Does time exist?

[QuarkHead]

Speed is secondary.

IMO, the proper logic is; "if a chronology of something exists, time emerges as a result of duration of chronology, regardless of speed of chronology, slow, fast, there is always a duration.

I'm afraid this makes no sense whatever.
The word "chronology" has a Greek root khronos=time. Chronology cannot have a "duration", that's just silly.
Besides, it is impossible to give give a definition of duration without first invoking time - "it lasted 10 minutes", say. The word makes no sense otherwise.
Then you finally flip - how can chronology have a "speed"? That's plain silly

 

[exchemist]

I'm afraid this makes no sense whatever.
The word "chronology" has a Greek root khronos=time. Chronology cannot have a "duration", that's just silly.
Besides, it is impossible to give give a definition of duration without first invoking time - "it lasted 10 minutes", say. The word makes no sense otherwise.
Then you finally flip - how can chronology have a "speed"? That's plain silly

Now you know the torment we have to endure when he drivels on about cell biology or biochemistry.

 

[Write4U]

I'm afraid this makes no sense whatever.
The word "chronology" has a Greek root khronos=time. Chronology cannot have a "duration", that's just silly.
Besides, it is impossible to give give a definition of duration without first invoking time - "it lasted 10 minutes", say. The word makes no sense otherwise.
Then you finally flip - how can chronology have a "speed"? That's plain silly

I used the common definition of "chronology" in context of duration and the emergence of time.

Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)[2] is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".

Chronology is a part of periodization. It is also a part of the discipline of history including earth history, the earth sciences, and study of the geologic time scale.

Related fields[edit]

Chronology is the science of locating historical events in time. It relies upon chronometry, which is also known as timekeeping, and historiography, which examines the writing of history and the use of historical methods. Radiocarbon dating estimates the age of formerly living things by measuring the proportion of carbon-14 isotope in their carbon content. Dendrochronology estimates the age of trees by correlation of the various growth rings in their wood to known year-by-year reference sequences in the region to reflect year-to-year climatic variation. Dendrochronology is used in turn as a calibration reference for radiocarbon dating curves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology

Where does this not have anything to do with the measurement and recording of emergent time as a result of duration of a chronology (as compared to speed)?

 

[Write4U]

Now you know the torment we have to endure when he drivels on about cell biology or biochemistry.

Seems to me you are slowly being left standing alone in your torment ......

 

[Dicart]

my logic is, if speed exists, then time must exist too.

Time and Speed exists, but not in the manner you think.
In science something "exists" as soon as the definition fit to the observation.
If it is persistent, you can share your definition and all scientist can aprove it by observing the same.

Perhaps you mean : Is there some undefined underlying phenomena that is the cause that all phenomena do not appear at once ?

 

[Write4U]

Without an “observer,” does time exist?

No.
Mind that an observer can be anything. Without anything time does nor exist.

 

[Write4U]

I think I have heard of a Planck length...is that the smallest wave length possible or is it just perhaps the smallest observable length?

It is the smallest possible representation of a value. Without values nothing exists.

 

[Dicart]

It is the smallest possible representation of a value. Without values nothing exists.

No, it is the upper limit where quantum theory become accurate and newtonian theory become obsolete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

 

[Write4U]

No, it is the upper limit where quantum theory become accurate and newtonian theory become obsolete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

You just confirmed my posit.
Quanta is a unit of value. There is something of value lower than quanta?
What measurable unit of value lies lower than quantum?
What happens below the Planck length?

When we get down to the Planck length we find the energy density uncertainty has got so big that it creates a black hole with an event horizon radius of (around) the Planck length. ... This means it's impossible to measure any distance less than (around) the Planck length.

History

In 1899, Max Planck suggested that there existed some fundamental natural units for length, mass, time and energy.[5][6] These he derived using dimensional analysis, using only the Newton gravitational constant, the speed of light and the "unit of action", which later became the Planck constant. The natural units he further derived became known as the "Planck length", the "Planck mass", the "Planck time" and the "Planck energy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

I believe that Planck's "fundamental natural units for Planck length, Planck mass, Planck time and Planck energy" are described as "quanta", no?

Planck units

In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of four universal physical constants, in such a manner that these physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

 

[Dicart]

You just confirmed my posit.
Quanta is a unit of value. There is something of value lower than quanta?

Probably, because ...

Physicists initially visualized microscopic space as a mosaic of little chunks of space.

If you zoomed in to the Planck scale, an almost inconceivably small size of 10–35 meter, they thought you would see something like a chessboard.

But that cannot be quite right.

For one thing, the grid lines of a chessboard space would privilege some directions over others, creating asymmetries that contradict the special theory of relativity.

For example, light of different colors might travel at different speeds—just as in a glass prism, which refracts light into its constituent colors. Whereas effects on small scales are usually hard to see, violations of relativity would actually be fairly obvious.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05095-z

 

[Write4U]

Probably, because ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05095-z

Well I subscribe to "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" (CDT), where spacetime is a fractal.

Causal dynamical triangulation

(abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal
structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

[Dicart]

Well I subscribe to "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" (CDT), where spacetime is a fractal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

You forget something.
What do the world looks like for a bat ?

....No, forget the bat.
What do the world looks like for an atom ?

 

[Write4U]

You forget something.
What do the world looks like for a bat ?

....No, forget the bat.
What do the world looks like for an atom ?

That depends on the value of the atom......

 

[Dicart]

That depends on the value of the atom......

Yes, an atom is something we know from our point of view (as a Man).

Now, there is no limit in the lenght by itself, there is a limit for who is talking about a length.
This is an informational limit...
And yes this is a very usefull property in a quantum world !

The physician limit is the plancks length, but the reality limit is... limitless.
You can use your equations using "the mathematical infinitesimal" without ... limitation.
The objects are not moving in the world "using steps".

Some works about the subject (Laurent Nottale), in french :
http://philoscience.over-blog.com/article-6216813.html

 

[Write4U]

Yes, an atom is something we know from our point of view (as a Man).

No, the atom as observed by any relational other value. Man is just another value, albeit complex.

p.s. are you a opponent of "a universe from nothing"?

 

[Write4U]

Is there some undefined underlying phenomena that is the cause that all phenomena do not appear at once ?

Yes, physical impossibility in a spatial environment. Except for the pre-BB singularity physical things cannot occupy the same space at the same moment.

Hence the emergent phenomenon of chronological spatial ordering between relational values via mathematical physical functions and the resulting duration of events, measured as units of time.

 

[Dicart]

No, the atom as observed by any relational other value. Man is just another value, albeit complex.

p.s. are you a opponent of "a universe from nothing"?

Try to understand the observational chain.
Take this seriously in account.
Here we are.

 

[Dicart]

Yes, physical impossibility in a spatial environment.
Physical things cannot occupy the same space at the same moment.

It depend if boson or not...

All atoms are either fermions or bosons depending on whether they possess half-integer or integer spin, and the difference between the two becomes clear when they are cooled to near absolute zero. Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle, which means that two of them cannot occupy the same quantum state, but no such restrictions apply to bosons.

This means that large numbers of bosonic atoms can collapse into the same quantum ground state in a process known as Bose-Einstein condensation.

https://physicsworld.com/a/when-bosons-behave-like-fermions/[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Write4U]

Try to understand the observational chain.
Take this seriously in account.
Here we are.

There you are.
You are stuck in the subjective human observational mode. Try to think objectively.

 

[Write4U]

This means that large numbers of bosonic atoms can collapse into the same quantum ground state in a process known as Bose-Einstein condensation.

Yes, it's all about values being processed via constant mathematical functions.
But "ground state" does not imply same "spacetime coordinate".