Is Time an Illusion?

I believe the "now" is absolute, universal, for everyone. You confirm this with: "The Now Frame is an abstraction that describes everything that is happening right Now in the universe whether you observe it or not and is independent of the speed of light. It represents a frozen moment from *your inertial reference point in space-time of everything around you." I would add: this now is universal, for not only * "your" but everyone. i.e. martians etc, :) (joke) All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Interesting, fasinating, intriguing, but misleading. e.g. you state: "When considering the Now Frame from your perspective you may be sipping a cup of tea and at the very same instant a star 500 lightyears away in the universe is just going supernova. However, while that is taking place right Now, the light and radiation from that supernova will not reach us for 500 years from Now, due to the propagation delay of the speed of light." This is true, and agrees with what I said. My argument is, that delay is simply that, a delay. when we see it, it will be a 500 year old picture to us that is long past. (yes?)

Their now, of 500 years ago, was as valid then, as it was (concurrent) for us, our Now at the same time. That their's will not be seen by us (due to the time delay) i.e be in our "now" for another 500 years, is exactly and only that, a time delay, and is not a view into our (or anyones) past or future, nor into a different frame of reference.

If I bake a cake today, and you only see it tomorrow, it does not change our concurrent now's for neither today nor tomorrow. (IMO) i.e. to suggest it is seeing into the past or future is misleading, because while you may be surprised by the cake tomorrow, the day that I baked it, and the day that you seen it, would have been valid "Now's" for us both. The time may be elongated to make it so appear to be in a past or future time, however (imo) all Now's are concurrent for all parties, and to see things from an earlier or later period cannot change the universal Now.

To put it another way, your time now is the same as mine, where ever you are. Even if you traveled at the speed of light away from me and "changed the clocks" etc... now is now, for both of us, where ever we are, or doing.

How can, to quote: "both Now Frames are equally valid even if they do not match or co-align" i.e. be the same, and yet different? (I can only see this working if Now is for 1 and, Now is for 2. i.e there are 2 Now's, one for each other, but.. at different times - which completely defeats the description of now? "I had my now yesterday, and you have your now today." We have both had valid Now's, but out of sync., so what's the point of calling it Now, when its not THE Now, for others? Unless you can convince me otherwise of course! (always willing to listen.)

I think creating a sink holes of theories can undermine reaching an acceptable explanation of time. Yes, thinking outside the box etc is good for developing new ideas, but I also think it is nice (fine) to build on "self-evident" truths, and only discard them if proven to be wrong. (maybe Einstein did just that, and I don't know about, or understand it.... a little knowledge is... etc.) So for now (pun) I simply believe that "Now" (to be a valid concept) is concurrent for everyone, everything, everywhere, at that instant. (in my life time! Only I do not see it all, at the same time.)

jt.

No, not quite. We know that clocks beat at different rates depending on their relative velocity and proximity to a gravity field. This is very well documented. Are you in agreement with this principle of Relativity?

Relativity tells us that there are no privileged space-time reference points, so your "Now" time is unique to your inertial frame, but different for another observer that is part of a different inertial frame. The difference is dependent on distance and the delta of velocities between observers.

Let me think about this some more and see if I can find a better way to explain this. Your confusing a few things at once here and it is making it difficult to sort out. One thing is the definition of "Now Time". It is simply what is happening at any instant of time irrespective of distance. The lunar landing example I gave is a good example.

Hi AH. Thank you for spending the time with me! (truly I admire your knowledge.)

Yes, I'm in agreement with relativity, but I take what you say, "The lunar landing example I gave is a good example" actually is a good argument for me! The delay in seeing it (on TV) is an example of "lost time," time delay. So the landing when I witnessed it happening was 1.3 seconds prior. i.e. an "old" picture. (of a previous Now)

I can see that it is very possible to have several frames. Nevertheless, I read "there are no privileged space-time reference points," to mean the opposite of how you read it. i.e. the points are common to each other, and not privileged in anyway. i.e. are concurrent with all the other points. (and not privileged to be singular, unique.)

The same with views, "dependent on distance and the delta of velocities between observers." The global "Now" is exactly that, Now. (as in, this instant) and no matter however differently the various observers see it. It is their Now, and my Now, at the same instant in time. I may see their Now tomorrow, or in 500 years (old pictures) and they mine similarly; but my Now (at the time) coincided with their now, at that instant in time. What do you think?

jt.

A young girl who was writing a paper for school came to her father and asked, "Dad, what is the difference between anger and exasperation?"
The father replied, "It is mostly a matter of degree. Let me show you what I mean."
With that the father went to the telephone and dialed a number at random. To the man who answered the phone, he said, "Hello, is Melvin there?"
The man answered, "There is no one living here named Melvin. Why don't you learn to look up numbers before you dial?"
"See," said the father to his daughter. "That man was not a bit happy with our call. He was probably very busy with something and we annoyed him. Now watch...."
... The father dialed the number again. "Hello, is Melvin there?" asked the father.
"Now look here!" came the heated reply. "You just called this number and I told you that there is no Melvin here! You've got a lot of guts calling again!" The receiver slammed down hard.
The father turned to his daughter and said, "You see, that was anger. Now I'll show you what exasperation means."
He dialed the same number, and when a violent voice roared, "Hello!"
The father calmly said, "Hello, this is Melvin. Have there been any calls for me?"

The lunar landing still occurred precisely at 3:17:40 PM, but the image of that event was delayed 1.3 seconds or 3:17:41.3 PM.

You can also look at it this way, if your Now Frame is 3:17:41.3 PM, the point where you just became aware of the landing, then at that instant the Eagle had already been on the surface of the Moon 1.3 seconds.

In the lunar landing example we are, for the purpose of this thought experiment, saying that clocks on both Earth and the Moon were perfectly in sync with each other. I don't absolutely know that was the case, but knowing NASA it probably was accounted for.

That brings up another point that proves that there are no privileged inertial reference planes. Consider the clock in your bedroom. Let's assume that it is tied directly to NIST, so it is as accurate as can be.

Take the same NIST clock and put it on a satellite in orbit about Earth and it will tick at a different rate. Due to the much smaller gravitational effect of Earth it ticks just a tiny bit faster. Due to the velocity of its orbit, it also will tick slower. The orbital speed is a bigger factor factor, so the clocks on board GPS satellites all run slow. In fact, those clocks are tweaked to run fast on Earth just so they keep perfect time with Earth clocks when orbiting. I know this because I worked on GPS systems for aviation and it is a commonly known fact.

The GPS satellites are an empirical example of non-privilaged inertial reference points in space-time. Since the "passage of time" is different for the GPS satellite compared to your bedroom, the Now Frame for the GPS satellite and the Now Frame for your bedroom will also be ever so slightly different, too.

The point of not being privileged means that no inertial reference point is special, they are all just different, not concurrent. One is of no greater value than any other.

There is no global now precisely because no reference point is special. There is no single cosmological clock in the universe. What is Now for you is not the same as the Now for another observer that is not part of your inertial reference point. They may intersect, but it does not guarantee that they are coincident (see my illustrations for examples of that).

I am going to think on what you say AH. (you are more knowledgeable than me.)

However, my initial reply remains "Now" is a common point for everyone. (universal)

Taking your explanations in turn:
Lunar: you admit the image was delayed and that I would see it later. So my now (when it landed) was not to see the landing, due to the time delay.
They had a landing Now, and my simultaneous Now was identical, but I did not see the landing (at that now) due to the time delay. No problem?

Clocks: There are clock discrepancies all over the earth; clocks even in my house which show different times! The fact different times are shown (anywhere) does not change the instant Now, for all clocks, whatever time they show. If they go fast or slow, wherever they are, whatever time they show, whatever attempts are made to keep them in sync. with those on earth, the instant Now, is Now for all clock readings?

"There is no single cosmological clock in the universe. What is Now for you is not the same as the Now for another observer that is not part of your inertial reference point."

Agreed, no single clock. But, my Now, (as in this instant now) is Now everywhere; whatever time, century, etc. they call it. The fact it is Now to me, has to be Now for them. Even if they are living in the past or future. (different inertial ref. point) Likewise, their instant Now, whatever they call it (10 sputniks past moonshine on planet orb) that is still my instant Now; with them and me. Yes? (by definition.)

You should give up on me AH - lost cause? But convince me and I'm yours forever. :)

jt.

How do you get down from an elephant?
You don't, you get it from a duck!

You wrote, "The fact it is Now to me, has to be Now for them."

That's the rub, it isn't if there is a net velocity between you and whoever intersects your Not Frame.

If the difference in velocity is the same (i.e., 0), then both you and the other observer's Now Frame agree perfectly.

But when there is a difference is velocity the disparity is expressed as (v/c^2)d, where:

v = velocity of the observer relative to you (note for velocities toward you v has a sign that is negative).
c = velocity of light.
d = distance between you and the other observer.

Relativity just takes time to get your brain wrapped around it because it defies what is intuitively ingrained in our brains. We experience pretty much a classical Newtonian universe in our day to day lives, so the concepts of relativity and the implications that creates can be very foreign.

I can understand the "different" frame idea, dependent upon velocities, etc. I just do not agree that a "Now" in one frame cannot coincide with the "Now" in all the other frame(s)?

The statement "I get into my car and start driving away from you.....Because of the massive distance between us what is happening for me "now" is coincident with what happened many hundreds of years ago for you - your distant past.

If I make a U turn and start traveling toward you at the same speed I was in recession, my slice of "now" would again change and be coincident with your future many hundreds of years to come." But...both journeys, away and towards me, are in my future to come? (just the away a little more delayed)

Let's assume there are two dis-similar objects, traveling at great velocity, and in any direction, just to suit the theory. If they are traveling at different speeds, in different galaxies, in different time"frames" and, a magical hand (e.g. God) said: "Now" and the whole (bally) lot came to a stand still, frozen for that instant. Would not that "now" in my time/world/frame coincide exactly with the same instant "now" in all the other time/world/frames? Regardless of their position, speed, direction, purpose, etc.?

Maybe it is just semantics. My instant now, is like that, a complete stop (if you like) where ever any thing is, in the universe. A frozen instant in time-space everywhere?

Could you agree with that? Or, do you say that the creation of other "Frames" will exclude a now from our universe? That any Now with us, has no such point in time with the other frames? (at all, only by coincidence?)

jt.

You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.

If the music stops playing (and everyone is expected to grab a chair and sit) you can have an intersection of Now Frames, but they may not all be aligned with each other.

In the illustrations I created I demonstrated how two frames may not align. For one observer (i.e., you) their Now Frame may include another observer, but that other observer will not have you in their Now Frame if that observer's clock is not "ticking" at the same rate as yours.

Once someone else's clock is running at a different speed than yours, their Now Frame is no longer aligned with yours.

I am sorry that I just have not yet found a better way to describe this phenomena. Unfortunately, my Now Frame includes preparing my taxes, which appears more convoluted than Relativity does. Adding insult to injury, the IRS is convinced they exist in a privileged frame and that everyone else shall align their Now Frames to theirs. So mote it be. :)

Thank you AH - it was very nice talking with you. :)

My best regards, and Good luck with the taxman.

jt.

It doesn't matter what I do or say, I told the wife, I'm always wrong in your eyes.
That's not true, she said.

Well, I'm with you on this. The problem lies with the semantics. As you infer, we all have our experience of day to day events happening, and from this our notion of time past, present and future. An observer looking in, from outside our universe would have the same problem of deciding if two events in our universe were happening simultaneously, even if the light from them arrived at his observatory at the same time, due to differences of distance between those events. However, that is an observational problem. Einstein's theories were to do with observations, about how things appeared to be to an observer. What you have to do is start from a rational view of Absolute Time from which all other times are related and then be careful to use a phrase (or phrases) that will distinguish these other times from each other and Absolute Time.

However, there is no such thing as Absolute Time. There are no privileged space-time positions in the universe and therefore no absolute cosmological clock.

'...no privileged space-time positions in the universe...'

.

Oh, come on, AH. We stopped telling the plebes that centuries ago. They weren't buying it more than they were the bit about their wine being just as good as ours, or riding public transportation being so enviable.

Anyway, I have it on good authority you are sitting on a very privileged space-time plot yourself.

.

You are denying any are better than the others because you are worried about your taxes going up should the privilege of your plot being reflected in the next valuation.

.

I'm guessing you didn't invest in any additional space-time positions when the getting was good, so you don't have any vested interest in the price increasing. So perhaps that is the best way to get you on the correct side of this discussion.

.

If you are interested, I'd be happy to pay you a significant percentage of the proceeds of sales which you arrange of any of my privileged space-time positions

You wrote, "I'm guessing you didn't invest in any additional space-time positions when the getting was good..."

Unfortunately, like so many, I bought just before the bubble burst. :)

AH.

OK there is no Absolute Time in your Universe so I can see that all these other 'times' are created in the minds of creatures and have nothing to reference back to, hence all the confusion.

In my Universe there is Absolute Time and is the same for any other Universes out there.

I was in error regarding the Observer outside our (or my) Universe in that there would probably be no observable signal capable of travel beyond the bounds of said Universe ( assuming the other Observer's Universe was not intersecting ours.)

'....The problem lies with the semantics....'

.

or perhaps, as some argue, it isn't a problem at all, merely effect of what might turn out to be the syntactical nature of reality.

.

.

First to post!

How about this idea: Time is the distance between cause and effect. If cause and effect are simultaneous there is no time.

Or that time (t) is a coordinate just as the x, y and z are of our three dimensional world. So in fact time is not an illusion- unless you're willing to consider the world around you as imaginary as well.

hi: I think that the type of time related to clocks and rates is another form of counting. Therefore it is mathematically oriented and as such it fits into mathematical formulae. Other types of time are different and an individuals perception is the other part of the description of the perception. When it gets to the relativistic phenomena i think we are looking at what we can see of what the forces of nature are doing and those actions are unto their own - they don't require time as a construct to function. Our perceptions need our made up time to relate to these forces.

In an attempt to answer my own question (#3), I found this link which quotes Einstein:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

I found that quote in his book Relativity - The Special and the General Theory (authorized translation by Robert W Lawson, University of Sheffield) on page 150 from appendix V (Relativity and the problem of Space), and also on page 149 of the same section I found:

The four-dimensional continuum is now no longer resolvable objectively into sections, all of which contains simultaneous events; "now" loses for the spacial extended world its objective meaning. It is because of this that space and time must be regarded as a four-dimensional continuum that is objectively unresolvable.

It appears, then, that he was serious.

Is time an illusion?

Yes

I think we (I) might have our (my) nows mixed up. Suppose there is a universal now that contains all time. Past present and future coexist there always all at once hence no passage of time. In contrast, the individual's now is located somewhere within the universal now. and is limited by the individual's location within the time space continuum which comes into existance as soon as the unique perception of the individual does. This individual now is experienced as a sequence of events which gives rise to the perception of a past, present, and future. The individual's past, present and future are connected in the individual's now by causality. Cause and effect strung along throughout a life and experienced sequentially making the passage of time a reality and the discussion of "the" now confusing.

I like your explanation. I see no logic in Einstein's quotes in my #117. I think everyone would agree that we are in one particular place in the 3 dimensional space. It follows that we are at one particular time if time is the fourth dimension ("now"). The flow of time has been described as moving through that dimension. We are also moving in the other 3 dimensions. There may or may not be a connection. I think we have to filter Einstein's words into what is truth, and what is supposition or perception.

I think your intreptation is wrong.

Just like an object can occupy a fixed point in space, one would also be able to move through space. However, we do not have the same liberty in the domain of time (as far as we know). The domain of time is different in this property because it appears that we "move" only go in one direction and at a rate that is not of our own free will.

You are entitled to you own opinion. I see no consensus in this thread. It seems to me that time is much different than the other 3 dimensions. I think Einstein got his view from the Lorentz transformation formulas which showed that space and time are connected:

These are from the University of Virginia and found here.

The ones in Einstein's book have a (-) sign in the numerator of the first and the last as shown here, even though it was at least the 15th edition. (see my previous thread "Einstein's Biggest Mistake?")

It seems with the (-) sign, that forward motion (in any direction) would put you backwards in time (from the viewpoint of a stationary observer). Either way, it doesn't look like the other dimensions to me.

We are moving through space in orbit around the sun, and the sun is moving through space. These are not up to our will either. We can't feel, hear, see, or smell that travel. A few years ago we couldn't move through air or space, now "we" can. If it is as Einstein says, then we should be able to move through time as well. I seems that time is so mysterious that even Einstein couldn't understand it fully.

So do I standardsGuy (like the westbye explanation) It encompasses a lot
of the simple thoughts on time. (don't know if it works with the science chaps)

Will think on this, new avenue of thought. Great, thank you.

jt.

I was late coming into work again, and the boss was furious.
She called me into her office and said, "What's your excuse this time?"
"I'm sorry, but I overslept," I said.
"For goodness sake, at least tell me something I've not heard before!"
I replied.. "You're looking lovely today."

Where Einstein is saying "Since there exists in the four dimensional structure (space/time) no longer any sections which represent "now" objectivly the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed completely suspended but yet complicated." Translating that for my own understanding I think the "happening" part is the now I experience as happening now, moment to moment but that now is also involved in the "becoming" part which streaches out over time. So the moment to moment individual now changes as it moves through time while involved in becoming....what?..who knows. I think we enter paychological areas when the will is brought into the picture. Psychologists talk of the conscious free will, and the will of the unconscious as distinct from one another and often in conflict.

I am now reading The Elegant Universe by Brian Green which was recommended by CR4 readers in a previous thread. In chapter 2 an analogy was given of a car traveling from north to south, but at an angle. This reduced his speed north to south because some of it was diverted east to west. He says that Einstein proclaimed that all objects are always traveling through space-time at the speed of light. When we move through space, the speed is shared between the dimensions, so time gets slowed down. This is a concept I hadn't heard before. I still find it incompatible with "Time is an illusion". I could not find a quote online to support Green.

Most of this stuff is well above my head, but my question would be...if not for humans, would time exist?

'...if not for humans, would time exist?....'

.

No.

Definitely not, at least definitely not for you ^{(assuming you are human).}

Yes of course.Humans are merely observers.

But, on the contrary, humans have been the ones to conceive the notion of time and put a name to it.

Without immeasureable time there would be no notion of events occurring in any sequence or regularity. One has to assume that there is a regularity in time passing and that our observations fit in with it.

Space-Time is a handy model that helps explain phenomena, but doesn't pretend to be the reality that latter day physicists pretend it to be.

Time has no beginning and no end.

Before the universe started there was time, but there seems no concensus as to what to call it. It was only when the unverse started to form, before the BB, that there were events, and it's only by seemingly regular events occuring that we can start to have a perception of a measure of time

Sir Isaac Newton went out of his way to define time: "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external..." We know from relativity that time is variable, not absolute

yes Newton's absolute is of a different semantic, I believe.

Our relative existence gets measured, I believe.

Time still only seems descriptive for language only, as one exists, but not time as a thing. We create a given measurement our existence... appears more plausible to me.

Newton seems to have believed in a Creator such that could even make the sun stand still most of a day and again a small part of the day as of the existence of a day of measure (in Biblical script), but not found such as Newton would discuss anything as making time stand still, or one stopping a clock of time as of being an 'itself' a thing.

more evidence that only you exist and not a material time is that whenever some lurking poster does not agree, then your comment is "off topic' hiding in their narrow mindedness(es) and aggression -

rather than asking a question like a truthful student of engineering...

(hah)

oh well,

they likely would've closed the patent offices thinking it was some kind of over-unity devise, publishing a poorly rehearsed statement of barges and the like with their bud's similar mis-given "precognitions".

If we take the standard theory about space-time, then time is an integral part of the substructure of Universe. It is both space and time that warp. It is both together that cause any event travel at a certain constant speed, the speed of light. For instance, you move in Space, taking out some of your movement along Time, in a consistent and predicted way. The two notions are intertwined, producing a 4-dimentional construct.

Therefore, if we consider Time as an illusion, then, is also Space an illusion?

But what is an illusion anyway? Our perception of either, Space or Time, is a product of our consciousness, which in turn, is a product of evolution as an emergent property. For instance, the fact that we see red as red and green as green, is an evolved perception having a certain survival befit, which doesn't necessarily give a true picture about what makes light have this or that color. Whatever we sense of the world around us, is therefore an "illusion".

On the other hand, if all conscious beings in the Universe get extinct, then would time cease to exist? Wouldn't nuclear and chemical reactions stop from happening in the good-old way they were used to? Would the celestial objects stop orbiting? Now, when the Universe reaches its Heat Death, where no usable energy (due to infinite entropy) and virtually no mass will exist, we may return to this discussion to reassess the situation.

Time is not an illusion. Time is just a term for change. Like motion is a term for change. All physicality is in a state of change. And we call this changing state…. Time.

Some changes we can only see. Some changes we can only hear. And some changes we can only feel.

Some changes are too fast, or too slow for us. And some changes can only be imagined in the mind.

But all changes take and make time. Even the imagined ones.

And all changes require a physical change in a present motion. A change in the present change.

Our reality is located within a buzz(superposition) of change.

Time.

Time requires an intelligence to name it ,but not to exist. It will be unobserved if no intelligence is around to observe it, so "Time" per se is a man made term, and only describe the effects of relative motion, like the wind, we know it blows and from which direction, and we can predict the direction of a cloud, but we cannot plot every molecule in it.

On a clear windless day time can appear to stand still, but only locally.