Is Time Real?

[rajnz00]

Hi Dave,

Now your shoes don't fit me anymore.

Looks like you've grown too big for your boots. You may need to be cut down to size :)

I mentioned this same talk by Richard Muller on my physics thread. Time being created along with space. He has worked out the equations, so has Lee Smolin, who is one of the co-inventors of loop quantum gravity. You have taken his quote out of context. when he says "I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me." it is not because of lack of understanding of the subject, which posters over here pose as authorities, but because he thinks he can see the flaws in the standard interpretations.

Either Richard Muller or Lee Smolin could get a Nobel prize down the line, but if they ever ventured on here they would probably be shunted off to Metaphysics or personal theories faster than you could say nanosecond.

I didn't say Gödel was not a genius, just that he went completely potty eventually. Happens often to geniuses.

Tell me when we measure Time with our clocks, what are we actually measuring?

Regards
Raj

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Raj,

Tell me when we measure Time with our clocks, what are we actually measuring?

Honest answer? Absolute Speed through the Fabric of Space-Time Relative to the Speed of Light. The closer one approaches Light Speed, the more complex the sub-atomics must become to maintain the Geometry in the Matter.. thus clocks dilate (slowdown) more with increasing speed. That's all clocks.. including Biological Clocks.

Particle Spin can not have any components that exceed Light Speed. The fix requires introduction of wait states in the Spin Dynamics. Increased wait-state cycles dilate clocks whole cycles.

Gravity has the same effect of changing the Geometry of Matter to that of Acceleration without the actual Acceleration being observed.

Example:
Watch a group of Square Dancers try to maintain Dance symmetry while escaping from a hungry bear.
Or..
Tilt the floor (Gravity) and watch what happens to their Symmetry.

This is a Personal Idea.. so feel free to ignore. This idea gets me booted from the Physics Forum.. so I'll have to wait for future vindications.. lol.

Vindication: When some VIP says the same thing you've said, so it's ok to say it now. ;)

Regards,
Dave :^)

[rajnz00]

Absolute Speed through the Fabric of Space-Time Relative to the Speed of Light.

What is speed? How do you measure it without time?

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Raj,

What is speed? How do you measure it without time?

We use Dilated Clocks of Course.. lol.

If you measure the CMB as having the same spectral shift in all directions in flat space, then you are standing still.. and thus would have the Fastest possible Clock.

I have to wonder if I was stationary near a Black Hole, would I see an equal spectral shift in the CMB in all directions? Of course.. how would I know if I am stationary?.. lol.

Have to give that problem some thought.. later.. having supper now.

Regards,
Dave :^)

[rajnz00]

Me: you never told me how we would get velocity or momentum without time

Dave: Space-Time Layers, Movie Frames, Universe expanding

Nothing about speed there. How fast or slow is the movie running? something expanding? That’s what speed is about. It needs time. The rate of expansion, running, walking, talking, living.

Me: when we measure Time with our clocks, what are we actually measuring?

Dave: Absolute Speed through the Fabric of Space-Time Relative to the Speed of Light.

Me: What is speed? How do you measure it without time?

Dave: We use Dilated Clocks of Course.. lol.

Dear Dave – speed is length divided by time. I asked you what we measure with those clocks and you said "absolute" speed relative to the speed of light. Now its speed, I fear you are hopelessly muddled and are fleeing to a Black Hole for refuge. Please come back before you cross the event horizon and are reduced to a singularity, and I will tell you what we actually measure with our clocks.

[DragonFly]

The Planck time is how long it takes for change. These 'instants' marching along would be the basis for the third hand of our best clock.

In general, time is an index to appearances coming forth, which successive appearances usually show a difference, however small, but when they don't there is still a duration during which the exact same thing remains, if this ever happens, although I doubt it.

[rajnz00]

DragonFly I think that's a very good answer. Dont agree with it 100% but am going out so will reply later.

[Forest_Dump]

Personally I would still say time is a measure of energy loss - expenditure, dissipation or, basically, entropy. Whether the enery spent to power a clock, wound up or atomic, traverse a distance whether on the ground, as the earth spins or rotates around the sun or light disperses through the cosmos.

[ronjanec]

ronjanec:

the definitions that I posted here that define the word "real", when they actually define this to a "tee"

Good for you. As I said, you should tell Google and save those hundreds of millions of other hits.

the main difference between what is "real", and what is "illusion", involves "objective existence" actually being present somewhere or not.

Your conceptions are simplistic, and unscientific in the extreme and abysmally wrong. What exactly do you mean by “objective existence”? You haven’t defined it, but I take it you mean “actually being present somewhere or not”. Like perhaps a rock you can hold in your hand? That would be real for you? What about energy? What is the “objective existence” of that by your definition? Can you point to where it is “actually present”? That’s about 96% of the Universe.

Special Relativity has shown that matter and energy are equivalent. Over 4 million tons of matter you could hold in your hand is being converted to energy every second, in the sun alone. What about electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields? Are they illusions? Where are they “actually present” as per your definition? On the other hand people, (BadgerJelly), have said that gravity is real because you can feel the pull of it on you, but that is an illusion, as shown by General Relativity, much like the apparent movement of the sun about the earth.

without man and his timekeeping system existing, time and spacetime would not exist in any way shape or form in the universe. Both are just inventions of man and are not naturally occurring.

Without time neither Special nor General Relativity would work. Example Special Relativity, (c dT)^2 = (c dt)^2 - (dx)^2 , man or his timekeeping systems don’t figure in these theories or equations, except in the experiments which have confirmed them over and over again.

I said the timekeeping system keeps operating and recording Raj: We keep a very detailed record of all the time that has previously passed by a number of different methods...a simple calendar being one example.

I am totally flabbergasted by your statement. The passing of time is a reality, according to Merriam-Webster, if it occurs in fact and is not imagined. Do you think the only reason you age is because of that blasted calendar you hang on your wall? What about your dog who can’t read it? If you took the calendar off, would the fossil evidence of past life disappear? the dinosaurs? the birth of the solar system? the big bang? All caused by your calendar and watch?

Ask yourself did your last birthday occur before the one before that and before your birth? Are these facts? If they are, and not your imagination, why is the passage of time not real? Are they caused by man’s timekeeping system? Or is it something intrinsic?

Again, the definition works(And I even provided an example for you to show you why it works) Yes, a particular rock(object) existing somewhere would be a perfect example of "objective existence", and a "Leprechaun" would not. Energy!? You pick something that no one knows exactly what this is for your question? I have been trying to figure out for years what exactly this is along with gravity.

In less than a hundred years, I doubt SR and GR will be a part of (then) modern science. I believe there are too many things wrong with the theories(the "time" portions as I mentioned here, and the speed of light being said to always be a constant to name a couple)

You're "flabbergasted"? Do you believe that time existing is the actual cause of aging Roj?

(Raj, I have tried to be respectful in my responses and comments to you, but you are starting to come across as a bit arrogant, and somewhat sarcastic in your responses to me, and probably to a number of others here on the forum)

[BurtJordaan]

Hi Dave, sorry, even in Metaphysics this would not fly!

If you stop the projector, then "Time" freezes or locks in place. This is why I have said that if the Universe stopped Expanding.. "Time", as we perceive it, would also stop.

There are big patches of space that we observe as not expanding. Do you think time stopped there? Extrapolated up the universe's scale, expansion could still one day stop and the start to become contraction. Would time first stop and then reverse?

Of course not!

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Jorrie,

There are big patches of space that we observe as not expanding. Do you think time stopped there?

If I shot a movie of a still-life (no motion) would I still not use up a lot of film? If I showed you a Digital Movie Image made of the same 100 Frames.. would it not take up more space than a single frame?

Expansion is the addition of New Space-Time. It doesn't require a change in Scales.

Anyway..
A Planck Length is roughly equal to 1.6 x 10^-35 Meters.
A Planck Interval is roughly equal to 5.4 x 10^-44 Seconds.
Both are connected to the Speed of Light by convention.
You can't calculate Speed without both elements of Distance and Time.
Math doesn't allow functions between non-related natures. (Can't divide Apples by Grapes)
Thus a calculation for Speed requires both elements to be of the same nature.
Let's see if that's true:
Speed uses the formula V=D/T (Velocity=Distance Divided by Time)
or
T=VxD
or
T=(D/T)xD
or
T²= D²
or
²
Thus Time can be converted to a Distance.. because.. they are of the same Nature.
(anybody buying this? lol)

Anyway.. Time is so heavily ensconced in Physics as Temporal Duration rather than Physical Length = Temporal Duration.. that I expect it to be quite awhile before that paradigm is overcome.

But I believe the Universe will be easier to Understand when we eventually get there. But it will be a long road ahead..heheheh.

Regards,
Dave :^)

[rajnz00]

ronjanec I'm sorry for being a bit short with you. I was a bit peeved at getting shunted to metaphysics. Part of it could have been because of you. But I apologise. You are entitled to your opinion. I still think you are wrong and unscientific.

You're "flabbergasted"? Do you believe that time existing is the actual cause of aging Roj?

Time causes you to go older ronjanec. Biology causes aging. Biology is also operated on by time and yes because time is real.

You dont know what energy is, its the stuff that lights your bulbs, that powers your computer and your car.

I apologise if I was rude, but there are more things real than the rock you can hold in your hand.

[rajnz00]

A Planck Length is roughly equal to 1.6 x 10^-35 Meters.
A Planck Interval is roughly equal to 5.4 x 10^-44 Seconds.
Both are connected to the Speed of Light by convention.
You can't calculate Speed without both elements of Distance and Time.
Math doesn't allow functions between non-related natures. (Can't divide Apples by Grapes)
Thus a calculation for Speed requires both elements to be of the same nature.
Let's see if that's true:
Speed uses the formula V=D/T (Velocity=Distance Divided by Time)
or
T=VxD
or
T=(D/T)xD
or
T²= D²
or
²
Thus Time can be converted to a Distance.. because.. they are of the same Nature.
(anybody buying this? lol)

No Dave. I'm not buying it. You have made a simple mistake in your maths.

V=D/T - Right (1)
or
T=VxD - Wrong

Actually

T= D/V (2)

And if you substitute T in equation (1), you get

V = V which is obvious, (not T^2= D^2 or T=D)

Your theory falls apart for a simple mistake - sorry Dave

Regards
Raj

[Dave_Oblad]

Sorry Raj,

You are correct.. A stupid mistake.
I get:
V=D/T
OR
D=VxT
OR
D=(D/T)xT
or
D=D (wtf?)
Where did Time go?

I suppose all this just says is:
V=V
T=T
D=D
That doesn't help much.

An Algebraic Calculator resolved this to:
D=0/0 (wtf?)
Does that mean that Distance is Infinite or Distance is Zero?
Been a long time since I used algebra.

Funny.. you would think a computer programmer would be better at Math.

I need to stay as far away from Math as possible ;)

Thank for spotting my error.. I shouldn't try to think when I'm this tired.

Is it even possible to put D and T on opposite sides of an equal sign? That's obviously what I was striving for. My basic original premise was that Time and Distance are of the same Nature.

Sorry.. I'm nodding off.. need bed.. need bed.. lol.

Later..

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[hyksos]

This thread has so far been somewhat of a disaster. I give it a grade of D+.

The OP, rajnz00, pretends to quote Lee Smolin and Sean Carrol, but then spends two dozen back-and-forth replies with people arguing about conservative, obvious aspects of Special Relativity.

rajnz00 accuses a forum member of being simplistic, unscientific, and abysmally wrong.

Your conceptions are simplistic, and unscientific in the extreme and abysmally wrong.

... wherein he proceeds to use simplistic, unscientific, and abysmally wrong concepts himself:

I am totally flabbergasted by your statement. The passing of time is a reality, according to Merriam-Webster, if it occurs in fact and is not imagined. Do you think the only reason you age is because of that blasted calendar you hang on your wall? What about your dog who can’t read it? If you took the calendar off, would the fossil evidence of past life disappear? the dinosaurs? the birth of the solar system? the big bang? All caused by your calendar and watch?

In addition to its other flaws, perhaps the most egregious is that Lee Smolin absolutely never makes this argument in his book (or any of his books). This faux argument about calendars and aging. I predict that if I continued as a lurker, rajnz00 would do something contemptuous... hoisting your own personal opinions onto a forum, that happen to draw the same conclusion as Lee Smolin, and then attribute your opinions to Smolin.

Has rajnz00 actually read Smolin? For the record, Dave O's conceptions of time are actually closest to what the vast majority of physics professors actually believe. For a person claiming to have read Smolin, this should have been obvious. I do believe, that in the very jacket-cover of the book, Smolin admits that (the vast majority) of his colleagues adopt a non-cognitivist ontology of time. Physicists believe that General Relativity is more than a computing device. They think the theory exposes a deep metaphysical reality about the world, and for-that-reason conceive of the universe as a "Block World" ; a frozen 4D shape. Dave O provided insightful diagrams of what this looks like. A moving ball is a smeared out snake in spacetime.

For emphasis: Smolin quite openly admits that the vast majority of his colleagues are Block-Worlders. Instead of recognizing this smoothly and calmly, rajnz00 has responded to all such posts with vitriol and hostility.

If you still aren't convinced of my D+ grade, I will point out a sin of omission: Thermodynamics has been mentioned exactly zero times in this entire thread. The omission of thermo here is why also the mods of this forum have moved it into the Metaphysics section. A move which rajnz00 invoked bellyache .

I am totally flabbergasted by your statement. The passing of time is a reality, according to Merriam-Webster, if it occurs in fact and is not imagined. Do you think the only reason you age is because of that blasted calendar you hang on your wall? What about your dog who can’t read it? If you took the calendar off, would the fossil evidence of past life disappear? the dinosaurs? the birth of the solar system? the big bang? All caused by your calendar and watch?

I'm quoting that twice. Because now I'm going to respond to its content.

If rajnz00 defines the word "time" to mean "..the process of people being born, people aging, and death at the ends of our lives". If that is how the word "time" is defined, then time is obviously real. No one could doubt such ironclad logic.

On the other hand ---

If rajnz00 believes that the aging of the human body is somehow written inexorably into the foundational laws of physics itself : well then, he's in a for a big, terrible surprise.

[ronjanec]

Raj,

You are completely wrong in your belief that "time existing" in the universe is the actual cause of aging, and I will prove to you why this is true;

The pyramids in Egypt of course look a lot different today than when they were constructed 4500 years ago or so: This was in no way shape or form actually caused by "time existing" in the universe: The actual or direct cause of the pyramids aging process, was the cumulative physical effects and "wear and tear" of wind, rain, thermal expansion and contraction, earthquakes, tomb robbers, and probably some other physical effects that I have neglected to mention here.

For "time existing" to have played an actual physical part in this again "wear and tear", or to have been the actual cause of this, "time existing" would have had to exist physically in the universe, and then done something directly to the pyramids to at least cause some of the physical aging, and this should obviously be not true(No, "time existing" did not "flow" by the pyramids like the wind at 30 mph and cause some of the "wear and tear")

While it is definitely true that the higher the quantity of "time existing" that the pyramids existed(or you or I exist), the higher the quantity of physical aging: But again, "time existing" was never the actual or direct cause of any of this. And many things in the universe physically aged fine before "time existed" in the universe, or before man caused time to exist in the universe with his timekeeping system.

[rajnz00]

This thread has so far been somewhat of a disaster. I give it a grade of D+.

Thanks for that hyksos. I'm so glad you're not my professor.

The OP, rajnz00, pretends to quote Lee Smolin and Sean Carrol, but then spends two dozen back-and-forth replies with people arguing about conservative, obvious aspects of Special Relativity.

Pretend to quote? If I quote, it's between inverted commas. The only person I quoted was Sean Carroll from his book 'From Eternity to Here'. As for Lee Smolin and Richard Muller, I said they are of the opinion that time is real. And I quoted Sean Carroll for a purpose. He actually supports the idea of a block universe, but admits the arrow of time is a mystery and says that physics will eventually solve it. (As some have suggested it is unsolvable in science and the topic belongs in metaphysics)

If you want a quote from Lee Smolin then here's one from Time Reborm:
"I no longer believe that time is unreal. In fact, I have swung to the opposite view: Not only is time real, but nothing we know or experience gets closer to the heart of nature than the reality of time."


rajnz00 accuses a forum member of being simplistic, unscientific, and abysmally wrong.

Your conceptions are simplistic, and unscientific in the extreme and abysmally wrong.

... wherein he proceeds to use simplistic, unscientific, and abysmally wrong concepts himself:

I am totally flabbergasted by your statement. The passing of time is a reality, according to Merriam-Webster, if it occurs in fact and is not imagined. Do you think the only reason you age is because of that blasted calendar you hang on your wall? What about your dog who can’t read it? If you took the calendar off, would the fossil evidence of past life disappear? the dinosaurs? the birth of the solar system? the big bang? All caused by your calendar and watch?

In addition to its other flaws, perhaps the most egregious is that Lee Smolin absolutely never makes this argument in his book (or any of his books). This faux argument about calendars and aging. I predict that if I continued as a lurker, rajnz00 would do something contemptuous... hoisting your own personal opinions onto a forum, that happen to draw the same conclusion as Lee Smolin, and then attribute your opinions to Smolin.

What the heck are you saying? If I attribute anything to anyone I directly say it. The other arguments are my own. I don't need anyone to support me if I say the idea that time flows only because of our time keeping systems, is absurd.

Has rajnz00 actually read Smolin?

Yes

For the record, Dave O's conceptions of time are actually closest to what the vast majority of physics professors actually believe.

Oh really? That Time is the same as distance?

For a person claiming to have read Smolin, this should have been obvious.

Not really

I do believe, that in the very jacket-cover of the book, Smolin admits that (the vast majority) of his colleagues adopt a non-cognitivist ontology of time.

You seem like a guy who might believe anything. You should try reading beyond a jacket cover. "a non-cognitivist ontology of time" - my my - you like to impress by using big words. I didnt find them in Time Reborn the book I read, fortunately, because I wouldn't have understood them.

Physicists believe that General Relativity is more than a computing device. They think the theory exposes a deep metaphysical reality about the world, and for-that-reason conceive of the universe as a "Block World" ; a frozen 4D shape. Dave O provided insightful diagrams of what this looks like. A moving ball is a smeared out snake in spacetime.

"metaphysical reality" big words again. Why not just reality? I do admit it makes you sound more wise.

For emphasis: Smolin quite openly admits that the vast majority of his colleagues are Block-Worlders. Instead of recognizing this smoothly and calmly, rajnz00 has responded to all such posts with vitriol and hostility.

Vitriol and hostility? That's a bit much. I just said I don't agree with it.

If you still aren't convinced of my D+ grade, I will point out a sin of omission: Thermodynamics has been mentioned exactly zero times in this entire thread. The omission of thermo here is why also the mods of this forum have moved it into the Metaphysics section. A move which rajnz00 invoked bellyache .

It has been mentioned and dealt with in my thread in physics, which you contributed to. Do you have problems with short-term/ long-term memory?

I am totally flabbergasted by your statement. The passing of time is a reality, according to Merriam-Webster, if it occurs in fact and is not imagined. Do you think [b]the only reason you age is because of that blasted calendar you hang on your wall? What about your dog who can’t read it? If you took the calendar off, would the fossil evidence of past life disappear? the dinosaurs? the birth of the solar system? the big bang? All caused by your calendar and watch?

I'm quoting that twice. Because now I'm going to respond to its content. [/b]

If rajnz00 defines the word "time" to mean "..the process of people being born, people aging, and death at the ends of our lives". If that is how the word "time" is defined, then time is obviously real. No one could doubt such ironclad logic.

On the other hand ---

If rajnz00 believes that the aging of the human body is somehow written inexorably into the foundational laws of physics itself : well then, he's in a for a big, terrible surprise.

Read what I wrote. - Time causes you to go older ronjanec. Biology causes aging. Biology is also operated on by time and yes because time is real.

[TheVat]

If you still aren't convinced of my D+ grade, I will point out a sin of omission: Thermodynamics has been mentioned exactly zero times in this entire thread. The omission of thermo here is why also the mods of this forum have moved it into the Metaphysics section.

-- Hyksos

Thank you.

Forrest did mention thermo, briefly here, but his comment got lost in the cacophony. At the macro scale of human existence, the entropic arrow of time is "real" in the sense of being a useful abstraction of thermodynamic change. In the mathematical sense, it is a useful metric of extension along a dimension of spacetime. At the thermodynamic level, it happens to be a one-way street, unlike the spatial dimensions.

I still like John Wheeler's summation the best.

[BadgerJelly]

Does Shannon Entropy deserve a mention?

[TheVat]

For sure. Shannon entropy coincides in many ways with Boltzman entropy. SE (actually developed by von Neumann) applies
to information gain in a communication system, which has comparable features to a thermo system. James Gleick's book, "The Information, " is very good on Shannon. I would recommend it over a confusing wiki article.

[TheVat]

Here's a fragment from a blog I found in my clipboard.....

) The bridge between information and entropy lies in how hard it is to describe a physical state or process.  The amount of information it takes to describe something is proportional to its entropy.  Once you have the equations (“I = log2(N)” and “E = k log(N)”) this is pretty obvious.  However, the way the word “entropy” is used in common speech is a little misleading.  For example, if you found a book that was just the letter “A” over and over, then you would say that it had low entropy because it’s so predictable, and that it has no information for the same reason. If you read something like Shakespeare on the other hand, you’ll notice that it’s more difficult to predict what will be written next.  So, somewhat intuitively, you’d say that Shakespeare has higher entropy, and you’d definitely say that Shakespeare has more information.

As a quick aside, you can extend this line of thinking empirically and you’ll find that you can actually determine if a sequence of symbols is random, or a language, etc.  It has been suggested that an entropy measurement could be applied to post modernist texts to see if they are in fact communicating anything at all (see “Sokal affair“).  This was recently used to demonstrate that the Indus Script is very likely to be a language, without actually determining what the script says.

In day to day life we only describe things with very low entropy.  If something has very high entropy, it would take a long time to describe it so we don’t bother.  That’s not a indictment of laziness, it’s just that most people have better things to do than count atoms.  For example: If your friend gets a new car they may describe it as “a red Ferrari 250 GT Spyder” (and congratulations).  The car has very little entropy, so that short description has all the information you need.  If you saw the car you’d know exactly what to expect.  Later it gets dented, so they would describe it as “a red Ferrari 250 GT Spyder with a dent in the hood”.

Easy to describe, and soon-to-be-difficult to describe.

As time goes on and the car’s entropy increases, and it takes more and more information to accurately describe the car.  Eventually the description would be “scrap metal”.  But “scrap metal” tells you almost nothing.  The entropy has gotten so high that it would take forever to effectively describe the ex-car, so nobody bothers to try.

[hyksos]

Raj,

You are completely wrong in your belief that "time existing" in the universe is the actual cause of aging, and I will prove to you why this is true;

The pyramids in Egypt of course look a lot different today than when they were constructed 4500 years ago or so: This was in no way shape or form actually caused by "time existing" in the universe: The actual or direct cause of the pyramids aging process, was the cumulative physical effects and "wear and tear" of wind, rain, thermal expansion and contraction, earthquakes, tomb robbers, and probably some other physical effects that I have neglected to mention here.

For "time existing" to have played an actual physical part in this again "wear and tear", or to have been the actual cause of this, "time existing" would have had to exist physically in the universe, and then done something directly to the pyramids to at least cause some of the physical aging, and this should obviously be not true(No, "time existing" did not "flow" by the pyramids like the wind at 30 mph and cause some of the "wear and tear")

While it is definitely true that the higher the quantity of "time existing" that the pyramids existed(or you or I exist), the higher the quantity of physical aging: But again, "time existing" was never the actual or direct cause of any of this. And many things in the universe physically aged fine before "time existed" in the universe, or before man caused time to exist in the universe with his timekeeping system.

Yes. I give you a B+. Consider this specimen :

I would like rajnz00 to meet this rock up close. Pick it up.. feel its weight and reality with his hands. Even smash it on his hand and leave a bruise. Then I will tell him what it is.

It is a meteorite found in Australia. That rock is older than the earth.

That rock should give pause. If you believe that the weathering of pyramids or the aging of humans is some obvious consequence at the foundations of physical law --that will be soundly destroyed by this rock. The constitute atoms which compose it happily remain frozen in a crystalline lattice. They were there before your great-great-great-great grandpappy was born. Before the dinosaurs were around. Before Pangea. They have been in that lattice before the earth's core formed around 5 billion years ago.

The weathering of the Egyptian pyramid stone "kept on" not because of "time is real", but because the surface of the earth's atmosphere keeps recycling water vapor consistently. It does not recycle water because "time is real"; water vapor is recycled into clouds because the earth's surface is bathed in sunlight. (Even further!) the sun itself does not emit light energy at the earth because "time is real" but only because the nuclei of hydrogen will bind, and this (quantum) process emits a gamma ray. And finally (cherry on top), the nuclear reactions of hydrogen nuclei which orchestrate nuclear fusion are timeless and reversible.

At their best weathering of ruins and aging of people are epi-phenomena that result from such systems being bathed in an open thermodynamic system. As we can see from our purty rock above, not all locations in this universe are open thermodynamic systems. In the case of the human body, there are likely genetic, or "moleculo-genetic" reasons for aging. That's not to say DNA "makes" us age. But rather the capacities of DNA to combat cancer and/or respond to cellular and tissue damage are limited.

But something has gotta give in that chain of reasoning -- we traced the causes back to fundamental particle interactions, and arrive only at timeless descriptions. As Sean Carrol admits, The Arrow of Time is indeed a mystery to science.

[hyksos]

Biology is also operated on by time and yes because time is real.

"..Biology is operated on by time.."

It is this kind of poetry that got this thread moved to the Metaphysics section.

[ronjanec]

Raj,

You are completely wrong in your belief that "time existing" in the universe is the actual cause of aging, and I will prove to you why this is true;

The pyramids in Egypt of course look a lot different today than when they were constructed 4500 years ago or so: This was in no way shape or form actually caused by "time existing" in the universe: The actual or direct cause of the pyramids aging process, was the cumulative physical effects and "wear and tear" of wind, rain, thermal expansion and contraction, earthquakes, tomb robbers, and probably some other physical effects that I have neglected to mention here.

For "time existing" to have played an actual physical part in this again "wear and tear", or to have been the actual cause of this, "time existing" would have had to exist physically in the universe, and then done something directly to the pyramids to at least cause some of the physical aging, and this should obviously be not true(No, "time existing" did not "flow" by the pyramids like the wind at 30 mph and cause some of the "wear and tear")

While it is definitely true that the higher the quantity of "time existing" that the pyramids existed(or you or I exist), the higher the quantity of physical aging: But again, "time existing" was never the actual or direct cause of any of this. And many things in the universe physically aged fine before "time existed" in the universe, or before man caused time to exist in the universe with his timekeeping system.

Yes. I give you a B+. Consider this specimen :

meteoriteup.jpg

I would like rajnz00 to meet this rock up close. Pick it up.. feel its weight and reality with his hands. Even smash it on his hand and leave a bruise. Then I will tell him what it is.

It is a meteorite found in Australia. That rock is older than the earth.

That rock should give pause. If you believe that the weathering of pyramids or the aging of humans is some obvious consequence at the foundations of physical law --that will be soundly destroyed by this rock. The constitute atoms which compose it happily remain frozen in a crystalline lattice. They were there before your great-great-great-great grandpappy was born. Before the dinosaurs were around. Before Pangea. They have been in that lattice before the earth's core formed around 5 billion years ago.

The weathering of the Egyptian pyramid stone "kept on" not because of "time is real", but because the surface of the earth's atmosphere keeps recycling water vapor consistently. It does not recycle water because "time is real"; water vapor is recycled into clouds because the earth's surface is bathed in sunlight. (Even further!) the sun itself does not emit light energy at the earth because "time is real" but only because the nuclei of hydrogen will bind, and this (quantum) process emits a gamma ray. And finally (cherry on top), the nuclear reactions of hydrogen nuclei which orchestrate nuclear fusion are timeless and reversible.

At their best weathering of ruins and aging of people are epi-phenomena that result from such systems being bathed in an open thermodynamic system. As we can see from our purty rock above, not all locations in this universe are open thermodynamic systems. In the case of the human body, there are likely genetic, or "moleculo-genetic" reasons for aging. That's not to say DNA "makes" us age. But rather the capacities of DNA to combat cancer and/or respond to cellular and tissue damage are limited.

But something has gotta give in that chain of reasoning -- we traced the causes back to fundamental particle interactions, and arrive only at timeless descriptions. As Sean Carrol admits, The Arrow of Time is indeed a mystery to science.

Darn! I probably could have gotten at least an "A-" if I had just left off that last sentence! :)

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi all,

Just a minor point. Regarding the solid Hyper-Sphere Model of the Universe where Time is not Erased, but events still Exist some Distance into the past.. And Ligo.

Because Electromagnetic information only propagates on the surface of such a Model then why extend this restriction to Gravity Waves? Gravity waves are an oscillation in the very Foundation of Reality. Like waves on the surface of the ocean (electromagnetism) exist.. then why ignore the Waves under the surface (Gravity Waves)?

So I predicted someday that Ligo will detect an interesting Event but not be able to locate it as a 3D surface Event. The 3D direction information shows nothing there to cause such an Event! Such an Event could be an under-surface Event that makes no sense in 3D. Such an occurrence will fortify the Block-Model as a solid 4D object and remove any doubt about the Past still Existing.. not just by Lateral Propagation but by Depth Propagation of said waves.

If that ever happens.. many folks will have to re-think their positions regarding "Time".

Regards,
Dave :^)

[rajnz00]

hyksos said:

I would like rajnz00 to meet this rock up close.

Why? Is it more "real" than the rocks in my garden? Are rocks the only things that are "real" in this world? What about energy?

Then I will tell him what it is.

But you just told me. You seem inconsistent, confused.

The constitute atoms which compose it happily remain frozen in a crystalline lattice.

Omigosh! By golly!
For how much "time"? 5 billion years? 6? 7? Is that longer than the atoms in your body will remain in place? Is it “longer lived” than you? By how much? How would you measure it? What does that mean? Does it have a history? Does that history involve "time"? And this history, is it ordered? Like first this happened, then this happened,,, etc? How does the ordering take place? Over what?
Were the atoms it is made out of, first made in the heart of some star? Were those crystals then formed under pressure? Instantaneously or did it take time? Was it always that size? Was it bigger once? Has it been whittled down by impacts from cosmic rays? Micrometeorites? Other meteorites? The atmosphere? The Earth? Did that history take place over "time"? What is this “time”?

The weathering of the Egyptian pyramid stone "kept on" not because of "time is real", but because the surface of the earth's atmosphere keeps recycling water vapor consistently.

Instantaneously? or over “time”? What is this "time"?\

But something has gotta give in that chain of reasoning -- we traced the causes back to fundamental particle interactions, and arrive only at timeless descriptions. As Sean Carrol admits, The Arrow of Time is indeed a mystery to science.

The name is Carroll, hykso, two l’s. I thought you said I was falsely quoting him? Now suddenly you agree.

[rajnz00]

PS hyksos, methinks you need to brush up on "weathering". There are many agents that cause it. In deserts, rain is not "consistent". And water usually causes "erosion". Wind and sand, thermal stress, are more likely to be the agents.

From Wikipedia "Repeated freeze-thaw cycles weaken the rocks which, over time, break up '

Wonder what they mean by over time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering

[ronjanec]

Hi all,

Just a minor point. Regarding the solid Hyper-Sphere Model of the Universe where Time is not Erased, but events still Exist some Distance into the past.. And Ligo.

Because Electromagnetic information only propagates on the surface of such a Model then why extend this restriction to Gravity Waves? Gravity waves are an oscillation in the very Foundation of Reality. Like waves on the surface of the ocean (electromagnetism) exist.. then why ignore the Waves under the surface (Gravity Waves)?

So I predicted someday that Ligo will detect an interesting Event but not be able to locate it as a 3D surface Event. The 3D direction information shows nothing there to cause such an Event! Such an Event could be an under-surface Event that makes no sense in 3D. Such an occurrence will fortify the Block-Model as a solid 4D object and remove any doubt about the Past still Existing.. not just by Lateral Propagation but by Depth Propagation of said waves.

If that ever happens.. many folks will have to re-think their positions regarding "Time".

Regards,
Dave :^)

Dave, this post has nothing to do with the main topic, and is just another rather blatant attempt by you to completely derail the main philosophical topic here, and use this as an opportunity to get people talking and commenting about the particulars of your personal scientific theories, in the most popular and visible forum thread at the current moment.

[Forest_Dump]

PS hyksos, methinks you need to brush up on "weathering". There are many agents that cause it. In deserts, rain is not "consistent". And water usually causes "erosion". Wind and sand, thermal stress, are more likely to be the agents.

Okay, you see now you are just out to rattle my chains. This is a topic that is bread and butter to an archaeologist (you forgot, for example, UV radiation from the sun. Technically you would be referring to things like solufluction but bioturbation, cryoturbation....). Rather than derail, I might just recommend M. Schiffer's "Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record" ah never mind.

[ronjanec]

PS hyksos, methinks you need to brush up on "weathering". There are many agents that cause it. In deserts, rain is not "consistent". And water usually causes "erosion". Wind and sand, thermal stress, are more likely to be the agents.

Okay, you see now you are just out to rattle my chains. This is a topic that is bread and butter to an archaeologist (you forgot, for example, UV radiation from the sun. Technically you would be referring to things like solufluction but bioturbation, cryoturbation....). Rather than derail, I might just recommend M. Schiffer's "Postdepositional Factors..." ah never mind.

"solufluction"(!), "bioturbation"(!!), "cryoturbation"(!!!) Yeah, "I was thinking that too" Forest :)