All time already exists

[zep73]

I had a discussion with a friend about Relativity and 'time' as a past-present-future unchangeable unit within the fabric of space. That all time already exists.

This has a destiny/fate ring to it, and some physicists have suggested that it is to be taken seriously. One suggestion says, that if you shoot a powerful laser out into space, to a place that is never supposed to receive light, the laser will malfunction.

Any qualified input to this notion? Can fate/destiny be scientific reality? Or did someone get it wrong?

[lightly]

I seriously doubt the existence of "time" .... I think there may be only events, MOTION.   No movement = no "time".

i know that just sounds silly to most..... I don't mind.  :0 ) oops, I just noticed you asked for "qualified " input.   Well, I'm decidedly unqualified , but I'm not deleting this now. ;

Edited October 12, 2018 by lightly

[zep73]

12 minutes ago, lightly said:

I seriously doubt the existence of "time" .... I think there may be only events, MOTION.   No movement = no "time".

i know that just sounds silly to most..... I don't mind.  :0 ) oops, I just noticed you asked for "qualified " input.   Well, I'm decidedly unqualified , but I'm not deleting this now. ;

We measure time in movement, so you're partly right. But if everything stopped, except our consciousness, we would still experience time, wouldn't we?

But let's stay on topic: Does all time already exist? Is everything determined?

Edited October 12, 2018 by sci-nerd

[Timothy]

19 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

*snip*

But let's stay on topic: Does all time already exist? Is everything determined?

Stuff relies on movement to exist. What happens to the strong atomic force etc. if you take away an atoms abitity to move? 

And ‘on topic’, no. Even if there are infinite universes etc. Not everything will come to be.

You could do something so obscure and unnatural that it would never have happened otherwise. 

[danydandan]

This again is a philosophical debate rather than a scientific one. It's more an ontology debate.

But can I chime in from a scientific or physicist point of view.

Time, in my opinion, certainly exists. How do I reach this conclusion is simple. Time is observable, measurable but what causes it is certainly up for debate. So because itd observable and measurable I as a physicist have to come to a conclusion that it's a real phenomenon.

However as a counter argument, conclusions can be extrapolated from Relatively that time is irrelevant and I can see the irony and logic with this argument.

But take into account entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, as in things decay over time and never spontaneously regain order. You'd have to come to the conclusion time exists. But are we just measuring entropy rather than time itself?

You should read From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time by Sean Carroll.

Anyway my point is that the arrow of time, entropy or the second law of thermodynamics is the single most important natural law. If time didn't exist it would not be observable nor measurable.

So now that I've established that I firmly am on the 'time is tangible team' I'm also finding it difficult to come to the conclusion that all time already exists. Simply due to the second law of thermodynamics and the fact that we can't see the future.

Edited October 12, 2018 by danydandan

[XenoFish]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

For your reading pleasure.

[zep73]

14 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Stuff relies on movement to exist. What happens to the strong atomic force etc. if you take away an atoms abitity to move? 

And ‘on topic’, no. Even if there are infinite universes etc. Not everything will come to be.

You could do something so obscure and unnatural that it would never have happened otherwise. 

The strong force is in the nucleus. It does nothing. It just lies there. You must mean the weak force, the electrons. The energy we experience daily?

 

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So now that I've established that I firmly am on the 'time is tangible team' I'm also finding it difficult to come to the conclusion that all time already exists. Simply due to the second law of thermodynamics and the fact that we can't see the future.

Interesting point. I myself am undetermined about exactly what time is. I don't like the idea of fate. I like an optional future better.
But I'm more interested in facts and truth than in what I'd like. So if the future is settled, I'll be damned, but will accept it.

Edited October 12, 2018 by sci-nerd

[Timothy]

@sci-nerd, nope.

What do you think would happen if you stopped the ability of an atom to move?

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Timothy said:

@sci-nerd, nope.

What do you think would happen if you stopped the ability of an atom to move?

I understand what you mean, but you can't apply it to the strong force. You need to apply it to the whole atom.

[Timothy]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

I understand what you mean, but you can't apply it to the strong force. You need to apply it to the whole atom.

You’re the one that is stopping everything’s movement. Do you want movement to stop or not?

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

The strong force is in the nucleus. It does nothing. It just lies there. You must mean the weak force, the electrons. The energy we experience daily?

 

Interesting point. I myself am undetermined about exactly what time is. I don't like the idea of fate. I like an optional future better.
But I'm more interested in facts and truth than in what I'd like. So if the future is settled, I'll be damned, but will accept it.

It's not a testable question that's why it's a philosophical debate rather than scientific, that's my point.

But I suppose delve into quantum mechanics and you could come to the conclusion that some experiments seem to predict the measurement apparatus and the results indicate that time may not exist at all.

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Timothy said:

You’re the one that is stopping everything’s movement. Do you want movement to stop or not?

As I understand, to stop all movement it is enough to stop electrons = The weak force. 

[Timothy]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

As I understand, to stop all movement it is enough to stop electrons = The weak force. 

It’s your thread. So what stops when you’re talking about stopping movement? 

Think about an atom as our solar system, as a closed system. If you stopped movement, everything would collapse into the sun. 

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, Timothy said:

It’s your thread

I started it, but it is worthless without you. I consider it out thread.

5 minutes ago, Timothy said:

So what stops when you’re talking about stopping movement? 

Think about an atom as our solar system, as a closed system. If you stopped movement, everything would collapse into the sun.

I should never have written that. By writing that I stepped into philosophy and metaphysics.
But then again, @danydandan says this is those things. I don't fully agree. I think it can be settled in the realm of physics.

Edited October 12, 2018 by sci-nerd

[danydandan]

Time is a derived value used to measure the relative energy states between two or more distinct agents which share a contiguous region of spacetime.Its important to note that a singular object entirely alone within a closed system would not in any real sense experience time.

So to answer both Sci and Tim, if things stopped they would not experience time. There is a Prof Mullar, Muller (not sure which one) has an interesting theory and insists that Eddington was wrong.

"Movement is typically defined as change in position vs time.  That kind of definition fails utterly for time: does time change with time?  Yes, of course, one second every second.  What does that tell us?  In my opinion, nothing."

Edit: Muller is his name, he wrote a book. It might be good I don't know.

[Timothy]

@sci-nerd, it is currently a philosophical exercise. 

How do you think that you can prove that all time already exists/everything is determined?

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, Timothy said:

@sci-nerd, it is currently a philosophical exercise. 

How do you think that you can prove that all time already exists/everything is determined?

By shooting many powerful lasers into space. If one of them fail, try again. If the same destination fails, it is proven.

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

By shooting many powerful lasers into space. If one of them fail, try again. If the same destination fails, it is proven.

Why would that happen exactly?

[zep73]

Just now, danydandan said:

Why would that happen exactly?

Because that part of space was never "intended" to receive light. Not my idea btw. I saw it in a documentary about relativity and time.

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Because that part of space was never "intended" to receive light. Not my idea btw. I saw it in a documentary about relativity and time.

That's nonsense, ever hear of black holes?

Also it's not answering my question, why would the light not go where ever, except for a black hole? What mechanism would stop it? How would this mechanism stop it?

How do you propose measurements be taken?

Can you link to the documentary, or provide a video or something?

Edited October 12, 2018 by danydandan

[Swede]

3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I had a discussion with a friend about Relativity and 'time' as a past-present-future unchangeable unit within the fabric of space. That all time already exists.

This has a destiny/fate ring to it, and some physicists have suggested that it is to be taken seriously. One suggestion says, that if you shoot a powerful laser out into space, to a place that is never supposed to receive light, the laser will malfunction.

Any qualified input to this notion? Can fate/destiny be scientific reality? Or did someone get it wrong?

For your consideration: Even if "all time" presently exists, the actions that occur within any given time frame are the product of innumerable physical/mechanical/astronomical/geological/biological, etc. variables. Thus, time itself would not be the determining factor in regards to "destiny/fate". Merely a backdrop.

Edit: Typo.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Swede

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

That's nonsense, ever hear of black holes?

Also it's not answering my question, why would the light not go where ever, except for a black hole? What mechanism would stop it? How would this mechanism stop it?

How do you propose measurements be taken?

Can you link to the documentary, or provide a video or something?

Also, it doesn’t address why ‘the laser will malfunction’, as @sci-nerd put it.

[zep73]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

That's nonsense, ever hear of black holes?

A black hole would obviously not cause a laser to malfunction.

1 hour ago, Swede said:

For your consideration: Even if "all time" presently exists, the actions that occur within any given time frame are the product of innumerable physical/mechanical/astrological/geological/biological, etc. variables. Thus, time itself would not be the determining factor in regards to "destiny/fate". Merely a backdrop.

Well that is the conundrum of it!

To be clear, I do not support the idea of fate or determinism. I like non-determinism much better.
But that is irrelevant. So is your ideas! What I seek, and what you all should be seeking is THE TRUTH! And not settle for the answer you like best!

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

A black hole would obviously not cause a laser to malfunction.

Want to rethink that? Now what is a laser and what do black holes do to light?

[zep73]

I just had a curious experience. I wrote a reply to you, but two things stopped me from doing it at the time i intended.

1: A rare malfunction in my network that happens maybe 1 in 100 days.
2: My kids distracted me from trying to repeat the message.

I'm not saying this points to anything. I do not believe that. But it is kinda funny, given the subject itself!