What is time?

[Flashlight Aficionado]

Thirdly, why would everything become invisible. I'd reason that stuff behind you would appear still, stuff beside you would appear normal except for going by REAL fast and stuff in front of you would appear to be happening twice as quickly.

First, I am not a theoretical physicist.

I would think that is because light is what allows us to see. In the ship that carries us faster than light, everything should appear normal, except for the fact that you can't make time go faster. So even then everything would appear invisible. Now, I can see everything appear blinding bright as every photon that you cross that can't keep up slams into your retina. Now back to the idea that you will be ripped apart.

Not being a physicist of any type makes these all stupid mumblings by a caveman, so YMMV.

 

[Illum]

Time is a concept that we use to quantify duration, to compare a series of events for us to understand particular concepts. Earth was not created 4.54 billion years ago, "4.54 billion years" is simply a medium in which terms of nature are put into something we can understand through relativity.

Time does not exist in nature, seasons do. Time does not declare the actions of organisms, seasons do. Time is not needed in nature, we created time because we cannot sustain without it as a medium of control.

 

[TedTheLed]

NASA scientists using data from the Indonesian earthquake calculated it decreased the length of day by 2.68 microseconds.

...no wonder I've been off schedule..my ears and whiskers..

 

[wykeite]

I wish I could do such important work:tinfoil:.

 

[wykeite]

Thirdly, why would everything become invisible. I'd reason that stuff behind you would appear still, stuff beside you would appear normal except for going by REAL fast and stuff in front of you would appear to be happening twice as quickly.

What stuff?:shrug:. Be real careful cruisin'.

Seems reasonable that the closer to the speed of light the slower things will appear to be moving. At the speed of light no movement. Greater than the speed of light will probably result in a kick up the *** if you stop:twothumbs.

 

[csa]

And don't forget that we need some form of light to observe other stuff, so "appear" doesn't quite work in this context... No practical way to observe other things.

 

[Patriot]

Several have hinted at the idea that time does not exist and great scientific minds have also suggested the same as well throughout history. It seems though that most scientists now believe that it does indeed exist at least in the physical world because we know that the universe had a beginning and that it happened at a comprehensible, determinable time unit ago, pick your unit. To ask if time exists is not completely unlike asking if matter exists. Entropy and the disintegration of molecules is another pretty good indication that time in the physical does exist. Lastly, fast forward about 100 billion years (time units) and the fact of a receding universe will be the norm, as well as eventual collapse. We now know scientifically that this physical universe had a beginning and will have and end if no miraculous intervention takes place.

The next natural question from a human perspective is, what's beyond the physical that began this universe or the multiverse, if the hunch is even valid? If the universe is only physical, then how does matter come from non-matter and how is design complexity and fine tuning, explained? If the universe is only atoms randomly banging off of other atoms, without purpose, then why the apparent purpose and order of it all. How does consciousness spawn from non-consciousness and how does morality come from non-morality? If morality is only physical then morality is also an illusion since physical matter by its very nature is prederterminism. In other words, if I'm simply cosmic dust, then I have no value, no purpose and no moral constraints. To suggest that I possess any of these is to assume that something finite as assigned me value, assigned me purpose or assigned me moral boundaries.

Regarding Carroll's work, what's important here is not just the empty question of whether or not this universe is the final or second to the final "container" of physical matter. For me the question is what's the more likely explanation for the observable and theoretical universe, that it came randomly out of nothing or that some kind of consciousness directed it somehow? This line of thinking is actually more tangible and testable than trying to grasp the possibility of a mulitverse.

We have the book of nature that displays orderly design and physical laws, which are intelligible by conscious, rational minds. Most of us have a sense of life beyond our physical body or what could be called the sense of life beyond death. If not morally handicapped, we also have a sense of absolute right and wrong and if we say that there is no right or wrong but live daily as if there were, we're deluding ourselves. If life is just an illusion of value, if consciousness is only physical, and if we're just non-directed, constructs of cosmic dust then it doesn't really matter if we're here or not, in which case is there any real reason to remain alive?

Fortunately most of us do have a sense of worth or purpose even if not all of us actually seek to recognize a non-physical director of things. Not only are we capable of loving other human beings but we're even capable of loving other living things which is inexplicable by a physical only world. In any case, I hope to have triggered the acknowledgment of our sense of things beyond the physical since physicality is clearly just one element of reality when we dissect things logically.

 

[Patriot]

And don't forget that we need some form of light to observe other stuff, so "appear" doesn't quite work in this context... No practical way to observe other things.

Observation of the physical still occurs through 4 other sensory inputs.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Several have hinted at the idea that time does not exist and great scientific minds have also suggested the same as well throughout history. It seems though that most scientists now believe that it does indeed exist at least in the physical world because we know that the universe had a beginning and that it happened at a comprehensible, determinable time unit ago, pick your unit. To ask if time exists is not completely unlike asking if matter exists. Entropy and the disintegration of molecules is another pretty good indication that time in the physical does exist. Lastly, fast forward about 100 billion years (time units) and the fact of a receding universe will be the norm, as well as eventual collapse. We now know scientifically that this physical universe had a beginning and will have and end if no miraculous intervention takes place.

The next natural question from a human perspective is, what's beyond the physical that began this universe or the multiverse, if the hunch is even valid? If the universe is only physical, then how does matter come from non-matter and how is design complexity and fine tuning, explained? If the universe is only atoms randomly banging off of other atoms, without purpose, then why the apparent purpose and order of it all. How does consciousness spawn from non-consciousness and how does morality come from non-morality? If morality is only physical then morality is also an illusion since physical matter by its very nature is prederterminism. In other words, if I'm simply cosmic dust, then I have no value, no purpose and no moral constraints. To suggest that I possess any of these is to assume that something finite as assigned me value, assigned me purpose or assigned me moral boundaries.

Regarding Carroll's work, what's important here is not just the empty question of whether or not this universe is the final or second to the final "container" of physical matter. For me the question is what's the more likely explanation for the observable and theoretical universe, that it came randomly out of nothing or that some kind of consciousness directed it somehow? This line of thinking is actually more tangible and testable than trying to grasp the possibility of a mulitverse.

We have the book of nature that displays orderly design and physical laws, which are intelligible by conscious, rational minds. Most of us have a sense of life beyond our physical body or what could be called the sense of life beyond death. If not morally handicapped, we also have a sense of absolute right and wrong and if we say that there is no right or wrong but live daily as if there were, we're deluding ourselves. If life is just an illusion of value, if consciousness is only physical, and if we're just non-directed, constructs of cosmic dust then it doesn't really matter if we're here or not, in which case is there any real reason to remain alive?

Fortunately most of us do have a sense of worth or purpose even if not all of us actually seek to recognize a non-physical director of things. Not only are we capable of loving other human beings but we're even capable of loving other living things which is inexplicable by a physical only world. In any case, I hope to have triggered the acknowledgment of our sense of things beyond the physical since physicality is clearly just one element of reality when we dissect things logically.

Some wonderful and thoughtful points, but for all that to be valid, you have to include a scenario where unbeknown to anyone, a mega meteor 100 times the size of earth drifts into our flight path and obliterates every speck of terra firma, and in case any trace remnant survived, the meteor was heading into the sun when it hit us.

 

[Jay R]

Seems reasonable that the closer to the speed of light the slower things will appear to be moving. At the speed of light no movement. Greater than the speed of light will probably result in a kick up the *** if you stop:twothumbs.

I don't see it. Am I missing something.
The light behind you wouldn't be able to reach you so everything would appear still. The light in front of you would be reaching your eyes twice as fast so everything would appear to be happening twice as fast.
Imagine you are in a car at 20mph. The car behind at 20 would appear still, the car approcahing at 20 would appear to be doing 40, etc...

 

[Databyter]

Interesting comments patriot. I had a few thoughts about what you said.

Several have hinted at the idea that time does not exist and great scientific minds have also suggested the same as well throughout history. It seems though that most scientists now believe that it does indeed exist at least in the physical world because we know that the universe had a beginning and that it happened at a comprehensible, determinable time unit ago, pick your unit. To ask if time exists is not completely unlike asking if matter exists. Entropy and the disintegration of molecules is another pretty good indication that time in the physical does exist. Lastly, fast forward about 100 billion years (time units) and the fact of a receding universe will be the norm, as well as eventual collapse. We now know scientifically that this physical universe had a beginning and will have and end if no miraculous intervention takes place.

Carroll is not one of those who suggest that time does not exist. He falls into the category of analyzing how it works, and tries to answer some of the questions you posed.

The next natural question from a human perspective is, what's beyond the physical that began this universe or the multiverse, if the hunch is even valid? If the universe is only physical, then how does matter come from non-matter and how is design complexity and fine tuning, explained? If the universe is only atoms randomly banging off of other atoms, without purpose, then why the apparent purpose and order of it all. How does consciousness spawn from non-consciousness and how does morality come from non-morality? If morality is only physical then morality is also an illusion since physical matter by its very nature is prederterminism.

Einstein's theories in a nutshell show that in fact energy is matter and vica-versa, and that time was a regulating factor in the equation. Matter came from energy after the big bang, but the big bang wasn't the beginning, it was just part of a cycle (according to Carroll). I've always thought it was cyclical myself. It's small minded to conclude that there was nothing before what we can't postulate.

In other words, if I'm simply cosmic dust, then I have no value, no purpose and no moral constraints. To suggest that I possess any of these is to assume that something finite as assigned me value, assigned me purpose or assigned me moral boundaries.

You literally are cosmic dust, there was no carbon until many suns burned long enough to create enough of it to form planets and eventually life. So, we are all literally star dust. I don't know why you would think you have no value just because your body is composed of carbon.

Regarding Carroll's work, what's important here is not just the empty question of whether or not this universe is the final or second to the final "container" of physical matter. For me the question is what's the more likely explanation for the observable and theoretical universe, that it came randomly out of nothing or that some kind of consciousness directed it somehow? This line of thinking is actually more tangible and testable than trying to grasp the possibility of a mulitverse.

The question of God is important, but understanding the natural universe as you yourself has said only brings you closer to whatever is truth to you. Furthermore, who is to say that your idea of God doesn't use these cosmic tools. As far as whats more likely believable, the idea of God making Physics more simple to our small minds by saying, "I just created all this stuff" is only simple if you don't think about where God came from.

We have the book of nature that displays orderly design and physical laws, which are intelligible by conscious, rational minds. Most of us have a sense of life beyond our physical body or what could be called the sense of life beyond death. If not morally handicapped, we also have a sense of absolute right and wrong and if we say that there is no right or wrong but live daily as if there were, we're deluding ourselves. If life is just an illusion of value, if consciousness is only physical, and if we're just non-directed, constructs of cosmic dust then it doesn't really matter if we're here or not, in which case is there any real reason to remain alive?

I have a sense of the metaphysical, but I get the sense that you are defending values that are not under attack by this theory. I have never understood why people think that science precludes the existance of a spiritual realm. We can have both, and they are in agreement, even if it's hard to see it.

Fortunately most of us do have a sense of worth or purpose even if not all of us actually seek to recognize a non-physical director of things. Not only are we capable of loving other human beings but we're even capable of loving other living things which is inexplicable by a physical only world. In any case, I hope to have triggered the acknowledgment of our sense of things beyond the physical since physicality is clearly just one element of reality when we dissect things logically.

I have always thought that science and the metaphysical are the same, and any perception that they are at odds with each other is only due to ones lack of perception in either of the two areas.

Scientific exploration into the mysteries of life should only re-enforce all of the values that you are defending and illuminating.

Censuring science in the name of morality has been attempted many times throughout history by good and honorable men who in their ignorance were foolish and shortsighted, because censuring the mysteries of creation, as if it could not defend itself with it's own truths, or did not hold value and truth, is unnecessary and immoral in itself (and usually badly botched and counter-productive).
Science cannot replace spirituality or morality, it is only a tool to reach logical conclusions in the natural world. The natural world, as you said, is the book of life.

 

[SFG2Lman]

i agree with you databyter, the more order we discover in this chaos the better off we will be, everything is ordered, and its there for a reason and the more of this order that we can postulate, discover, theorize, and prove, the closer we will be to discovering the reason. The meaning of life can't be found until we literally know everything. Einstein set about to write a theory of everything "Unified Field theory." I think that one day when this theory is finally realized its going to show something shocking...undeniable proof of a higher power. Most of the rest of the comments i have concerning this probably belong in the underground and not the cafe, but i also see science and religion inextricably intertwined.

 

[Starlight]

I asked this one before, if you are traveling faster than the speed of light, and turn on your flashlight, will the photons move back into the light and recharge the batteries.

 

[Databyter]

I asked this one before, if you are traveling faster than the speed of light, and turn on your flashlight, will the photons move back into the light and recharge the batteries.

It is postulated that to move faster (a measurement involving time) than light is against the rules in this part of our dimensional universe, to go faster would push you into another dimension where the light relative to yourself would be stationary.
As usual the questions are the answers, and the enigma is the rule.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Databyter, some great postings in that response to Patriot. :thumbsup:

The meaning of life can't be found until we literally know everything.

It will never be possible for humans to know everything. I just don't want you to hold your breath on knowing the meaning of life. :green:

 

[CampLite]

Einstein did not embrace quantum mechanics and actually spent his later years fighting to discredit it. I love these newer scientist who are trying to unify Einsteins general relativity with quantum mechanics! I especially love the guys who are attempting to describe the "missing" gravity in the universe. Most scientist are on this dark matter kick to try and explain the gravity problem, but guys like Michio Kaku are delving into more likely (IMO) theories of the multiverse and the interaction of gravity between the "bubble" universes in close proximity to one another.

 

[PayBack]

42

However in regard to the universe eventually contracting, I thought that idea has now be thrown out with the discovery that the expansion is getting faster not slower, and that eventually the universe will just be spread out dead rocks. EDIT: Actually now having ready the link, that fits.. once the universe is spread out and dead (maximum entropy) it pops out a new one... unless the collider does it first

Oh, and I hope certain multiverse theories aren't correct because I believe (and no this is not just uneducated paranoia) that some theories work on the big bang being caused by two planes touching, and if enough energy is focused in a small enough area, it can cause this to occur again... meaning the collider they're firing up right now could cause another big bang... which would ruin our day.

 

[Databyter]

Einstein did not embrace quantum mechanics and actually spent his later years fighting to discredit it. I love these newer scientist who are trying to unify Einsteins general relativity with quantum mechanics! I especially love the guys who are attempting to describe the "missing" gravity in the universe. Most scientist are on this dark matter kick to try and explain the gravity problem, but guys like Michio Kaku are delving into more likely (IMO) theories of the multiverse and the interaction of gravity between the "bubble" universes in close proximity to one another.

Why wouldn't newer scientists try to use Einsteins work to further their own.

This is and always has been the way of scientific discovery.

Einstein's work was ground breaking, but was only one in a series of stepping stones, complete with limitations.

I'm not familiar with Einsteins feelings about quantum mechanics, but there is undeniably quantum mechanics that have different rules than non quantum mechanics.

If Einstein was still alive I am sure that with his brilliance, and the tools of the day he could probably say a thing or two about the forces that exist at the quantum level.

You don't need to throw out Einsteins achievements to move beyond them into further exploration into theoretical physics.

There has to be a unified truth that fits all the rules of nature together perfectly. It is natural for people to try to get closer to an overall understanding that puts it all together.

If you accept Einsteins theory then it must somehow be associated with new discoveries. If you cannot justify it it either means the theory is wrong or incomplete, or that science cannot yet grasp the connections and rules that make it fit.

 

[jugornot]

Time is the currency of life. Spend it wisely.

 

[StarHalo]

I just use the CPF clock