meaningless in a science debate.

You have a mental block to straightforward logic probably because of your profound respect for Einstein.

I have seen the clock experiments though maybe not this specific one. Ii don't dispute them. The twins have no bearing upon this discussion. If you will not admit there can be a difference between perception and reality what more can I say? Yes, the sun revolves around the earth.

a reply to: toms54

Nope, I have a mental block to nonsense. You said:

I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.

What are you. in jail?

Everybody has access to these things. You just want to debate science based on your meaningless logic. You can't refute Einstein and Relativity with inane ramblings without any evidence. You're debating Science and you claim.

I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.

LOL, who says this? Here you go:

arxiv.org...

A gang of scientific papers. Again, your vacuous opinion is meaningless when trying to dispute science that has been tested over the years.

It's like me saying, I don't think quantum superposition is logical, therefore a Qubit can't be in a superposition of 0 and 1.

WHO CARES WHAT I THINK IS LOGICAL OR NOT?

We know a Qubit can be in a superposition of 0 and 1. So what someone thinks is logical makes no difference in a Scientific debate when it comes to refuting observed evidence.

When you use the excuse for your laziness that:

I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.

It makes you look like a troll. Everybody has access to these things. You just want to debate science without any evidence to support what you're saying.

a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

We try to bend time one way, by tweaking our observations, and then the frigging uncooperative universe bends it the bleeding other way...

Mountain folks may live longer

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

We try to bend time one way, by tweaking our observations, and then the frigging uncooperative universe bends it the bleeding other way...

Mountain folks may live longer

It made me think after I posted that, about Tibetans. I remember reading articles about some in that region who have lived up to 500 years old, according to records kept by governing forces. So yes, it's a matter of perspective I suppose, to each their own. Could we each be living in our own Universe, connected but separate I mean, If everyone is right, who's to say what's accurate and what isn't, right?