Time is Real or Illusion?

[Mister Silver]

From what I understand, time as we personally experience and perceive it is an illusion.

 

[WalterTrull]

Yes. Certainly.
But I will be gratified if I can provide some elementary understanding of Einstein's ideas of space and time that at least a few people understand.

I'm not a math guy, so I don't understand Einstein's math. Naturally, I don't understand quantum math either, but I'm attracted to its conclusions. One of those conclusions is that Einstein was wrong.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not a math guy, so I don't understand Einstein's math. Naturally, I don't understand quantum math either, but I'm attracted to its conclusions. One of those conclusions is that Einstein was wrong.

What! Einstein wrong!? Heresy!
How was he wrong?
It's not that his theories were wrong, so much as incomplete.

 

[WalterTrull]

What! Einstein wrong!? Heresy!
How was he wrong?
It's not that his theories were wrong, so much as incomplete.

Maybe. Take a look at this and let us know what you think.

 

[osgart]

motion itself is indicative of time being real. or is it just timing of an unknown fabric of space and matter and we are in an everconstant now.
But if this is an everconstant now, wouldn't we be still and forever motionless. Perhaps not.

time could be only a measurement of things in motion, and not a real force in nature.

I could count seconds endlessly and it would be endless and uniform. but the timing of spacetime is curved. so time is bound to space.

yet outside of the universe, perhaps there is no time at all, and you could travel as you wish from future to past, past to future, and time flows both directions. like an everlasting omnipresence. all things exist in all conditions all times in all places. or rather a force of omnipresence exists in this way; explaining non locality.

I knew I should have taken to science fiction.

 

[Valjean]

I think it restates Einstein's well known incredulity when presented with the randomness of quantum mechanics -- but his equations still work.

 

[shunyadragon]

From what I understand, time as we personally experience and perceive it is an illusion.

I believe this is a misuse of the word 'illusion.'

 

[WalterTrull]

OK you math guys. I really like this guy and his conclusions, but I don't understand the math. Could you peruse his page and give some insights. Thanks.

 

[Jumi]

The experience of time is illusory, time itself is just a defined construct to measure change. The scientific (SI) unit of time is the second which is defined as

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

So time in a physical, measurable and repeatable sense is based on real world observation.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

People like to think they really know what's real and what isn't. I don't know and I don't pretend to know. I live life and we're not going to know what's going on until we go to the afterlife. And even then, we won't get all of the answers.

 

[sayak83]

This question came up in regards to another thread (and often comes in the desperate defence of YEC timelines). There are lots of confusion about what relativity says about this matter as well more modern speculations of modern theoretical cosmologists.


Let's first think about locations in space in ordinary Newtonian physics. Consider, say New York. Relative to Roger, who lives in Chicago, the location of New York in terms of North-South-East-West will be different for him than if he lives in Washington. Does this mean locations of places on earth is subjective or illusions? No it does not. Because between any two locations, the direction and distance is invariant. Thus the direction and distance between New York and Chicago is invariant and the direction and distance between New York and Boston is also invariant. It's John's position and orientation that has changed, not the locations themselves.

Thus, mathematically, the distance ΔR between any two points A and B is the same regardless of which coordinate system one chooses and how that coordinate system is oriented. It is given by
ΔR= Sqrt( Δx^2 + Δy^2 + Δz^2)
and is the same regardless of the coordinates one chooses. This is what makes spatial locations objective in Newtonian physics.


In Special Relativity, the focus is on events. Events are happenings that "happen" at specific locations in space and specific moment of time (t, x, y, z). The matrix in which events are located are therefore no longer three dimensional space but four dimensional space-time. And here too one is to objectively measure the unique spacetime distance ΔS between any two events in space-time which is invariant for all observers and all choice of the coordinates system. This space time distance between two events E1 and E2 is given by

ΔS^2 = (cΔt)^2 - Δx^2 - Δy^2 - Δz^2

Here c is the constant speed of light in vacuum and Δt, Δx etc. are the differences in time and x, y, z locations between the two events as measured from any specific inertial coordinate frame. The most important thing here is that no matter what inertial coordinate frame is chosen the value ΔS^2 is the same in all of them and hence it is an objective and invariant measure of space-time distance between any two events in physics.

So, we have hit upon something that is indeed objective and independent of measurement conditions. In the next post I shall look at what this means for the reality of time.

In the OP post we found that if there are two events E1 and E2 separated in space and time, then there is an objective distance that can be defined between these events which does not change no matter the observer. This is the space time distance ΔS given by


ΔS^2 = (cΔt)^2 - Δx^2 - Δy^2 - Δz^2

Defining the spatial distance separating the events as ΔR, so that

ΔR^2 = Δx^2 + Δy^2 +Δz^2

The equation becomes,
ΔS^2 = (cΔt)^2 - ΔR^2

Now, let me clarify what I mean when I say that ΔS is invariant under measurement. Suppose there are two observers interested in measuring the interval separating the two events E1 and E2. But one observer O' is moving with an uniform velocity V with respect to the other observer O. Then, when O' tries to measure the time interval and the space interval separating the two events, her results will be DIFFERENT from what O will find when he measures it. Thus if O' measures the time and space separation as (Δt', ΔR') and O measures the time and space separation as (Δt, ΔR), then
Δt' ≠ Δt and ΔR ≠ ΔR'.

However, both will measure the same space-time distance between the two events. That is,

ΔS^2 = (cΔt)^2 - ΔR^2 = (cΔt')^2 - ΔR'^2

The conclusion is that the ticking of time as well as measurement of distance is different for different observers and is dependent on the relative velocity between them. But, despite this, there exists an objective entity, the space-time distance that remains a constant and uniquely identifies the location of each and every event that happens in space and time. This is what is meant when one says that space and time are relative but joint space-time is objective.


In the next post, I will look at whether it means that ideas of past-present-future are also relative or whether they are objectively real.

Note: I will present the idea of space and time according to Einstein first and then respond to the more philosophical posts. Thanks

 

[Grandliseur]

This question came up in regards to another thread (and often comes in the desperate defence of YEC timelines). There are lots of confusion about what relativity says about this matter as well more modern speculations of modern theoretical cosmologists.


Let's first think about locations in space in ordinary Newtonian physics. Consider, say New York. Relative to Roger, who lives in Chicago, the location of New York in terms of North-South-East-West will be different for him than if he lives in Washington. Does this mean locations of places on earth is subjective or illusions? No it does not. Because between any two locations, the direction and distance is invariant. Thus the direction and distance between New York and Chicago is invariant and the direction and distance between New York and Boston is also invariant. It's John's position and orientation that has changed, not the locations themselves.

Thus, mathematically, the distance ΔR between any two points A and B is the same regardless of which coordinate system one chooses and how that coordinate system is oriented. It is given by
ΔR= Sqrt( Δx^2 + Δy^2 + Δz^2)
and is the same regardless of the coordinates one chooses. This is what makes spatial locations objective in Newtonian physics.


In Special Relativity, the focus is on events. Events are happenings that "happen" at specific locations in space and specific moment of time (t, x, y, z). The matrix in which events are located are therefore no longer three dimensional space but four dimensional space-time. And here too one is to objectively measure the unique spacetime distance ΔS between any two events in space-time which is invariant for all observers and all choice of the coordinates system. This space time distance between two events E1 and E2 is given by

ΔS^2 = (cΔt)^2 - Δx^2 - Δy^2 - Δz^2

Here c is the constant speed of light in vacuum and Δt, Δx etc. are the differences in time and x, y, z locations between the two events as measured from any specific inertial coordinate frame. The most important thing here is that no matter what inertial coordinate frame is chosen the value ΔS^2 is the same in all of them and hence it is an objective and invariant measure of space-time distance between any two events in physics.

So, we have hit upon something that is indeed objective and independent of measurement conditions. In the next post I shall look at what this means for the reality of time.

Due to Quantum entanglement, I believe that it has been postulated that at the very foundation of physics, which still eludes us, neither time nor space is real.

Perhaps, therefore, the question should be modified to also investigate where or and when the phenomena is real and where and when it isn't real. If, further on, you include the concept of wormholes that make the distance between extremely remote object a lot less (folding space concept), we see another area where time-space acts in a seemingly subjective fashion.

This is beyond my abilities to investigate. But, I will see if you comment on this, preferably without insults.

 

[shunyadragon]

The experience of time is illusory, time itself is just a defined construct to measure change. The scientific (SI) unit of time is the second which is defined as


So time in a physical, measurable and repeatable sense is based on real world observation.

Time used to measure change in terms of time is not an 'illusion,' and the basic unit of time is Plank time.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dramatization:
The passing of events is the illusion. We are not able to reverse the direction of causality, however our past still exists. Some guy is in his bath tub yelling Eureka, just not very close to us in time. He is unreachable because his time is different, but he is just as alive as you or I. Another person in the future sees your funeral, yet here you are alive reading this. To him you are dead, but in an absolute sense you are always going to be in this moment doing what you are doing right now. In the future you may look back and remember this as if it were gone, but it won't be.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[sayak83]

Due to Quantum entanglement, I believe that it has been postulated that at the very foundation of physics, which still eludes us, neither time nor space is real.

Perhaps, therefore, the question should be modified to also investigate where or and when the phenomena is real and where and when it isn't real. If, further on, you include the concept of wormholes that make the distance between extremely remote object a lot less (folding space concept), we see another area where time-space acts in a seemingly subjective fashion.

This is beyond my abilities to investigate. But, I will see if you comment on this, preferably without insults.

I think it's a mistake to say that emergent entities are not real. For example atoms are real even though it's an emergent complex made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Thus, even if time is made out of something more fundamental, that does not make it non-real.

 

[Grandliseur]

I think it's a mistake to say that emergent entities are not real. For example atoms are real even though it's an emergent complex made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Thus, even if time is made out of something more fundamental, that does not make it non-real.

OK. I agree my phrasing was poor.

Perhaps then one may use the old 2D plane where a 3D object is seen going through. It is real, but depending upon what the 2D individual sees, the 3D object's appearance cannot be related to its true form. It may be something similar we are encountering here. Something that fundamentally has a different true face, but to us is revealed as time-space. Mathematics might be able to tell us the why of it, if we're clever enough.

 

[sayak83]

OK. I agree my phrasing was poor.

Perhaps then one may use the old 2D plane where a 3D object is seen going through. It is real, but depending upon what the 2D individual sees, the 3D object's appearance cannot be related to its true form. It may be something similar we are encountering here. Something that fundamentally has a different true face, but to us is revealed as time-space. Mathematics might be able to tell us the why of it, if we're clever enough.

Whether time is fundamental, or is a facet of some more fundamental entity of nature is still up for debate. Otherwise I agree with what you said here.

 

[osgart]

so if I travel to another galaxy, I could age 80 years in an earth blip.

 

[David T]

This question came up in regards to another thread (and often comes in the desperate defence of YEC timelines). There are lots of confusion about what relativity says about this matter as well more modern speculations of modern theoretical cosmologists.


Let's first think about locations in space in ordinary Newtonian physics. Consider, say New York. Relative to Roger, who lives in Chicago, the location of New York in terms of North-South-East-West will be different for him than if he lives in Washington. Does this mean locations of places on earth is subjective or illusions? No it does not. Because between any two locations, the direction and distance is invariant. Thus the direction and distance between New York and Chicago is invariant and the direction and distance between New York and Boston is also invariant. It's John's position and orientation that has changed, not the locations themselves.

Thus, mathematically, the distance ΔR between any two points A and B is the same regardless of which coordinate system one chooses and how that coordinate system is oriented. It is given by
ΔR= Sqrt( Δx^2 + Δy^2 + Δz^2)
and is the same regardless of the coordinates one chooses. This is what makes spatial locations objective in Newtonian physics.


In Special Relativity, the focus is on events. Events are happenings that "happen" at specific locations in space and specific moment of time (t, x, y, z). The matrix in which events are located are therefore no longer three dimensional space but four dimensional space-time. And here too one is to objectively measure the unique spacetime distance ΔS between any two events in space-time which is invariant for all observers and all choice of the coordinates system. This space time distance between two events E1 and E2 is given by

ΔS^2 = (cΔt)^2 - Δx^2 - Δy^2 - Δz^2

Here c is the constant speed of light in vacuum and Δt, Δx etc. are the differences in time and x, y, z locations between the two events as measured from any specific inertial coordinate frame. The most important thing here is that no matter what inertial coordinate frame is chosen the value ΔS^2 is the same in all of them and hence it is an objective and invariant measure of space-time distance between any two events in physics.

So, we have hit upon something that is indeed objective and independent of measurement conditions. In the next post I shall look at what this means for the reality of time.

Einstein merely revealed that chronos is nonsense as being fundemental. Newton just like the theologians of his day such as calvin and luther were clearly confused and believed and saw the world in a cheonos fashion. Kairos is a whole different way of seeing or percieving. Mathmatics just like language cannot account for kairos literally it can only make allowances for it. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is like a coin toss observation. The coin toss it is not random chance it is just uncertain untill observered is all. Each coin toss is unique and all coin tosses are interconnected never separate. Symbiosis is a fundemental aspect of kairos. So science is only now arriving at that which is old and understood thousands of years ago. There is nothing new here at all.