I'm curious if there are any good arguments that support the existence of Time.
I can't think of any. As a result, I believe that Time does not exist.
Humans created the concept of Time as we needed a way to predict when events would occur. It is very important to recognize that each event is completely separate from every other event. But we still seem to need a mechanism whereby we can compare two or more events. This requirement for comparison results in us labeling one event as potentially occurring faster, slower or at the same moment as some other event. This is where the conundrum occurs. If we were to never do any event comparison the concept of Time would not be required. All we would experience is Change.
As this comparison of events is something we humans think we need to do, in so doing we create something artificial: Time.
If Change is the only condition that exists then what used to be ceases to exist and is replaced by the Change. Therefore, there is no sense in considering Traveling into the Past: There is nothing to travel back to. The sense of how something was as opposed to how it is now is just a memory that we have.
Likewise, events that have not occurred yet can only be imagined as they have not yet occurred. As a result there is nothing to travel forward in Time to.
All that exists is what is Now.
Take a look at Julian Barbour's book, The End of Time. It's tough sledding, but worth it. Very insightful and, I believe, incorrect. You will be wiser, though, having read it. He's one smart dude.
On your question, yes time does exist. Just look at Minkowski space, proper time as an indication of separation of events, causal structures etc. Both SR and GR WORK, and the time dimension used represents something real, with real consequences in reality.
If you were able to comprehend the phase space of everything in the universe, and assume no motion or change of location, then the concept of time would have no real utility, but even there it would be hard to say it doesn't exist, only that it would be hard to measure.
On your question, yes time does exist. Just look at Minkowski space, proper time as an indication of separation of events, causal structures etc. Both SR and GR WORK, and the time dimension used represents something real, with real consequences in reality.
If you were able to comprehend the phase space of everything in the universe, and assume no motion or change of location, then the concept of time would have no real utility, but even there it would be hard to say it doesn't exist, only that it would be hard to measure.
The Minkowski Space is just a model and because it is a "contrivance" it may be wrong and certainly cannot be regarded as proof that time exists.
QUOTE (mbluett+Dec 13 2011, 03:45 PM)
The Minkowski Space is just a model and because it is a "contrivance" it may be wrong and certainly cannot be regarded as proof that time exists.
QUOTE (mbluett+Dec 13 2011, 07:45 PM)
The Minkowski Space is just a model and because it is a "contrivance" it may be wrong and certainly cannot be regarded as proof that time exists.
You couldn't understand how stupid your comment is.
You couldn't understand how stupid your comment is.
Brucep, you may be right, but why so snotty about it? A little decorum doesn't hurt. For someone who obviously trolls this looking for silly stuff, maybe you should get a life 
The problem, mbluett, is that Minkowski space, as an integral part of SR, is a lot more than a model. Magnificent feats of engineering (like the LHC) have been designed and constructed using the results of SR calculations, and, lo and behold, they work!!
The problem, mbluett, is that Minkowski space, as an integral part of SR, is a lot more than a model. Magnificent feats of engineering (like the LHC) have been designed and constructed using the results of SR calculations, and, lo and behold, they work!!
QUOTE (LAncienne+Dec 13 2011, 11:59 PM)
The problem, mbluett, is that Minkowski space, as an integral part of SR, is a lot more than a model. Magnificent feats of engineering (like the LHC) have been designed and constructed using the results of SR calculations, and, lo and behold, they work!!
Things may have been constructed with the use of SR calculations. But the interpretation of the components in the calculation may not necessarily be correct. You might still get a working construction from an equation where the components are interpreted in different ways. In other words the time component might be explained in a different way. Do you think this might be possible?
Things may have been constructed with the use of SR calculations. But the interpretation of the components in the calculation may not necessarily be correct. You might still get a working construction from an equation where the components are interpreted in different ways. In other words the time component might be explained in a different way. Do you think this might be possible?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 13 2011, 09:07 PM)
Is this you?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=3410
No, I'm afraid that is not me, but I think he is on the right track.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=3410
No, I'm afraid that is not me, but I think he is on the right track.
time is a numerical order of material change in quantum vacuum.
QUOTE (albert2+Dec 14 2011, 08:45 PM)
time is a numerical order of material change in quantum vacuum.
So what you are saying is that "time" is just a referential element. In other words, it is just a "contrivance" that we need in order to compare events.
You have not offered me any "proof" for the existence of time which is what I was attempting to solicit.
So what you are saying is that "time" is just a referential element. In other words, it is just a "contrivance" that we need in order to compare events.
You have not offered me any "proof" for the existence of time which is what I was attempting to solicit.
QUOTE (mbluett+Dec 14 2011, 09:48 PM)
So what you are saying is that "time" is just a referential element. In other words, it is just a "contrivance" that we need in order to compare events.
You have not offered me any "proof" for the existence of time which is what I was attempting to solicit.
Yes time we measure with clocks has only mathematical character. In physics time exists only as a mathematical quantity which describes material change i.e. motion in quantum vacuum.
Sure time exists not only in physics, time exists also in the physical reality: time is a numerical order (sequence) of material change.
It exists independently we measure it or not.
Time has its own existence which has only a mathematical value.
You have not offered me any "proof" for the existence of time which is what I was attempting to solicit.
Yes time we measure with clocks has only mathematical character. In physics time exists only as a mathematical quantity which describes material change i.e. motion in quantum vacuum.
Sure time exists not only in physics, time exists also in the physical reality: time is a numerical order (sequence) of material change.
It exists independently we measure it or not.
Time has its own existence which has only a mathematical value.
QUOTE (albert2+Dec 15 2011, 08:22 AM)
Yes time we measure with clocks has only mathematical character. In physics time exists only as a mathematical quantity which describes material change i.e. motion in quantum vacuum.
Sure time exists not only in physics, time exists also in the physical reality: time is a numerical order (sequence) of material change.
It exists independently we measure it or not.
Time has its own existence which has only a mathematical value.
We are rather lucky to be able to measure time. Otherwise how would we be paid for our labour?
Sure time exists not only in physics, time exists also in the physical reality: time is a numerical order (sequence) of material change.
It exists independently we measure it or not.
Time has its own existence which has only a mathematical value.
We are rather lucky to be able to measure time. Otherwise how would we be paid for our labour?
I work in quantum vacuum only (not in time).
Time is a numerical order of my work that my boss measure with clocks.
Time is a numerical order of my work that my boss measure with clocks.
time exists........no doubt on that
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html
I watched a tv show and they were saying that an atomic clock was proof of time. Surely it's just a good counting machine and this idea that time travels slower the higher you are is stupid, this should mean that anything in space for eg, should be in the past and how can we interact with something that has not reached our moment in time.
QUOTE (Al Mabon+Jun 19 2012, 08:17 AM)
I watched a tv show and they were saying that an atomic clock was proof of time. Surely it's just a good counting machine and this idea that time travels slower the higher you are is stupid, this should mean that anything in space for eg, should be in the past and how can we interact with something that has not reached our moment in time.
Please take a moment and watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KfPtHec4s&feature=fvwrel
Please take a moment and watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KfPtHec4s&feature=fvwrel
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.