2

I've noticed that most of the very successful formulas in physics, once you break them down, contain several references to quantities of time. And it has really begun to bother me that once you start poking around and asking a few questions, it quickly becomes apparent that nobody actually knows what time truly is at the most basic level. For me, "time is what clocks measure", does not seem like a scientifically nor logically rigorous definition, yet it is (basically) what the currently accepted definition is, and most physicists (the loop quantum gravity guys might be an exception... I'll have to check on that...) don't ask if time is truly fundamental.

So, have you guys heard any good theories on the true nature of time lately?

Thor
  • 148
  • 6
  • Physicists consider McTaggart's [B-Theory of Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time) to be the most suitable for physics. See also McTaggart's [A-Theory of Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series). There is also the C-series, but wiki doesn't have a page. – nwr Jul 05 '18 at 03:57
  • I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing if I misrepresented your question. – Frank Hubeny Jul 05 '18 at 03:59
  • Thanks for the links explaining McTaggart. I guess I'm looking for something more... Testable. I'm personally not a fan of the block universe. I guess I'm more of an A series guy, but and I'm not sold entirety on that idea either. What's the C-series? – Thor Jul 05 '18 at 04:25
  • Like, what (specifically) causes the percieved flow of time? I'm willing to wager that it's not cesium atoms. Does the Holographic Principal have anything to say on the matter? – Thor Jul 05 '18 at 04:27
  • I don't see at all how B-theory is better that A-theory for physics. Maybe for certain flavors of speculative cosmology... but from what I can tell, A-theory will take you all the way to the Big Bang with absolutely no potholes, bumps, or roadblocks. – elliot svensson Jul 05 '18 at 06:39
  • @NickR, there also is the R-series, AFAIK. And McTaggart's position on time was nihilistic. – rus9384 Jul 05 '18 at 09:03
  • 1
    @NickR A, B and block universe theories rely on classical intuitions and are essentially irrelevant in modern fundamental physics despite their continued popularity with some philosophers and popularizers. The emergence of time is a constant theme in quantum gravity proposals, but really understanding them requires some mathematical prowess and for obvious reasons they are very far from experimental testing. [Isham-Butterfield's On the Emergence of Time in Quantum Gravity](https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9901024) is a good review for non-experts. – Conifold Jul 05 '18 at 17:50
  • @Conifold Very interesting looking paper. Thanks. I shall read through it over the next week(ish) - I have an (informal) piano exam coming up so I am a bit preoccupied. I was aware that our current physics' treatment of time and gravity are unsatisfactory but I lack the necessary understanding of the subject to make sense of it all. Hopefully Isham and Butterfield's paper will help lift some of the fog. – nwr Jul 05 '18 at 18:37
  • @Conifold: Indeed! Very interesting looking paper. It's downloaded and on my reading list – Thor Jul 06 '18 at 04:05

4 Answers4

1

Time is a composite of position within 3 dimensions. If an object exists, occupies space, then its position is described using time. It is impossible to describe any object without reference to time. Time separates the position of an object from another position held at another time.

We measure time by using objects that are moving at a regular rate, so their observed position relates to the passing of time.

Philosophically you can try to say time is just a subjective observation except the very process of thinking, going through ideas requires the movement of energy, electrons, blood, oxygen in the brain of the person thinking it.

Einstein showed time is relative to the speed of light and the speed of an observer relative to another observer. This embedded time as a reality of our existence rather than removing it.

There is a mathmatical concept called imaginary time. This poses a question. Which model of time is real in our universe and which is just mathematics. Some might argue both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

PeterJens
  • 538
  • 3
  • 7
  • Imaginary time is now deprecated. https://books.google.ca/books?id=SyQzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&dq=farewell+to+ict&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU-veYwYjcAhWs7IMKHTHwBrwQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=farewell%20to%20ict&f=false –  Jul 05 '18 at 17:43
0

Time is explained in the Perennial philosophy as a function of Mind. You might like Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time by the Venerable Nyaponika Thera. Time would not be fundamental and would be intimately entangled with the processes of Mind, much as Kant speculated.

I don't know any other theories of time that even begin to work. I'd say the only good theories are those for which time is not fundamental. Hermann Weyl talks much sense on the topic. His book on the Continuum and other writings are worth checking out. There's a blog article here by way of a general introduction https://dondeg.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/the-yogic-view-of-consciousness-7-the-absolute-according-to-hermann-weyl/

Here's another discussion of time, Weyl and Buddhism: https://philpapers.org/rec/JONTCE

  • Sometimes I wonder why there are not more people who believe in solipsism. But not all the time. –  Jul 06 '18 at 03:19
  • 1
    The Buddhists and the followers of Copenhagen both fall into the same category, in my opinion. It all sounds good at fist, but when you try to pin them down on a point they tend to get rather vauge. That being said, I was wondering recently about the nature of computation. I'd always thought of computation as being very similar to information, just bits moving in time instead of spread out in space. But computation isn't just information, it's information that is both received and acted upon. – Thor Jul 06 '18 at 04:32
  • Was there any information there before it was received? I think Shannon might say no... Perhaps it is the USE of the information (in the form of computation) and not "measurement" that causes the wave function collapse (if there even is a collapse). – Thor Jul 06 '18 at 04:42
  • Buddhist hold a world view where consciousness is separation from the oneness of existence, which the individual should strive to stop and become one with everything. As a faith position it is not actually desiring to define time or how it effects us, because in effect the belief is time is part of this separation. This is a faith position not a theorem. As a philosophy, denying time, the very reality of our lives, is not a good starting point. And focusing a culture on self denial of existence is not going to solve anything. – PeterJens Jul 06 '18 at 08:58
  • @PeterJens - I'd suggest you delve a little deeper into Buddhism.before setting your opinions in stone. At present they are poorly informed. The idea that it is a faith position is a serious misunderstanding. –  Jul 06 '18 at 10:41
  • @Thor - In what way are Buddhists vague? There are a thousand texts explaining this and they are not vague. You're free to argue that they're wrong about time but the evidence easily disposes of the idea they are vague. You might like Chalmers' 'double-aspect theory of information', which is more or less a rip-off of Buddhist metaphysics, albeit a partial non-reductive version. –  Jul 06 '18 at 10:48
  • I find it very odd that such a simple and short answer that contains no arguments but a couple of helpful references has two downvotes. No problem, my ego will survive, but I struggle to see what could be objectionable about it. It seems to be a reaction to Buddhism rather than the actual answer. –  Jul 06 '18 at 10:52
  • It's important not to get to vauge ;) Treating Buddhism as physics is like treating tge bible as a scientific document, misguided. Buddhism is a program that doesn't depend what specific hardware it is running on. Physics is saying, lets find out everything about the universes hardware. – CriglCragl Jul 06 '18 at 13:13
  • @CriglCragl - I struggle to see the relevance of your comment here. The OP asked for a theory of time for which it is not fundamental and I gave him one. You're welcome to explain what is wrong with it. A scientific approach would require that we examine it. At any rate, physics has no theory of time so going there would be pointless. I don't;feel your objection is based on a grasp of the Buddhist explanation of time but on a confusion as to the domain of science. It does not include time. Time belongs in metaphysics. . –  Jul 07 '18 at 08:47
  • From the parable of the arrow: "[Answering _Is the cosmos eternal? Does a Tathagata exist after death?_is irrelevant to Buddhism] Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding." Buddhism is abouts minds and suffering, not physics. Time is explicitly located in physics in the OP. – CriglCragl Jul 08 '18 at 17:56
  • @CriglCragl - Buddhism has a well-developed metaphysical scheme with strong ramifications for the natural sciences. If scientists choose to ignore it that is up to them. What you say about suffering is correct but it can only be correct if we live in a universe as described by the Perennial philosophy. If the metaphysics and physics of Buddhism is wrong then so is the teaching on suffering. The OP asks about theories of time and it would be very odd not to mention one of the most prominent and successful of them. –  Jul 09 '18 at 08:49
  • Buddha didn't develop Buddhist cosmology, which is obviously metaphorical and psycological, not metaphysical and physics. It's likr saying Biblical Creation has to have been over literally 7 days or all of Chriatian thought must be dismissed. It doesn't make sense, it contradicts any sensible judgement of the texts for the sake of a category error, and it clearly aligns in argument with the style of fundamentalist Christians, which should worry you. – CriglCragl Jul 09 '18 at 13:02
  • @PeterJ >"Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about (SN 56.41 develops this speculation as the ten indeterminate)." from The Four Imponderables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya – CriglCragl Jul 12 '18 at 10:03
  • @CriglCragl - You've somehow picked up an incorrect view of Buddhism and I'm not sure where to start. Perhaps by recommending Nagarjuna, Have you not heard of the theory of emptiness? The doctrine of two truths? A neutral metaphysical position? Do you think Buddhism is about speculation? There is an extensive literature. It seems you are confusing the Perennial philosophy and mysticism with monotheism and dogmatic religion. Buddhism is neutral metaphysical position. This states that time is not fundamental. Nagarjuna famously proves it, Guesswork is not encouraged. –  Jul 12 '18 at 10:57
0

Time Is Not

Existence is the progression of events and the changes they cause. Matter and events define space and time, neither of which have any substance. Space and time are voids, which can cause nothing, but contain everything.

Space and time are those qualities of the universe that accommodate all objects of matter and energy and all conditions and events, no matter how close together, overlapping, or far apart. There is no substance to either space or time. Any effect upon, or by, objects is assumed to be communicated through space and during time, but these effects are caused only by other objects. Space and time are neither cause, nor effect.

Space is perceived and identified by the distance between the physical locations of objects. Empty space accepts objects in any place or attitude, and motion in any direction or around any axes. There are no favored or forbidden locations or angles of orientation. Space is without intrinsic feature, except for the objects it contains. Space is therefore non-discrete and continuous. There can be no space without objects.

Time is perceived and identified by the duration between occurrences. Time accepts any conditions and events without regard to when they occur. There are no favored or forbidden moments or durations. The occurrence, duration, and sequence of events are determined solely by the actions and reactions of the objects that create them. Time is without intrinsic feature, except for the events and conditions it contains. Time is therefore non-discrete and continuous. Continuous time is also the entirety of time, thus contains any and all discrete moments, however determined or selected. There can be no time without events.

Based on Natural Logic of Space and Time

Charles Moeller
  • 49
  • 4
  • 1
    Et quod vult, torquet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves –  Jul 06 '18 at 03:23
  • This neglects a host of reasons to expect that both space and time are quantised, and have structure. It's just bias, not reasoning. – CriglCragl Jul 06 '18 at 13:07
0

General relativity is currently our theory of time, and of course space. Any integration of time into quantum field theory and the standard model is going to have to involce a unification with general relativity. This looks to be on the Planck scale, and so be way outside our foreseeable experimental reach. Orbital gravity-wave observatories may really help with observations of relevant events out in the universe though. Gravity space & time are undoubtedly intimately linked.

Carlo Rovelli has interesting things to say from the quantum loop gravity perspective https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/05/the-order-of-time-by-carlo-rovelli-review

In brane theory, other forces are carried by open strings, but gravity is carried by closed loop strings which are not limited in the same way to this dimension. It explains the relative weakness of gravity nicely. It seems like we can think of a larger space, in which our timeline is just a slice or surface, with a 'thickness' related to the scale of the rolled up higher dimensions https://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/

Have a look at the Axiom Of Purification idea, which seems to provide a satisfying and plausible account of the arrow of time arising in a quantum world https://plus.maths.org/content/purifying-physics-quest-explain-why-quantum-exists

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • 1
    OMG! I finally read some of Rovelli! I've obviously heard of loop quantum gravity before, but I didn't realize how it dealt with time. I don't know how this fact escaped me for so long and I can't believe I'd never even heard of the Wheeler - DeWitt Equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation – Thor Jul 07 '18 at 17:58
  • Wheeler is a boss. It from bit, geons, supervised the PhD that presented the many-worlds interpretation, more-or-less named black holes that, the one-electron-universe that led to the idea antiparticles go backwards in time. Wheeler was a boss. I still think he was really on to something about quaternions and octonions too. – CriglCragl Jul 08 '18 at 18:31