Time is Nonexistent

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Besides research papers, I have written two books: The Discovery of Dynamics, which investigates the background to Newton’s great discoveries, and The End of Time, which is written for both the general reader and scientists. In it I argue that time is ultimately an illusion.

I have not read Julian's published work, yet, but can a single sentence show how it is illusory that this published work is in the past?

I'm watching Julian's yewtewb as I write and I have no promble with the fact that there is no linear time: I learned this at university and recent observations find ridiculous correspondence with the predictions of general relativity theory – the best theory of time we have.

Presumably, Julian keeps up with developments (another notion difficult to reconcile with the idea of no time) and is aware of Roger Penrose's take on these matters? He (RP) states that it is impossible to make a pendulum clock (or any other 'time-piece' for that matter) in the absence of mass and this is shown clearly by a simple blend of relativity theory and quantum mechanics: E = hυ = mc2 such that, to unit definition, mass and frequency (reciprocal time) are equivalent. Without mass, there is no time and this is not an illusion.
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-prof ... nrose-/441
Whether or not this 'crazy idea' will map the variance of the CMBR correctly is a job for future investigators to discover.

Barbour apologises very early in the book - in the preface or introduction IIRC - for using 'time words' throughout. The effort of writing a popular science book without any use of tenses, historical progression or any other nod to the persistent illusion that we live in linear time, would be too great. He mentions Penrose a lot and points out where his theories differ from his own. He also goes into great detail (for a pop sci book) about relativity and QM. I can't say whether I think Barbour's ideas are right, but he is certainly persuasive in his arguments, comprehensive in his descriptions of the evolution of thinking about time and opens up some interesting possibilities for viewing the universe.

I am currently about 3/4 through a reread of the book, trying to get a better grip on some of the sections that I skimmed a few years back.

[newolder]

...snip...

Barbour apologises very early in the book - in the preface or introduction IIRC - for using 'time words' throughout. The effort of writing a popular science book without any use of tenses, historical progression or any other nod to the persistent illusion that we live in linear time, would be too great. He mentions Penrose a lot and points out where his theories differ from his own. He also goes into great detail (for a pop sci book) about relativity and QM. I can't say whether I think Barbour's ideas are right, but he is certainly persuasive in his arguments, comprehensive in his descriptions of the evolution of thinking about time and opens up some interesting possibilities for viewing the universe.

I am currently about 3/4 through a reread of the book, trying to get a better grip on some of the sections that I skimmed a few years back.

Hi from a n00by,
I have no worries about folk making science popular: the more the merrier... Linear time is disproved by Gravity Probe B, gps, the clocks aboard Cassini &c and is an idea with no foundation in nature. If Julian's work makes testable predictions about future discoveries I'd be more inclined to read further.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

...snip...

Barbour apologises very early in the book - in the preface or introduction IIRC - for using 'time words' throughout. The effort of writing a popular science book without any use of tenses, historical progression or any other nod to the persistent illusion that we live in linear time, would be too great. He mentions Penrose a lot and points out where his theories differ from his own. He also goes into great detail (for a pop sci book) about relativity and QM. I can't say whether I think Barbour's ideas are right, but he is certainly persuasive in his arguments, comprehensive in his descriptions of the evolution of thinking about time and opens up some interesting possibilities for viewing the universe.

I am currently about 3/4 through a reread of the book, trying to get a better grip on some of the sections that I skimmed a few years back.

Hi from a n00by,
I have no worries about folk making science popular: the more the merrier... Linear time is disproved by Gravity Probe B, gps, the clocks aboard Cassini &c and is an idea with no foundation in nature. If Julian's work makes testable predictions about future discoveries I'd be more inclined to read further. :toast:

I am not sure about testable predictions. His theories seem internally consistent - but you come down to the problem of trying to measure the size of a house from within the bathroom, ultimately! How much about the nature of the universe can we ever, ultimately prove from within that universe?

[newolder]

...
I am not sure about testable predictions. His theories seem internally consistent - but you come down to the problem of trying to measure the size of a house from within the bathroom, ultimately! How much about the nature of the universe can we ever, ultimately prove from within that universe?

That's a good question. So, when the physicist postulates that there may be more dimensions to the Universe than the 4 of General Relativity, has the internally consistent mathematics to describe that extended framework and then goes on to make predictions about what experimentalists should find and where – I'm all ears. I must admit that I probably think about Lisa Randall's 'shower curtain' analogy too much, sometimes (but I'm just a guy, after all).

I also left my notion of 'ultimate proof' at the bottom of a case of Laphroaig some time ago and floors below but I'm happy to continue making small steps up the spiral staircase of 'knowing' knowing that I'll probably never reach the top step – even if such a thing exists.

P.S.
Here's a fine 'dimension shift' analogy:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX3VmDgi ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[week15]

Has anyone read The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Greene? After reading it, I've almost begun to believe our modern theories of quantum mechanics (including string theory, which the book advocates) is almost entirely hogwash. It reminds me of all the work in the early twentieth century over understanding the ether.

[Rob]

I don't see how your understanding of "String "Theory" leads you to denigrate quantum mechanics as rubbish. String Theory is untenable to say the least and until it is falsifiable I don't think it should be taken seriously. I would disagree with your assertion about quantum mechanics however, unless you have specific examples to cite.

[Beatsong]

[my_wan]

I don't get the point of separating time and change in such a way to claim time doesn't exist. To me this logic goes like this: If A is B then A doesn't exist. Carried even farther it goes: Since A = B then B != A because A doesn't exist given that A is B. Another example would be: Robert also goes by the name Bob. Since Robert is his name, Bob doesn't exist.

So the claim time doesn't exist is predicated on how you define "exist". I would agree time is meaningless in absentia of the existential things that define it. But a huge range of things besides time have the same property, called emergent properties. Just a couple of examples would be temperature and sound. The temperature of the air you breath is meaningless in any given air molecule. There is no part in that air molecule that corresponds to its temperature. Likewise for sound. Even gravitation tidal forces are meaningless at any one point in space, giving rise to the notion of "local" as a limit in General Relativity. Given Quantum Mechanics, it's quiet likely the table your computer is sitting on is not an existential object in itself, but an emergent property of some other underlying existence (emergent or not) of sorts, not unlike sound.

This is why I object to throwing away half an equation on the grounds it merely equals the other half. Taken to extremes it means throwing out the existence of yourself. It's the symmetries that provides the foundations of physics, not some notion of defining which side of the symmetry is 'real' and which is just a shadow of the other. Just as well to go back to arguing which spaceship is really moving and which is 'really' sitting still.

[my_wan]

Has anyone read The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Greene? After reading it, I've almost begun to believe our modern theories of quantum mechanics (including string theory, which the book advocates) is almost entirely hogwash. It reminds me of all the work in the early twentieth century over understanding the ether.

There is a huge difference between the classical ether and Quantum Mechanics (QM). Even before Einstein, the mechanical properties of the ether was such that it had to have certain properties and the opposite of those properties. Such has a near perfect solid yet no resistance to motion through it. The classical ether never provided any theoretical framework for any valid science. Rather it was a natural philosophy construct on which theories were presumed to rest.

I don't care for string theory myself, but it is science. I don't even consider it a full fledged theory yet. I don't think it ever will be, but that's just me and the real science will determine that. If your conception of QM is limited to the content of string theory, or even the various meta-theories associated with QM, it's missing the real science that QM defines. A meta-theory of a theory is not the theory itself.

[Oldskeptic]

Time is a relative concept that depends on velocity and the strength of gravitational fields. Time does exist and is not an illusion because there is measuring device that can illustrate it: The Speed of light is a constant of distance traveled over time by photons. Our perception of time may seem illusionary because it does not stand still except maybe at event horizons where it would only seem to stand still for the observer.

Locally time does not speed up or slow down. In that it is a constant on our scale of observation. But for an observer of other high inertial states it can appear that time is not a constant, but it is. When all things are considered time goes in one direction, and that is towards maximum entropy. One second on earth would not equal one second of something traveling at close to the speed of light, but when adjusted for velocity they are the same.

Time may be relative depending on inertial states and gravity, but that in no way means that it does not exist or is an illusion.

One last thing: If time is made up of increments as small as the Planck time then it would not be surprising that the future moves through the present into the past so fast that we cannot detect where one ends and another begins.