Is time continuous or discrete?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz Wyman, it's considered rude to hijack a thread. So please, in the name of Netiquette, continue in the proper thread.

You really can't stand a challenge can you?
The points I made are completely apposite to both discussions.
If you admit that something as fundamental as time can be relative and conceptual then you have to consider the same for truth.
Your reaction both here and on the other thread where you are pontificating about the purity of truth reveal yourself as a poor thinker.

If you don't get this then you are no philosopher.

[sideshow]

I have been pondering this question ... if time actually is divided into discrete moments, similar to a planck length but for time, or if it is indivisible and continuous, and you could slow time down as much as you wanted and couldn't see the "frames".

After considering it for a short time I thought that there probably isn't discrete moments, because if there were, there would probably be some kind of universal minimum speed limit for all matter. If a particle is moving at say, 1 planck length per "planck moment" this would restrict it to such a minimum speed, which seems slightly absurd. This is my reasoning for rejecting the possibility of the discreteness of time.

Hi, The question could be answered "both", if on a micro scale time were discrete, but for us it would be a composite, a statistical continuum. Your reasoning for rejecting discrete time assumes that matter is particles like little nuggets. It isn't. That's just a simplistic model that's useful for some purposes. If particles are waves, like waves on the surface of an ocean, then only invisible "energy" and "momentum" actually travel.

With time, though, we have our own special problem. Imagine that we see reality as sequential frames in an old movie reel. Everything is just a bunch of still pictures stacked up in a row. Then there is no time between the frames, as such. Time needs to be provided by an outside projector that rolls at some rate. So, looking only at the frames, there appears to be no time at all. At which point St. Augustine says something about not knowing what time is.
~~~~

[zinnat13]

Dear friends,

I use to think a lot about the basic concepts of the universe. It always attracts me.
Although I am not a very knowledgeable person and I cannot even claim that my opinion is right but I very strongly feel that time is also a form of very subtle matter.

I tried to look into this in a different way to understand what time is.

If we assume that God (just for the sake of argument) is positioned himself outside the universe at the very moment of big bang and is able to see in totality. Universe is evolving and changing continuously since its birth and the our God has seen that all as I assume him eternal simply because of its positioning as being outside the universe time has no bearing on him.

Now, at this very moment, if we ask God that what is seen by you since the beginning and how much time the universe has taken up to now, what will be his answer? Before assuming an answer we must remember that the time has no meaning to him as he is outside its zone.

I feel that his answer would be that even a plank time is not passed.

Now we should not trouble God anymore and try to handle things by ourselves.

Let us have a look at the events. An event is what that happens in time and at some place or in the space. So an event needs at least two things to complete; time and space. The third ingredient may be a subject but it is not essential as passing of time in space is also an event.

So it is compulsory to manifest time and space before allowing any materialistic event to happen otherwise, even having material or subject, we cannot make event happen. If we apply this concept to the big bang, then the theory that time came into existence after big bang is appears wrong.

It is not that difficult to conceive. It just requires simple logic. Let me assume another situation that hearing our conservation; God becomes angry and decides to pull back time from the universe. Now what will happen? What will be left with the universe? I assume that it will immediately return to the form of singularity as it was at the moment of big bang. This will happen for sure because withdrawing of time will dismiss all the events since big bang.



I want to mention one more point.

The theory of general relativity predicts that time runs slowly near the surface of heavy objects. It is proven fact now and is used in satellite based navigation system like GPS. This phenomenon is described by the gravitational effect on light. This fact is in complete accordance with the matter form of time.

If we assume that the time is a form of matter then it also cannot escape from gravitation. It simply means that the concentration or the density of time is bound to be more near the surface of the earth than the space.
Events tend to move in time like we swim in the water. So, due to higher density of time particles, events find it difficult to move and hence, the time taken by them increase.

One more thing.

If we believe all this nonsense which I said in this post, then it simply means that there is no vacuum in the universe as each and every place is filled with matter in the form of time particles. It may behave like a cosmological constant as Einstein predicted. Perhaps it is the dark matter which we are looking for and fill the gap between the observed and predicted mass of the universe. This theory, if it true will have many more implication in astrophysics.

It is all confusing so I am going to ask our above mentioned God and will also see if we make him really angry otherwise he will withdraw time from the universe.

With love,
sanjay

[Arising_uk]

I use to think a lot about the basic concepts of the universe. It always attracts me.
Although I am not a very knowledgeable person and I cannot even claim that my opinion is right but I very strongly feel that time is also a form of very subtle matter.

Could be the language zin13 but do you mean time is a form of matter or that the idea of time is a very subtle matter to think about?

...

If we assume that God (just for the sake of argument) is positioned himself outside the universe at the very moment of big bang and is able to see in totality. Universe is evolving and changing continuously since its birth and the our God has seen that all as I assume him eternal simply because of its positioning as being outside the universe time has no bearing on him.

To use computational metaphors. Why would it be that the all necessarily involves the output? Why is this 'God' not just watching for the outcome as well or watching the process of calculating towards a known result, as it can't pre-calculate the path.

Now, at this very moment, if we ask God that what is seen by you since the beginning and how much time the universe has taken up to now, what will be his answer? Before assuming an answer we must remember that the time has no meaning to him as he is outside its zone.

Time matters as much to this 'God' as it does to us in this instance, as the answer will be "Everything so far.".

I feel that his answer would be that even a plank time is not passed.

I think if this type of 'God' existed then the answer would exactly be measures in Planck bits.

Now we should not trouble God anymore and try to handle things by ourselves.

Couldn't agree more.

Let us have a look at the events. An event is what that happens in time and at some place or in the space. So an event needs at least two things to complete; time and space. The third ingredient may be a subject but it is not essential as passing of time in space is also an event.

event(Time1, Time2, space(X, Y, Z), space(P, Q, R ). and event(Time1, Time2). ?

If we apply this concept to the big bang, then the theory that time came into existence after big bang is appears wrong.

I thought the idea that time came into existence as the big-bang came into existence.

It is not that difficult to conceive. It just requires simple logic. Let me assume another situation that hearing our conservation; God becomes angry and decides to pull back time from the universe. Now what will happen? What will be left with the universe? I assume that it will immediately return to the form of singularity as it was at the moment of big bang. This will happen for sure because withdrawing of time will dismiss all the events since big bang.

Is it a reversible computation? Maybe, but is it a deterministic one? Might not be in the sense that the way it gets there can be calculated in any more efficient way than running the bloody thing again and seeing what happens. Can you even tweak it whilst it runs?

The theory of general relativity predicts that time runs slowly near the surface of heavy objects. It is proven fact now and is used in satellite based navigation system like GPS. This phenomenon is described by the gravitational effect on light. This fact is in complete accordance with the matter form of time.

Or that clocks and measurements differ with relative speed. No need to think of time as a substance in itself. Although the physicists have combined Time and Space to make a single 'substance' called Spacetime.

If we assume that the time is a form of matter then it also cannot escape from gravitation. It simply means that the concentration or the density of time is bound to be more near the surface of the earth than the space.

But the spaceman away from gravity would still age at the same rate as the earthbound one, just not relatively. But he is in a less dense concentration of 'time'?

Events tend to move in time like we swim in the water. So, due to higher density of time particles, events find it difficult to move and hence, the time taken by them increase.

Hmm... I can understand the idea, but if they were matter you'd maybe have to rewrite QED as it only appears to need photons and electrons as particles and its the most accurately tested theory out-there in Physics?

One more thing.

If we believe all this nonsense which I said in this post, then it simply means that there is no vacuum in the universe as each and every place is filled with matter in the form of time particles. It may behave like a cosmological constant as Einstein predicted. Perhaps it is the dark matter which we are looking for and fill the gap between the observed and predicted mass of the universe. This theory, if it true will have many more implication in astrophysics.

It is all confusing so I am going to ask our above mentioned God and will also see if we make him really angry otherwise he will withdraw time from the universe.

With love,
sanjay

What was its reply? And why or what would it be getting angry about?

Does it mean there is no vacuum or that the vacuum is a local thing? As it may be that the planck bits running the sim or emulation(?) that produce stable 'particles' work in groups, vacuum can be those areas of calculated space where no group of bits is fully active.

[zinnat13]

Dear Arising-uk,

This very concept of time is in my mind since last two years when I read “the history of time” by Stephen Hawkins. I found his idea of time difficult to digest. I found that he did not described time at all in his book. He just says that the time begins with big bang and it is the position of science in general. There is separate chapter about time in his book in which he explained all characters, properties and arrows of it but did not utter a single word about what time is. I tried to find on the net but the same is there. Nobody wants to describe the time in person, except those who declare it imaginary. But I want to know exactly what time is, not its properties.

I posted it in anticipation that someone will tell me why my concept should not hold. But you questioned me why it should hold so now I am trying to defend my argument, as I visualize it, in the hope that perhaps your questioning will lead both of us to hold this concept either way.

I am very clear in conceiving time a form of matter like any other. No matter how subtle it is, it is still a matter so it should behave like a matter. I am not considering it as any mental or imaginary concept. I assume it as the ultimate particle of the all the matter present in the universe. It cannot be divided further. It has only kinetic energy or only relativistic mass like photons have. Its particles have very high energy and oscillate at very high frequency. Being the smallest particle, it follows the principles of quantum theory so, even being static, due to its extremely high oscillation, it smears out in his periphery thus, time particles altogether, in their totality, manifest a continuous and nonporous time in the universe everywhere.

I would also argue that space is nothing. It is only time and that is omnipresent. Space is just a place or area which is covered by time particles. So there is no space but only Timespread. So, now we have a universe in our hand which has no vacuum at all.

Science is looking confused about time at least to me. Even if we use you words that time came into existence just at the moment of big bang, it simply means that time is a form of matter like others because it was manifested from that singularity and that was condensed matter. So, anything originated from it should also be matter but science does not hold time as a matter. I just cannot understand this. Perhaps you and other board members may have understanding of this.

But, I argued successfully in previous post that an event cannot happen without time so the concept that the time came into existence with big bang is wrong.
You argued that the very moment of big bang and the birth of time was the same. Prima facie, this statement looks perfect and acceptable but it is not. If we look carefully at the event of big bang, then we will find that it is impossible for those two events to happen at once.
There are two events before us to examine.
The blast of big bang
The birth of time and universe
Looking at these events, it is evident that the second event cannot occur at the precise moment of first one. There must be an infinitely small time interval between the two. The first one is the main or rather we can say is a bit like mother event while second one is appearing as a product of first one. Reading your objection, for a moment, I became agreed because it was looking OK. But, by the time of writing and answer, I felt that there was something wrong in it. I tried to visualize the event and found that actually, there are two events instead of one so, they cannot happen at once.

Nevertheless, let us keep this argument aside, and visualize about just a moment before a big bang. This is moment when big bang is not happened but just going to happen. Now, at this very moment, singularity is very much present as, till now, the big bang has not happened thus, according to science, time has not taken birth yet. But, the event is happening as moving of singularity in the time is also an event. It means that events have happened before big bang.
So, it is clear that time came into existence at the time of big bang is wrong. Time was very much present at the time of big bang even if we assume that there was a big bang.

To some points mentioned---
I mentioned God just as an ordinary spectator not who created the universe. I am saying that since he is outside the timespread hence he is eternal. We can assume even a sophisticated computer instead of any living entity. I am just trying to visualize that how our universe was looked at the time of big bang, how it is looked now from outside and how much time has been passed in between according to an outsider.

Clocks show difference not only in relative speed but in relative height also. A clock placed at the sea level runs slowly in the comparison of the one placed at the top of watch tower. This is a physically proven fact.

Yes, the aging of spaceman depend the density of his timespread. If he is moving fast so he has to face denser timespread hence his aging will be slow but if his stable in the space so his time spread will be less dense than the earth hence he will age early.

I have many more implications of this concept in my mind but first we and others have to approve or disapprove up to here.

With love,
sanjay

[charon]

I have been pondering this question lately after considering how we perceive time

Do we perceive time? Bring your hand slowly from left to right. We perceive movement, not time. We're unaware of time physically speaking.

What we're aware of is an inward sense of time. It can pass quickly if we're interested in something and drag when we're not. It can pass in different ways for two different people in exactly the same situation. So time, or what we call time, depends on the state of our mind. It depends on our thinking, how quickly our thoughts revolve.

There are occasions when time can stop altogether, as when we perceive beauty, because our thoughts for a split second are absent. Then they return, of course, and with them the sense of time.

Time physically is only measured movement, divided into seconds, minutes, hours, etc, according to a man-made system. It's not discrete bits, it's a continuum because everything is flowing, changing all the time; life is never static. We can make it discrete, of course, by dividing it into convenient chunks but that's not reality. We can, and we do, divide yesterday from tomorrow but there's no actual dividing line between them.

But can we be aware of the very thing we're measuring? Are we actually aware of the physical passing of time? Or actually is there only now? As I write this it's now for me. When you read it it'll be now for you. At any moment there's only the now and the now is all of time. Although we acknowledge movement, which is factual, the now is non-continuous because everything is in it. That's one of the mysteries, that there is change within changelessness.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Time does not exist!
It is an illusion, created by our need to sequence (measure) movement, as such it is impossible to traverse.

I have a beautiful mechanical weighted German Black Forest Cuckoo Clock that I love to watch and listen to.

[charon]

Time does not exist!
It is an illusion

I don't understand this at all. Try turning up late to work every day and see if time is an illusion!

As you say, time is measured movement. If you say time is an illusion then movement must also be an illusion. Movement is not an illusion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Time does not exist!
It is an illusion

I don't understand this at all. Try turning up late to work every day and see if time is an illusion!
Have you ever felt like a mouse on a wheel? It would seem that you like being someones pet, but I digress!

That is merely agreeing to live your life to the rhythm of a mechanical device of an agreed upon particular arbitrarily relative size that has movements that do so at an agreed upon particular arbitrarily relative rate. This was initially adopted because early humans noticed the particular arbitrarily relative repetitive sequence of the planets spin and revolution around it's life giving power source.

As you say, time is measured movement. If you say time is an illusion then movement must also be an illusion. Movement is not an illusion.

If there were only one body in space, is it moving, how fast is it moving, in what direction is it moving and how much time does it take to move? In this case could the concept of time ever have developed?

[zinnat13]

Hi SOB,

I would like you to have a look at my two prior posts in this thread and see that if you find anything worth discussing from there.

with love,
sanjay

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

I would like you to have a look at my two prior posts in this thread and see that if you find anything worth discussing from there.

with love,
sanjay

Well, I believe that I see only bits and pieces.

Both with respect to aging and the speed of clocks I see these as only a manifestation of a differing environmental force and having absolutely nothing to do with time as it doesn't exist.

As to the human body, it is part of the earths symbiosis, which is to say that it is one and the same as all the other parts of the earth; the forces of the earth and those that it allows into it's biosphere are integral to each and every life-form. They have been there since the beginning (relatively speaking) and actually gave way to the development of each and every bit of life. If you remove the body from the forces that it is integral with, it's obvious that things shall change for the body. If aging differs for a body outside of earths sphere of influence then there is a good chance that it's related to the absence of that influence. I believe it has nothing to do with time as it does not exist.

The speed of clocks is exactly the same idea. Forces (environment) are different on earth than in space and this difference I believe is responsible for the change in speed.

Of course gravity is one such force but let us not forget the magnetosphere, cosmic radiation, oxygen (all elements be they gas liquid or solid), etc. These differences I believe are what cause the changes that we attribute to time dilation and is actually physics dilation due to varying forces as seen on earth or in space. We are all aware that physics on earth is different than that of space.

For instance the element O2 is responsible for us living but also causes our aging and can cause our death. The 'balance' that we experience on earth allows life as it is on earth. Take away that particular earth 'balance' by placing us in space of a differing 'balance' and you experience differences. If we could find what it is that is either present or not present that causes our age to slow in space, away from the planet, it could be a sort of fountain of youth, but it might turn out that at the same time something else changes for the worse, such that we're incapable of realizing this reduced aging.

Of course the time travel stuff I've always thought was absurd, due to the paradox, but it's even more than that.

I thought it was cool that you tried to answer the, "what is time" question, because you couldn't find it anywhere. But I submit that in all probability you couldn't find anything, because it doesn't exist. I know, I sound like a broken record, huh?

I can't think of anything else to say about your points except that I like the way you think on a lot of things. Of course we're never going to always agree 100%. But I find your mind to be very articulate and pleasant, which has absolutely nothing to do with your salutation, but as I've said I do also appreciate your salutation.

PEACE, my friend!

[zinnat13]

Hi SOB,

I do not want to see any metaphysical concepts as an illusion or imaginary objects and time is one of them.

Contrary to the most of religious persons, I would like to see all these phenomena through the filter of science and I have reasons for that.

We all know that it is a proven fact that gravity has the capacity to influence time. We cannot deny it. And if it is true, then how can we argue that time is an imaginary or illusive object.

If time is not a form of matter, then how can it be influenced by the gravity? It must be a form of matter. I do not see any confusion in that.

If we accept the imaginary concept of time and embed it with the fact that gravity can influence it, then this acceptance implies that gravity can influence other mental manifestations as well: like thoughts and emotions.

Does this notion not mean that the mental ability of the same person will differ with the change of gravity, as in the case of an astronaut?

You have mentioned in some of your previous posts that you have some experience of working with these types of organizations, hence, you may have some ides of it.

with love,
sanjay

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

I do not want to see any metaphysical concepts as an illusion or imaginary objects and time is one of them.

Contrary to the most of religious persons, I would like to see all these phenomena through the filter of science and I have reasons for that.

We all know that it is a proven fact that gravity has the capacity to influence time. We cannot deny it.
Not true, we have proven that gravity has the capacity to influence matter, not time! One of the experiments really doesn't necessarily measure time, it just measures the decay of muons. Since time is not a thing, we have measured effects on matter, and have attributed it to that of time. But the variation in this matter could be due to some other force and not related to time at all. Point out a specific experiment where a change is seen and how it's impossible for it to be attributed to anything other than time dilation.

And if it is true, then how can we argue that time is an imaginary or illusive object.

If time is not a form of matter, then how can it be influenced by the gravity? It must be a form of matter. I do not see any confusion in that.

If we accept the imaginary concept of time and embed it with the fact that gravity can influence it, then this acceptance implies that gravity can influence other mental manifestations as well: like thoughts and emotions.

Does this notion not mean that the mental ability of the same person will differ with the change of gravity, as in the case of an astronaut?

You have mentioned in some of your previous posts that you have some experience of working with these types of organizations, hence, you may have some ides of it.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat13]

Hi SOB,

You rightly pointed about the decay of muons. This is a one way of proving time dilation.
It was done by Rossi-Hall initially and later by others also in particle accelerators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilat ... _particles

But, in these cases, there is a possibility that the late decay of muons and other particles may be caused by some other reasons, as you argued.

But, SOB, i am not talking about that particular way of proving the influence of gravity on the time. I was talking about gravitational time dilation, which has nothing to do with any form of particle.

This i a very simple premise that time runs slower near heavy bodies. Our whole GPS system is based on this. So, that is 24/7 available proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... e_dilation

After reading your post i tried to verified myself and found that this premise is not based on decay of particles. I have provided a link above. Have a look and and see whether i conceived it properly or not.

with love,
sanjay

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

You rightly pointed about the decay of muons. This is a one way of proving time dilation.
It was done by Rossi-Hall initially and later by others also in particle accelerators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilat ... _particles

But, in these cases, there is a possibility that the late decay of muons and other particles may be caused by some other reasons, as you argued.

But, SOB, i am not talking about that particular way of proving the influence of gravity on the time. I was talking about gravitational time dilation, which has nothing to do with any form of particle.

This i a very simple premise that time runs slower near heavy bodies. Our whole GPS system is based on this. So, that is 24/7 available proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... e_dilation

After reading your post i tried to verified myself and found that this premise is not based on decay of particles. I have provided a link above. Have a look and and see whether i conceived it properly or not.

with love,
sanjay

Yes I'm familiar with the Cesium based atomic clock as well. The problem I have is that even after reading the data on the page you posted, I still don't know 'exactly' their methodology of implementing the test that is supposed to negate any force from effecting the atoms physically such that time dilation is the only explanation. Since we are not the actual scientists that conducted the experiment we have to take in on faith that they considered every possibility, in excluding all other possible causal's of physical involvement, leaving only time dilation as solution.

Actually the mechanism's system designed to regulate accuracy sounds suspect to me as a potential area of allowing gravity to physically induce error.

Obviously, I'm not saying that I know, who am I after all? But I have a problem with having 'faith' in someones resolve as 'fact' unless I know 'exactly' what it is that was considered in finding solution.