Time From a Physics Standpoint is an Illusion

[Ohj1n37]

I do not wish to debate, but only want to discuss with anyone who may know more than me on the existence of time from a physics perspective. To my understanding time as a force of nature does not exist. Matter moves, this movement causes change, and we humans perceive this change as the passage of time. Change requires nothing other than movement; there is no need for time. The phenomenon known as time dilation to my understanding is just the slowing of change not time. That's how time can be relative because it's not time that is being slowed by gravity or acceleration, but change. Does anyone have any insight on this matter?

 

[Sabertooth]

Change requires nothing other than movement; there is no need for time.

One small quibble. Change can be expressed in "aging," too.

 

[Ohj1n37]

I am not sure if I understand your statement, but to my understanding aging can be expressed as the break down of an organism's DNA as it is copied repeatedly over time. I would guess that that process requires movement to occur.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am not sure if I understand your statement, but to my understanding aging can be expressed as the break down of an organism's DNA as it is copied repeatedly over time. I would guess that that process requires movement to occur.

Aging would be an example of the increase in entropy over time.

Time is as real as space; it is a dimension that actually exists. Our perception of past, present and future, however, is questionable, logically, and yet we all live in just that perception in a very strong sense.

 

[essentialsaltes]

To my understanding time as a force of nature does not exist.

This may be just a quibble of words, but of course time is not a force, like electromagnetism is a force.

Time is one of our space-time coordinates. We can locate an event in space and in time. The signing of the US Constitution was an event that we can locate in space (Independence Hall, Philadelphia) and time (September 17, 1787).

Matter moves, this movement causes change, and we humans perceive this change as the passage of time. Change requires nothing other than movement; there is no need for time.

Is there a need for space? If something moves, it goes from one location in space at one time to a different location in space at a different time.

The phenomenon known as time dilation to my understanding is just the slowing of change not time.

In the mathematics of relativity, it is the time coordinate that is altered. (Similarly, the space coordinates are altered in length-contraction). Again, it may just be terminology, but it would seem strange to say. "No no no. Space is not being affected at all, it's just that all the objects are getting shorter."

 

[Ohj1n37]

I have to go to bed and get sleep, but I'll try to reply to these real quick.

Time is as real as space; it is a dimension that actually exists. Our perception of past, present and future, however, is questionable, logically, and yet we all live in just that perception in a very strong sense.

I am to some degree familiar with relativity and the idea of space time. I am not arguing against the math, I am not good at math, but I do believe I am good with concepts. I think the fourth dimension would be better thought of as change not time. The curvature within space time created by a mass is in my opinion the mass' affect on change, and the shape the size and intensity of the mass' gravity. I have a separate idea of what gravity is.

This may be just a quibble of words, but of course time is not a force, like electromagnetism is a force.

You are correct. I noticed I made that error after I posted. Thank you for pointing that out. I think the four fundamental forces are electromagnetism, gravity, strong force, and weak force. I am not trained as any kind of scientist.

Is there a need for space? If something moves, it goes from one location in space at one time to a different location in space at a different time.

I believe space is necessary for movement.

In the mathematics of relativity, it is the time coordinate that is altered. (Similarly, the space coordinates are altered in length-contraction). Again, it may just be terminology, but it would seem strange to say. "No no no. Space is not being affected at all, it's just that all the objects are getting shorter."

Not sure what you mean here, but I am not a mathematician. Something interesting to think of is, how a clock measures time compared to how a ruler measures space. Clocks in one way or another measure change.

Also this is not an entirely new idea. After coming to the conclusion that time was not real I looked it up and found some paper online several years ago talking about what I had concluded.

 

[RealityCheck01]

To my understanding time as a force of nature does not exist.

Correct - time is not any force at all so it is not a force of nature.
But there is a need for time. Ignore time and everything happens at one instant which you would agree does not happen. Look at your post and my reply!

Time dilation is not a single "slowing of change". Tine dilation is the different measurement of clocks by different observers through either their relative speed or relative gravitational potential.

P.S. the fourth dimension of spacetime is defined as time.

 

[Radagast]

Matter moves, this movement causes change, and we humans perceive this change as the passage of time.

The concept of change presupposes the concept of time.

 

[Radagast]

I think the fourth dimension would be better thought of as change not time. The curvature within space time created by a mass is in my opinion the mass' affect on change, and the shape the size and intensity of the mass' gravity. I have a separate idea of what gravity is.

You can't just make up your own ideas on this stuff.

I am not trained as any kind of scientist.

Especially in that situation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does Time Exist, or Is It Merely the Numerical Order of Change?

This link may help^

My 2 cents: there is physical time, and there is phenomenal time. Two separate things...

Physics describes things "in them selves" or objects. Time as we experience it is involves consciousness.

Physicists don't do consciousness, and physicists don't properly deal with subjectivity.


To conclude from "no physical time" to "no flow of time whatsoever" would maybe be a hasty generalisation, or a non sequitur.

An analogy might be aesthetics. There is no art in physics, there are just shapes and patterns, but for conscious creatures art can and really does exist.

But, if conscious time is different from independent physical change, then the universe of temporal change (just like that of beauty) is of a different order than the Big Bang etc. and also the geological record of periods and epochs from a physical perspective. Meaning that the "temporal flow" of evolution and geology and astrobiology is an illusion, its a projection of our sense of time, not being present in objective physical change?

 

[Ohj1n37]

But there is a need for time. Ignore time and everything happens at one instant which you would agree does not happen. Look at your post and my reply!

I had a friend who said something similar, "If there was no time everything would occur at the same time." I thought it was very funny. Time doesn't separate anything, it is an unnecessary middle man.

Time dilation is not a single "slowing of change". Tine dilation is the different measurement of clocks by different observers through either their relative speed or relative gravitational potential.

I have read astronauts come back a few milliseconds or so younger due to the velocity of which they orbit around the Earth. I never said it was a single slowing of change.

That's how time can be relative because it's not time that is being slowed by gravity or acceleration, but change.

The slowing of change is relative to the mass that is being affected by the gravitational or accelerative force.

The concept of change presupposes the concept of time.

I will agree to disagree. I think all that is required for change is movement.

You can't just make up your own ideas on this stuff.

Especially in that situation.

Why can I not come to my own conclusions? I believe that they are correct and have yet found anyone to in my opinion challenge their validity. Are only people will scientific degrees allowed free thought?

Physicists don't do consciousness, and physicists don't properly deal with subjectivity.

An analogy might be aesthetics. There is no art in physics, there are just shapes and patterns, but for conscious creatures art can and really does exist.

I am not not sure if I understand what your trying to say, but what I am trying to say to my understanding is not subjective. I am not sure how I can make it anymore clear, so I'll just reiterate in a slightly different way.

Matter moves, movement in turn causes change, and it can stop there. Time is unnecessary. It does exist as a measurement of change though.

Something interesting to think of is, how a clock measures time compared to how a ruler measures space.

Basically all time keeping in one way or another is just a continual record of change. You can use that record to do math.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I believe space is necessary for movement.

Then it would seem that time is necessary as well. When we talk about movement, an object moves with some velocity or speed. It travels at so many miles per hour. Miles is a measure of distance, an extension in space. Hours is a measure of duration, an extension in time. Among speed, distance, and time duration, the three are linked together mathematically. Any two determine the third.

It seems strange to me that you could mix together two real things and get something that wasn't real.

But perhaps you might say that position and velocity are fundamental, and then time is 'just' a bit of record keeping. This seems to be something like what is in the article GrowingSmaller posted. But it seems that this is really no different from space. From the article "“The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.”"

But neither does the number 1 exist to the left of the number 2 in space; it's just that 1 is less than 2 numerically. We do not see any coordinate systems, either of space or time, to mark off where and when something happens. Coordinate systems are not real in the sense of observable. Indeed, when we work on freshman physics problems, usually one of the first things to do is to 'choose a coordinate system'. We impose this grid of numbers on the problem. It is not a real thing -- it's just some record-keeping.

At the same time, some kinds of record keeping match the real world better than others. Namely, we need 3 coordinates for space, and 1 for time. This does describe something real (I deem) about the universe in which we live.

Something interesting to think of is, how a clock measures time compared to how a ruler measures space.

Curiously, in the metric system, the length of the meter is actually determined in terms of time. The best way to measure how long something is, is to shine a light from one end of it, and measure how much time elapses before the light reaches the other end of it.

 

[Ohj1n37]

But perhaps you might say that position and velocity are fundamental, and then time is 'just' a bit of record keeping.

I would say that space and movement are fundamental because they are observable.

But neither does the number 1 exist to the left of the number 2 in space; it's just that 1 is less than 2 numerically. We do not see any coordinate systems, either of space or time, to mark off where and when something happens.

I am not sure what you are talking about, but are you trying to express time as some sort of frame system similar to how a television creates the appearance of movement by repeatedly showing slightly different images? If so I refer to my previous statement. Matter moves, and that movement causes change.

Coordinate systems are not real in the sense of observable. Indeed, when we work on freshman physics problems, usually one of the first things to do is to 'choose a coordinate system'.

I agree, coordinate systems are arbitrary, in this context meaning a human creation.

Curiously, in the metric system, the length of the meter is actually determined in terms of time. The best way to measure how long something is, is to shine a light from one end of it, and measure how much time elapses before the light reaches the other end of it.

When we talk about movement, an object moves with some velocity or speed. It travels at so many miles per hour. Miles is a measure of distance, an extension in space. Hours is a measure of duration, an extension in time. Among speed, distance, and time duration, the three are linked together mathematically. Any two determine the third.

Here is my interpretation. Distance, duration, and velocity are measurements only necessary to the math not the actual movement. Distance is the measure of space between two points. Duration is the time (which I believe to be a record of change) in which something occurs. Velocity is a measurement derived from a change in position within space over a period of time; this being caused by movement within space. Again space and movement can be observed. Time can only be observed as change.

To better illustrate my viewpoint, how would one determine how fast someone can run forty yards? First step, measure out forty yards. Second step, get a stopwatch. Third step, have someone run the measured forty yards while the time is kept by said stopwatch. The time statistic comes from the stopwatch's continual measure of change.

Matter moves, movement in turn causes change, and it can stop there. Time is unnecessary. It does exist as a measurement of change though.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

Biblically, God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is timeless, so while we may experience time as linear, the fact is time cannot exist. We do have direct evidence of this as well, but it takes effort to experience it, only because it is so obvious, yet totally counter intuitive.
When do we experience reality? When do things have physical dimension, substance, and identity to us, including subjective awareness of ourselves and our thoughts?
There is only one "time" anything is real, and it is "now". Everything you have ever experienced, everything you have ever imagined is only real in this present instant of awareness. A minute ago, you may think you did something, like start to read this post. You intuitively believe you did this in "real" time, even though it is now a memory of experience. But memories are only real right now.
None of us have any connection to physical reality except in this present instant. We cannot hear, smell, taste, feel, or see anything physical except now. We can't even imagine something except right now. Now is all that exists, plain and simple.
Luke 12:54-56
He also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A shower is coming.’ And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat,’ and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?
2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
James 4:14
Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes
Even from the secular perspective time is an illusion. In Quantum Mechanics for example, Quantum events are instantaneous.
James 4:14 ESV / 204 helpful votes
Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

Even in Quantum Physics, instantaneous, which is quite timeless, is the norm. This branch of science is the foundation upon everything physical is made!

By Faith We Understand
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would say that space and movement are fundamental because they are observable.

We don't observe space. We observe objects that are located in space (just as they are located in time).

We describe space and time in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Biblically, God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is timeless, so while we may experience time as linear, the fact is time cannot exist.

I am not sure about this. My earthly dad told me trying to figure out how God works would be like giving medicine to your pet cat. The cat just knows it is not enjoying the experience of getting the medicine, but you as their owner knows it is for the best. We are like the cat, it is beyond our capability to understand what that medicine is for or why our owner is making us take it, but the owner is like God and knows we need it. In short I believe how God works from a physics sense is not understandable to humans, at least not to me. I like to think up ideas though.

There is only one "time" anything is real, and it is "now". Everything you have ever experienced, everything you have ever imagined is only real in this present instant of awareness. A minute ago, you may think you did something, like start to read this post. You intuitively believe you did this in "real" time, even though it is now a memory of experience. But memories are only real right now.
None of us have any connection to physical reality except in this present instant. We cannot hear, smell, taste, feel, or see anything physical except now. We can't even imagine something except right now. Now is all that exists, plain and simple.

I think I pretty much agree with this. Out of past, present, and future the only one that actually exists is the present. My earthly dad would always tell me the only time to do anything is now.

 

[Ohj1n37]

We don't observe space. We observe objects that are located in space (just as they are located in time).

An example of observable space would be, I am not fused into the computer that I am using to type this post. There is space that I can observe that separates me from it.

 

[durangodawood]

Its very hard to imagine sequential events (such as grandparent > parent > child) without some real notion of time.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Its very hard to imagine sequential events (such as grandparent > parent > child) without some real notion of time.

At its core the idea is simple. Matter moves, movement causes change, and change creates the illusion of time. I think it can be hard to understand because time from a physics standpoint is sort of a logical illusion. Our memories and other methods of recording the past exist with us now and that is how we view the past.

There is only one "time" anything is real, and it is "now".

I pretty much agree with this.

 

[durangodawood]

At its core the idea is simple. Matter moves, movement causes change, and change creates the illusion of time.....

The idea of movement includes both space and time.

If you can explain movement without reference to time, then we'll be "getting somewhere".