View Full Version : The illusion of time
Time is just the other half of distance, or let's say dispersal: like two photons that propagate in opposite directions.
So, at any time greater than T0, these two photons have a distance between them which is proportional only to the time, or the interval T - T0.
If they're entangled, and this is a known (from T0), then there is a measurement available, which will determine some state shared by, or common to (in a up/down sense) these two photons, maybe the spin state.
The measurement, an interaction with either "copy", will determine the state of the other, at the same time (because they are the same photon). This is a timeless, or dimension-free (null-space) interaction. What are the dimensions of photon spin..?
The interaction can seem to be superluminal, but it's instantaneous; there is no transfer of energy or information.
Photons propagate in a time-independent way; entangled photons interact in a space-independent way, as long as the state is known about. But dispersal is what distance, or space, derives from, and time is the virtual, but apparent part of it.
Time isn't what goes, it is go. So is (heat) energy, it doesn't "go" anywhere in the sense of a liquid flowing--bits of matter do (and so do bits of energy as radiation, apparently).
We don't imagine the existence of Time, like we imagine the Easter Bunny; Time is imagination itself, or thought--observation makes time appear.
Rovelli and Connes have described time as the effect of what we don't know (our ignorance) of some system, or the world around us. We can't keep track of all the information, instead we see an averaged macroscopic view. Our approximate knowledge (measurement) of reality is what appears to flow, or move. Patterns change, but we only notice so much of that change. This is what Rovelli means with: "time is the effect of our ignorance".
That time is an illusion is a new Internet meme spurred on in part by a very recent (Jan 19, 2008) article in New Scientist on the work of physicists Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes and the thermal time hypothesis. Unfortunately, New Scientist has lately fallen to hawking a lot of pseudoscience and is prone to oversimplification, exaggeration, and sensationalism. I think this is most certainly the case here.
The underlying concept of the thermal time hypothesis is that time is not fundamental but is rather an emergent thermodynamic property, much like temperature and pressure. The first thing to note is that the thermal time hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Based on this unproven conjecture, some have made the untenable jump to claiming that time is an illusion.
For the sake of argument, suppose time is not a fundamental property. That does not mean time is an "illusion" any more than is temperature. A hot pan will still burn you, and jumping into the Arctic for a nude swim remains a very stupid idea even though temperature is just an emergent property rather than a fundamental property of physics.
A fundamental property is merely something that remains axiomatic. Time and distance are axiomatic concepts in physics today. Maybe they won't be in the future after having found some new physics in which time and distance are derived from some deeper concept. That future discovery will not make time and distance illusionary any more than extant statistical mechanics and thermodynamics theories make the concept of temperature illusionary today.
The underlying concept of the thermal time hypothesis is that time is not fundamental but is rather an emergent thermodynamic property,Incorrect, or not quite what they said...:rolleyes:
There is a description in the NS article of how temperature "emerges" from the average motion of partitions of molecules. What the NS article actually says is:
"Imagine a gas in a box. In principle we could keep track of each molecule ...and have total knowledge of the microscopic state... In this scenario, no such thing as temperature exists; instead we have an ever-changing arrangement of molecules. Keeping track of all that information is not feasible in practice, but we can average the microscopic behaviour to derive a macroscopic description. We condense all the information about the momenta of the molecules into a single measure, ...temperature.
According to Connes and Rovelli, the same [principle] applies to the universe at large. There are many more constituents to keep track of: ...we have particles of matter [and] we also have space and therefore gravity. When we average over this vast microscopic arrangement, the macroscopic feature that emerges ...is time."
--New Scientist 19 Jan 2008 p28
They are claiming that time is something that looks quite different at fundamental scales. The thermodynamics is an analogy.
Mixing metaphors and the use of "illusory", as in : "time is illusory", isn't helpful, really, when what they mean is: "time is perceived because of what we don't see". It's kind of unfortunate that it has the name it does, maybe they should have dubbed it" "the uncertain time hypothesis".
Imagine a gas in a box. In principle we could keep track of each molecule...and have total knowledge of the microscopic state...
This statement goes against the grain of modern physics. We cannot know the exact state (position and momentum) of even one particle, let alone 1026 of them. Moreover, even if we could keep track of one particle (and we cannot), we could never, ever keep track of 1026 of them. This is not only unproven conjecture, it is a completely unprovable conjecture. In short, it is not even wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
So all that thermodynamics math is useless? If we can't go against the grain of physics by partitioning any system and using statistical methods, I guess it's pretty useless.
In principle, I mean.
..that time is an illusion is a new Internet meme spurred on in part by a very recent (Jan 19, 2008) article in New Scientist on the work of physicists Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes and the thermal time hypothesis..
By many theories (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-theory), 2 (http://science.propeller.com/story/2007/05/15/does-time-have-2-dimensions/), 3 (http://www.physorg.com/news96027669.html), 4 (http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html), including the Aether one (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1737059#post1737059)) the time can have two or more dimensions. If something can have a distinct countable number of other attributes, it cannot be the illusion completelly, don't you think?
Well, Time isn't the Tooth Fairy, I guess. But I understand what the above ideas are on about, which is that time is something we imagine, so it has no real, physical existence.
Temperature is an average of molecular energy, not a complete measurement (no matter how many thermometers are used). So they're talking about the information we don't have access to, that we're ignorant of. Time is the gaps in our measurement, but we need the gaps, or there wouldn't be any change to observe.
02-04-08, 06:15 AM
After going into the Mind Portal I encountered 'frozen time'. In the absolute, time isn't even an illusion. It simply does not exist. Everything is a continuum of potential and manifestation. I didn't deduct this by deep meditation, I saw it directly. Anyone who tells me differently is wasting their breath...I saw what I saw and that is that.
Time only appears in the relative...as a distance. Frud11 is giving a very good account of how it exists in the relativity of phenomena. His obervations are worth pondering and reflectling upon.
Frud11...I have found the task of tying the relative into the absolute very difficult. This applies to time as well. Maybe you can give a new angle using words how the distance of time vanishes as it merges into the absolute and timeless source that it truly is?
time is something we imagine, so it has no real, physical existence.
In general, the time is the dimension of space-time. Can u imagine the dimension concept? Can it have a real physical existence?
Can it have an importance in physics, nevertheless?
Can it have an importance in physics, nevertheless?I say above that time is the other half of distance, or that the dimensionality of time is related to the dimensionality of space.
Space is absolutely important, because things with mass need space to move around in.
But time isn't a dimension as such, like a distance, it's a change (in dimension). We think of a time Tn, so we can think of a time Tn+1, or Tn+m. But there is no idea of stasis without an idea of change, or at least of movement towards a stasis or equilibrium.
I think the idea with thermal time is that we notice change, because we don't notice "everything": if we did notice, or observe everything (apart from the sensory and neural apparatus requirements), we wouldn't notice any change, just all the detail.
..space is absolutely important, because things with mass need space to move around in...
You'll need the time as well for such motion. In fact, I don't see any reason for considering space as more "important", then the time. By AWT both these quantities are dual aspects of the same artifact - the gradient of Aether density.
By AWT the difference between space and time is just in the direction of observation. By usance, the time dimensions are the more flat directions of density gradients, but such view can differ depending on the observational perspective - note the model of Lisi Garret, which alternates between particles in space and time (fermions and bosons) just by rotation of observational perspective of Lie group. And the relative motion or expansion of Universe leads to the relative rotation of all objects involved in it as well.
Here we go again.
Zephir, your AWT claptrap does not belong here. It belongs in pseudoscience.
Ben, there is some real science here, allbeit highly conjectural in nature, as is evidenced by real physicists working on this problem. I implore you not to move this entire thread to pseudoscience. Delete the pseudoscientific posts instead. These people are breaking the rules of this forum by posting this garbage in this scientific forum; they have no expectation of any longevity for such posts. The wackos can (and have) destroyed several good threads by inserting off-topic pseudoscience claptrap in them, after which the entire thread moves to pseudoscience or the cesspool. By moving entire threads to pseudoscience you are in a sense encouraging vandalism of this forum.
..your AWT claptrap does not belong here. It belongs in pseudoscience.
Which other theory can explain (at least conceptually), how the superstrings and branes are formed, why the time has two dimensions, how the Lisi Garett theory is working, etc..?
Which other alternative are you proposing for others? The deletion of such explanation? Don't be funny. At the moment, you have no alternative explanation for these artifacts, everything, what you're expected by now is just to listen carefully.
I implore you not to move this entire thread to pseudoscience.
At first, your sentence is just a demagogy, as the Frud11's threads were moved (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1731028#post1731028) into cesspool a well before I putted a single post into them, because this guy never checks the existing threads for duplicity before inserting a new one. Here are at least four other threads dedicated to the same topic (1 (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74700), 2 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77199), 3 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77198), 4 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76091)). The creation of the duplicated topics (which some were moved into cesspool already) can be considered as a violation of forum rules as well. I'd recommend to merge the redundant threads instead, but it's not feasible due the technical reasons. So that the moving of such dumb threads into cesspool isn't so bad solution.
02-04-08, 02:55 PM
Thread closed. If you'd like to discuss the New Scientist article, then do so in a new thread. You can thank zephir for hijacking this one.
Any discussions of zephir's pet theories should be done in the appropriate forum.
MOD NOTE: zephir has been warned about trolling this forum with his AWT non-sense.