Does Time Exist?

Such paltry comments. Aye, while the tongue still wags, so does pride. Time, dear readers, is very much above your finite pay grades.

Space is. While you "are" in space - that is what we call time. The concept of time does not exist outside human reason/measurement.

We'll all be grossly wrong about almost everything when we die. Cheers.

DiscoGary wrote:

...My calculations show that if you could convert the mass of Mount Everest to kinetic energy or a 100 kg space craft, then you could cross the known universe in ~1.5 years of your local time. Of course when you returned every star in the Milky Way will have long since burned out, but you will have only aged 3 years.

So time travel into the future is possible, just really hard to do.

Nothing can cross the known universe, not even the galaxies that ARE ALREADY moving at relativistic speeds.

You're asking a philosophical question which scientists are uniquely unqualified to answer. The correct answer is that your question needs clarification.

One correct answer to a possible meaning of your question is that only the present exists. The past is gone, as Steve Tyler said. But we can still bring back the pterodactyls.

time is the action of a hamiltonian

time is a measure of "distance" between two events

time does not exist in the moment (like space seems to), space could not have gotten there without different "times"

yes.

/thread

too many brainlets and soft degree folks on LRC smh.

or

time happens. asking about its existence didn't get me anywhere

physics grad2 wrote:

time is the action of a hamiltonian

**time is a measure of "distance" between two events**

time does not exist in the moment (like space seems to), space could not have gotten there without different "times"

Time is a measure of "distance" between two events. So, yes, time exists as a measurement between two events.

foo wrote:

Sorry, you've come to the wrong forum for this highly scientific and theoretical question.

About 70% of people on LRC do not even comprehend the greenhouse effect and it's implications. A slightly less percentage do not believe in evolution.

With such scientific ignorance on LRC, you would be much better posting your question to grade school children.

I bet you feel really smart don't you? Sitting behind your electronic safety wall between you and the ignorant masses. I'm not going to argue with you about the greenhouse effect and evolution, but when you are burning in hell for believing that the human body and plants and the universe for that matter just "happened" and not in God, I think you might reconsider how "smart" you were.

"That sounds right. As you reach relativistic speeds your mass starts to increase, making it harder and harder to go faster."

This is not quite right. Your rest mass, i.e., your mass in your own inertial reference frame stays constant no matter how fast you're travelling. Your relativistic mass (you mass measured by an external observer in another reference) *will* increase as you approach the speed of light.

I am fairly certain this is the correct way of thinking about it.

[/quote]

Can't say about whether time exists. As far as aging, I'm in way way over my head here, but as I understand it, you wouldn't really age less quickly. If you were wearing a watch, your "seconds" and "minutes" would still be seconds and minutes from your point of view. Your own perceived aging rate would stay the same. People not moving at your speed would seem to age much more quickly. Conversely, from their point of view, their "seconds" and "minutes" would stay the same while yours slowed down. So I suppose you could say you could "live longer" but it wouldn't seem longer to you, just to other people.

Anyone, please correct if this is wrong. I'm kind of curious.[/quote]

I am fairly certain this is the correct way of thinking about it.

No. We have become unstuck in time. See, we've passed through the chornosynclasticinfindibula. Every event across history is happening at the same time.

Slaughterhouse 5.

Not if you count them wrong after going too fast on your recovery runs, trees don't appreciate that.

Carl's Sagan wrote:

x, y, z, t wrote:

If time did not exist then your PRs would not exist.

If you tell your PRs to a tree does it care?

yes, but god doesn't

Does time exist?

You've asked my favorite question.

Linear time is a construct of the human psyche that we've produced for convenient organization of our experience.

It's always the present. Future and past are constructs that help us categorize change flowing throw this singularity, organizing our understanding of our human lives.

As it's always the present, I conclude that we exist in a singularity where all action is simultaneous. We process the flow of our lives in the eternal present in little bites with the system we call "time".

We are physically manifest beings existing in a system where energy takes the novel form of "matter". So the idea "time" is, again, a convenient explanation of our experience in physical reality.

My real question, doe the energy that drives us to manifest as physical beings have an existence independent of physical reality as we understand it? I'd wager yes.

This, of course, makes me a believer in the idea that spirit animates matter. It's worth mentioning that I am not religious. No need to send money to some ridiculous organization that thinks they have all the answers!

All of quantum mechanics is an imposition of the patriarchy as this article explains:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

This is actually an impossible question to answer. Let's assume all matter and energy in the universe were to pause. It would then be impossible to measure time within the universe. However, this doesn't prove that time doesn't exist, but only our ability to measure time. With that said, here are the possible answers you are looking for.

Now assuming Einstein's theory of relativity, as objects approach the speed of light, time will slow down. Now assume we have an infinite amount of energy and the ability to move a box at the speed of light. Time will effectively stop within that box, but outside the box, the universe it exists in, time still exists. So assuming the universe is our box, we could say that our ability to measure time may stop, but time itself would not and therefore time does exist.

The limitation to this thought is that it assumes infinity is possible and also assumes that something exists beyond our universe. If nothing exists beyond our universe, a concept very hard for humans to understand, then it's possible time may not exist and all we notice is change.

I understand this may not truly answer your question, but understand that the question you've asked is not truly answerable. We are limited to the understanding of our universe and to truly answer it, we would need to exist beyond our universe, which may or may not be possible.

The question has a bearing on matters such as: Can I run a mile under 4:00?

It has a lot to do with the will and belief system of anyone who asks. OK, it appears to have to do with whether you are male or female, at least for "now".

hobbyphysicser wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

...My calculations show that if you could convert the mass of Mount Everest to kinetic energy or a 100 kg space craft, then you could cross the known universe in ~1.5 years of your local time. Of course when you returned every star in the Milky Way will have long since burned out, but you will have only aged 3 years.

So time travel into the future is possible, just really hard to do.

Nothing can cross the known universe, not even the galaxies that ARE ALREADY moving at relativistic speeds.

Well considering that the "known universe" must be defined by what we can see, and that the only way we can see it is if light travelled from the far end to us, then by definition something has already crossed the known universe or at least half of it, so I say it's not only possible, but can be done by converting Everest into kinetic energy. You might want add a few years due to expansion but it's possible.