Einstein view of time

[Dinosaur]

I have posted the following in various Threads. After reading a lot of other Threads relating to time, it seems worthwhile to Post it again as a separate Thread.

This is approximately what Einstein wrote, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it.

When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.​

There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.​

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they were undefined terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires some undefined primitive terms to avoid various logical problems associated with circular definitions.

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.

 

[wegs]

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.

Time seems to be real, or feel real but we don't really process the flow of time, until we review past events. The odd thing (to me) about time, is that we do measure it in our everyday lives. So, we are measuring an illusion? That doesn't make sense.

 

[origin]

Time seems to be real, or feel real but we don't really process the flow of time, until we review past events. The odd thing (to me) about time, is that we do measure it in our everyday lives. So, we are measuring an illusion? That doesn't make sense.

Time is a dimension and as such it is no more of an illusion than distance. I really do not get this fascination with confusing yourself over something as concrete as time.

 

[wegs]

Time is a dimension and as such it is no more of an illusion than distance. I really do not get this fascination with confusing yourself over something as concrete as time.

It's been a controversial subject among scientists for decades. The point being are the features of time strictly physical (real) or are they partially a construct of our minds? I think it's an interesting topic.

 

[exchemist]

Time is a dimension and as such it is no more of an illusion than distance. I really do not get this fascination with confusing yourself over something as concrete as time.

Surely the issue is whether or not our common perception of the flow of time is an illusion, isn't it, rather than time itself?

As the hymn has it,"Time like an ever-rolling stream bears all its sons away."

Whereas viewed, as you say, as a dimension, it is just the ordering of events and "flow" does not come into it.

 

[origin]

Time flows at 1 second in 1 second. 3600 seconds from now 1 hour will have passed. About 31,500,000 seconds from now I will be 1 year older. I don't know, it just doesn't strike me as some mystery or particularly intriguing question to ponder.
How humans view dimensions can be prone to illusions. I can think of probably hundreds of them. One line looks longer than another based on the direction of the arrows on the ends. A full moon looks larger near the horizon than it does at its zenith. Time 'flies' when your having fun. I think the point is that in a given reference frame a meter is a meter and a second is a second, end of story.

 

[Write4U]

Time flows at 1 second in 1 second. 3600 seconds from now 1 hour will have passed. About 31,500,000 seconds from now I will be 1 year older. I don't know, it just doesn't strike me as some mystery or particularly intriguing question to ponder.
How humans view dimensions can be prone to illusions. I can think of probably hundreds of them. One line looks longer than another based on the direction of the arrows on the ends. A full moon looks larger near the horizon than it does at its zenith. Time 'flies' when your having fun. I think the point is that in a given reference frame a meter is a meter and a second is a second, end of story.

But are seconds and meters just arbitrary measurements or are they relative to some other constant time or distance interval?

 

[QuarkHead]

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they were undefined terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Yes, it is hard to disagree with Einstein on this.

I would say, however, that we (or at least I) seem to be hard-wired to assume causality - the cause temporally precedes the event. And moreover that there are no un-caused events.

This is what makes quantum theory so difficult for we mere mortals, where not every event has an identifiable cause

 

[Write4U]

before and after = chronology?

 

[Michael 345]

Time seems to be real, or feel real but we don't really process the flow of time, until we review past events. The odd thing (to me) about time, is that we do measure it in our everyday lives. So, we are measuring an illusion? That doesn't make sense.

Measuring age not TIME

Time flows at 1 second in 1 second. 3600 seconds from now 1 hour will have passed. About 31,500,000 seconds from now I will be 1 year older

Which again is a arbitrary measurement for age

before and after = chronology?

Recording of events to compare various events against each other to establish a sequence

 

[Asexperia]

Time is the continuous or discrete succession of irreversible moments that goes from the past to the future. Time marks the pace of changes. Time is magnitive, that is, objective, measurable and imperceptible. Duration is the time interval. Synonym of duration are: age, permanence and period. In the dimension of time, events are ordered in sequence.

 

[origin]

Which again is a arbitrary measurement for ag

Right, seconds are one of the units we have to measure time. Just like mms are used to measure length. So what is your point?

 

[Michael 345]

Right, seconds are one of the units we have to measure time. Just like mms are used to measure length. So what is your point?

The point is seconds and inches do not have any physicality and in order to exist, which is NOT a existent, unless you use circular reasoning

TIME is none existent

 

[Write4U]

TIME is none existent

Until it is needed for changing spacetime coordinates from At0 --> At1 --> At2 --> At3....

Change creates duration, duration creates time. When duration stops, time stops.

 

[Michael 345]

Until it is needed for changing spacetime coordinates from At0 --> At1 --> At2 --> At3....

Change creates duration, duration creates time. When duration stops, time stops.

Change does NOT create duration
When duration stops ie nothing ages means the end of the Universe has occurred

You guessed it

DURATION is AGE both of which have arbitrary units

 

[origin]

TIME is none existent

You get to believe whatever want.

 

[Michael 345]

You get to believe whatever want.

Granted

Very brief summary

1/ TIME itself does not exist

2/ PAST does not exist

3/ FUTURE does not exist

NOW is the only moment in existence

Regarding 1/ try to obtain a book called The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville which goes in great detail of why time does not exist

colours my view

If you have any reference regarding the existence of time I am happy to read such

 

[origin]

1/ TIME itself does not exist

That is seems to me to be a patently stupid statement. I am sure it arises from some philosophical ideas and/or semantics around saying the past and future don't exist in the now. Like I said before, I am not sure what the fascination is around tying to confuse yourself about time to the point that you would say "time does not exist". I can use that non-existing time very efficiently for appointments. Guess you think I must be magic or something.

I am done here it is just a bit over the top silly for me, but by all means have fun in your discussions.

 

[Michael 345]

I can use that non-existing time very efficiently for appointments

I guess you mean a completely arbitrary moment to attend to some appointment OK

I do note you did not address

If you have any reference regarding the existence of time I am happy to read such

???

Again OK

Happy to wait if you come up with a discussion point on times existence

 

[Write4U]

I guess you mean a completely arbitrary moment to attend to some appointment OK

I do note you did not address

If you have any reference regarding the existence of time I am happy to read such

Is time really a dimension?
In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects such as why different observers perceive where and when events occur differently.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

Apart from its inevitable association with 3D space, I can't find an article about Time as a separate dimension.

Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time.

However, in 1905, Albert Einstein based his seminal work on special relativity on two postulates: (1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference); (2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

The logical consequence of taking these postulates together is the inseparable joining together of the four dimensions, hitherto assumed as independent, of space and time.

Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html