Go back
Is time a constant?

Is time a constant?

Science

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is time a constant or does it change?
How do we know?
Kelly
300 postings later I think the question is answered.

If not, let's go back to this original posting and investigate what is not yet crystal clear. What questions is still left?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When I was a baby I was scared to death when my mother hide her face. I thought she was gone, that she didn't existed anymore. I was so relieved when she showed her face again and said peekaboo.

Now I'm big enough to realize that my mother is not gone of the only reason that I cannot see her face.

Of course time exists, even without clocks. We are grown-ups, all of us.
Of course time exists, even without clocks. We are grown-ups, all of us.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that time exists. Consider this:

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/cover/

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Of course time exists, even without clocks. We are grown-ups, all of us.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that time exists. Consider this:

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/cover/[/b]
How long did it take for you to read this article?
Your answer to this question also answers if time exists.

The same thing can be asked about the spatial dimensions. Do they exist? Of course they do.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Suppose you move at 0.5c in one direction. I move 0.5c in the opposite direction. Are you telling me that when you are one light year from the starting spot (two years later), my position is undefined? It seems to me that you can calculate my position relative to the starting point given my velocity, your velocity and your position. No? When you are one light year one way, I am one light year the opposite.
It is a difficult question. I think it is less a case of your position being undefined, but rather a case of your position not necessarily corresponding to my position. ie your position is relative to mine in space and time, but there is no magical 'now' that links the two of us. I need to think about it some more in order to explain it precisely.

The quote I gave from Hawking refers to two different kinds of time. The kind that gets dilated, and the time that is referred to as the "time before time". Time cannot be before time unless the two times are different kinds of time.
Maybe I misunderstood the quote then. If the type of time Hawking was referring to was some other dimension, then he is not making sense and is starting to sound like knightmeister.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
How long did it take for you to read this article?
Your answer to this question also answers if time exists.

The same thing can be asked about the spatial dimensions. Do they exist? Of course they do.
How long did it take for you to read this article?
Your answer to this question also answers if time exists.

Clever. 🙂

If you didn't read the article, then I guess you missed Julian Barbour's theory...

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]How long did it take for you to read this article?
Your answer to this question also answers if time exists.

Clever. 🙂

If you didn't read the article, then I guess you missed Julian Barbour's theory...[/b]
You want me to read a 3370 word document? On a foreign language? No way. It'll take some time, and that proves my point - that time exists.

Could you give me a summary? An appetizer, just to see if it's worth the time (again: time exist) spent?

By a rule - I never read a link without any summary. It's easy to submit a link, but lazy not to give a well written summary of it.
You know why? Follow this link: www.wikipedia.se/ In some subpage you'll find the answer. Got my point?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Could you give me a summary? An appetizer, just to see if it's worth the time (again: time exist) spent?

Barbour actually addresses such arguments in his book.

Vote Up
Vote Down

KellyJay,

I have made a rather lengthy post on my blog discussing the issue of time dilation. I have made my case for why it is time that should be considered to be dilating, rather than anything else, to the best of my ability. I apologize for the length, but it was necessary to sufficiently present my case. While of course you have no obligation to read it, I ask that you do, as it took a considerable amount of my time to write. I would be most interested in your feedback.

Thanks. The link to the post is below:

http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/2010/04/time-and-lorentz-transformation.html

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amolv06
KellyJay,

I have made a rather lengthy post on my blog discussing the issue of time dilation. I have made my case for why it is time that should be considered to be dilating, rather than anything else, to the best of my ability. I apologize for the length, but it was necessary to sufficiently present my case. While of course you have no obligation to read ...[text shortened]... elow:

http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/2010/04/time-and-lorentz-transformation.html
I'll look at it and post my reply, thank you.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amolv06
Could you give me a summary? An appetizer, just to see if it's worth the time [b](again: time exist) spent?

Barbour actually addresses such arguments in his book.[/b]
Such arguments? Like time actually exists?
Okay, I knew that from before. Therefore I don't have to read it. Doesn't bring any news.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The article presents the point of view that time does not exist -- it is an illusion. The fact that we use diction like "is it worth the time . . ." does not prove that time does not exist according to Barbour. This is what I was saying he addresses in his book.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amolv06
The article presents the point of view that time does not exist -- it is an illusion. The fact that we use diction like "is it worth the time . . ." does not prove that time does not exist according to Barbour. This is what I was saying he addresses in his book.
So if time is an illusion (I don't belive it.), then what about other dimensions? Like the spatial ones, are they illusory too? (I don't belive it.)

Why complicate things?

Vote Up
Vote Down

I don't "believe" it either. But Barbour claims that the discrepancy between GR and QM have to do with time. If we were to get rid of it altogether, then these discrepancies may not exist (that's what I got from it anyway -- I could be wrong about the article).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amolv06
I don't "believe" it either. But Barbour claims that the discrepancy between GR and QM have to do with time. If we were to get rid of it altogether, then these discrepancies may not exist (that's what I got from it anyway -- I could be wrong about the article).
Why stop there? Get rid of the spacial dimensions as well, and you will not have any discrepancies anywhere. Universe would be ultimately simple to understand.

Like nirvana...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Why stop there? Get rid of the spacial dimensions as well, and you will not have any discrepancies anywhere. Universe would be ultimately simple to understand.

Like nirvana...
I think the point is though that you still need a working framework to model the universe. From what I understand, Barbour claims this can be done without the time dimension. I haven't heard of anyone make the claim that this can be done without the spatial dimensions.

Another thing I learned in the article is that the general idea of Barbour's work has been around for over a 100 years.

While I don't buy what the article says, it's an interesting read nevertheless.