Time Share Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 11:14am Now never lasts It must become then A memory fleeting 'mongst lives of men Time spent well? Happiness bought? Fades away What have we wrought? Did I know love? I can't recall It's far away And oh so small Now never lasts Not for long People change Is that wrong? Now is never now for long. Even when it seems like now will last forever, it moves on and becomes then, creating a new now. And in this new now, everyone -- and everything -- is inexorably different, in ways both small and large. People are so utterly dynamic it's scary -- because no one ever stays the same. Everything that occurs to you changes you, and as time passes, you change a lot. Relationships reflect this perfectly -- people change, and can't get along with each other anymore. But one of the defining aspects of humanity is that, no matter how logically we know this to be true, we still treat now as if it's forever. In 3 months, the problems that plague us today will be gone... but they're still here today. No matter how much we know that, it's impossible to ignore them... 52 comments Report Note Jon Schubbe wrote at 12:03pm on July 29th, 2008 time doesn't exist "When you are driving in your car, your speed is relative to the road beneath you. There is no point on your journey that could be called one instant in time. It can only be an interval of time. Even if you took a photograph of the car travelling along the road, the photograph would be an interval related to the speed of the camera, perhaps a thirtieth of a second. It doesn’t matter how much you reduce the time interval, it will always still be an interval, rather than an instant. If there are no measured instants then there is no infinity paradox, which demonstrates that there is no actual time measurement. In short, there is only relative motion between objects, and the order in which they occur. " Delete Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 12:53pm on July 29th, 2008 Time is relative, but from my perspective it certainly exists. If you look at it less personally and more totally, then an argument could be made that time doesn't exist, but arguments can be made that space doesn't exist as well... it's really just philosophical BS. From over here, it seems to me as though time certainly does exist. :) Jon Schubbe wrote at 1:04pm on July 29th, 2008 If I am 'aging', or growing 'older', that just means my body is wearing down. The fact that it takes 'time' to do so does not actually affect the aging process, and therefore serves no physical purpose. It's simply just describing at what point in my 'aging', or wearing down, process I'm at. Delete Dick Street (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 6:25pm on July 29th, 2008 time in my opinion is a man-made measurement...so i think it does exist, just not naturally Derek Covington (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 8:59pm on July 29th, 2008 this is so epic, my mind is about to explode, i want to thank you for this wonderful conversation because i support shit like this Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 9:15pm on July 29th, 2008 That's like saying space is a man-made measurement -- they're really just aspects of the same thing. The way WE observe time is man-made, of course, but only because it's difficult to comprehend time in any other fashion. Think to a time 3 hours ago. That was now, then. Now, this is now. Soon, this won't be now anymore at all. How do we tell where we really are? Maybe my "now" is 15 minutes ahead of your "now". What does that even MEAN? Derek Covington (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 9:18pm on July 29th, 2008 theres no such thing as a now because by the time youve said it, its already in the past therefore makeing time an illusion, or some mumbo jumbo like that we all live in the past Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 9:20pm on July 29th, 2008 But I'm a completely different person "now" than I was a year ago. Does that mean that the changes I've undergone are also an illusion? I'm pretty sure that what I experienced is real... but I know that someday, I'll be looking back at my life as I'm about to die, and everything will be in the past... even what's the future now, will someday be in the past. I need some drugs or something. Derek Covington (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 11:05pm on July 29th, 2008 hahaha im going to agree with bobby George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 11:19pm on July 29th, 2008 On a metaphysical note: Time's as real as the other dimensions you move through, you just don't have as much freedom in changing your motion through time. It's nothing physical, but it influences change in physical bodies. The trend of spontaneous processes towards entropy points us 'forward' in time. As Hemmingway quotes Ecclesiastes: "One generation passes away, and another generation comes; but the earth abides forever." Life isn't permanent, its contents get wiped away with time. But we can shape the future today. We always just live 'now', but it's like calculus; those nows add up. Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 11:20pm on July 29th, 2008 Isn't "forward" in time technically defined as the direction in which the entropy in a closed system increases? George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 11:23pm on July 29th, 2008 Not exactly, because nonspontaneous processes can decrease entropy. (e.g. fusion, etc.) And, of course, remember that not all closed systems have matter, so it's hard to define it that way. The example Hawking used was knocking a vase full of water over; the vase breaks and the water spills. That's fairly ordinary. Now try to imagine the water and broken glass 'deciding' to get up and form a vase. That's very unlikely, and goes against the arrow of entropy. Naturally, there has to be a stimulus/activation energy for any change, but you get the idea. Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 11:26pm on July 29th, 2008 Yeah, but entropy in a closed system will gradually increase if you're moving forwards in time -- the nonspontaneous "fusion" processes will be outweighed by the processes that increase entropy. this thread got SO derailed from its original purpose George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 11:46pm on July 29th, 2008 Usually. Depends upon the contents of the system and its size. Entropy's zero in a singularity I think. Essentially, in our universe, entropy should always be increasing as far as I can tell. Even if it starts collapsing back down towards a singularity, velocity of all particles should increase as they come in, so entropy isn't lost. Only at singluarity does entropy become zero or lose meaning. (And losing meaning seems a bit more likely, I'd have to ask a science teacher.) George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 11:48pm on July 29th, 2008 Oh, right: a synthesis reaction also decreases entropy a lot of the time (depends on the average molecular velocity [temp] of the product). But yeah, entropy essentially always increases and is often referred to as the 'arrow of time' because of this. QED, time exists. Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 11:50pm on July 29th, 2008 On a quantum level, does entropy occur? Jon Schubbe wrote at 12:42am yesterday I still don't believe time exists...A clock merely counts the events that occur and motion of objects through space. Going nearly the speed of light is said to slow down time, but Einstein suggests that going nearly the speed of light increases the mass of the object. Therefore, the clock moves slower because it has more mass. This can be said for cooling down an object. It moves slower at its quantum level. It's an abstract measurement created subconsciously by the linear progression of your mind and serves no purpose in the natural way of things. If I walk across a room, it does not take 'time' to do so. It takes energy. If a baby is being born, it may take 9 months to do so, but in reality, it's actually just a series of events that take place to produce the child. Delete Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 12:44am yesterday How could time NOT exist? You experience it, don't you? I experience it, too! Going nearly the speed of light does slightly increase the mass of the object, but not NEARLY the orders of magnitude that it slows down time. Jon Schubbe wrote at 1:00am yesterday No, I experience a series of events, or an infinite series of 'nows'. Time is an illusion created by your conscious because human perception itself is linear. When you are reading this on your computer, you are experiencing a contiguous series of events. You could look at it as probability paths or a probability tree. We only experience a single setup of energy and mass in space at once. No two paths can be experienced simultaneously. Our minds just perceive the world in this fashion, each 'now', one by one. Would time still 'exist' to you if clocks were never invented? Speed is defined as change in distance divided by change in time. This means change in time is defined as change in distance divided by speed. If no distance is achieved, this means time is either zero or undefined, depending on what value you give speed. However, if time DOES exist, this means that time is able to stop. We all know this is untrue though, considering 'time' is continuous, just as our conscious perceives things. Delete Jon Schubbe wrote at 1:14am yesterday And to George about entropy and the arrow of time, just because something happens continuously in a certain order, or is supposed to happen in a certain order, doesn't mean time exists. It's just saying that the events are taking place. Delete Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 1:15am yesterday (see planck constants) Billy Niazi (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 1:57am yesterday i didnt even read all of this but im here to conclude that time does NOT exist. it's a measurement. there's no way to pinpoint an exact place in time. it's infinite. time is a creation of man because he is far too inferior to understand the complexity of space Mark Wincek (Baltimore School For The Arts) wrote at 3:08am yesterday Ditto to what billy nazi said. i think that in order for us to comprehend the existence of time, we naturally have to make a time line in our head saying point A, the beginning of time, B, "now", and C, the end of time... or sometimes we like to stretch this point out into infinity for the fun of thinking about it. but in reality there is no beginning of time. we just started counting from zero making time just a relative thing. Jon, you sound like you're agreeing that things happen one after the other, right? well are you denying an existence of time simply because its labeled on the "time line"? that's kinda how it sounded to me... at least after reading it once. i mean time can be defined as a series of events, as you even put it, happening one after the other. and if im not mistaken, you wouldn't disagree with that... so why agree with that but say there's no such thing as time? Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 7:12am yesterday One Planck time should be the smallest measurable unit of time, according to quantum mechanics. But according to news reports, analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 brought up a possible discrepancy. Images should have been blurry at very far distances, but the news articles stated that they weren't, challenging the theory that Planck time is indeed the smallest measurable unit of time in the universe. At least that's what wiki thinks. Jon Schubbe wrote at 11:32am yesterday Events happening one after the other is not saying I'm agreeing with the aspect of time or even a timeline. It's like saying this: I drive to the store. I go into the store. I buy something from the store. I drive home. Those are four events, in a big scheme of things (not including every single humanly comprehensible movement in space). Now if there were a clock, ticking around in a circle, the measurement of 'time', is simply like these events. The clock's hand reaches certain points around the clock. That is not 'time'. It's just a bunch of little tiny events. Just like going grocery shopping. It's not that it took me 15 minutes to drive there and 5 minutes to walk into the store. The clock is just a standard measurement because we as humans can't comprehend and remember all the events that took place simultaneously to our grocery shopping. Like, instead of saying at 5 oclock we did this and at 6 oclock we did that, we should be saying, after I did this this this and this, we did that. And then after that, we did this this this this, and then did another activity. But we aren't capable of doing that in the real world, so the clock was invented to measure how many times it clicks around the circle because reading a clock's 'time' is much easier than recalling all the infinite 'nows' that happened. Delete Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 12:26pm yesterday Jon, I think your concept of "time" is slightly flawed. You're viewing time as simply clock-time -- that is, how long it takes a clock's hands to move around it. That's not a real definition of time, that's simply a way of measuring it, so in a sense you're right. But time has to exist -- simply because we remember things in one direction, and don't remember them in the other direction. Actions I perform right now can affect things in one direction, and won't affect them at all in the other. That alone proves that there has to at least be a DIRECTION to time, which, as stated earlier, is the direction in which the Universe's entropy increases. How we perceive time is a wholly different topic, which is far more ambiguous. Time IS a relative thing, which passes differently for different people and different objects. If I'm going near the speed of light, 10 minutes for me is 10 minutes for you (if you're stationary-ish, relative to me). However, you can never quite go fast enough (or slow enough?) to reverse the flow of time on you. In short, the DIRECTION of time certainly exists, and is definitely real, but the QUANTITY of time (i.e., how fast it passes) is slightly ambiguous. That doesn't mean it doesn't EXIST, just that it exists differently depending on your circumstances. Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 12:39pm yesterday In regards to the speed of light thing there bob, and i think you know this but im just clarifying, if i leave you on earth and go flying off at .99c, we will both perceive that 10 minutes has passed, but when i return, you will have aged more. """""""""" <--feel free to apply quotes to whatever words you wish Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 12:51pm yesterday Is that definitely true? I don't think anyone really knows for sure... Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 12:54pm yesterday Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[1] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London–Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity. George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 3:26pm yesterday Direction of time is constant, and is understood. Length depends entirely upon the motion of a body and the presence of a gravitational field. Time exists in the fact that it can be seen as a coordinate just like any other x,y,z value for an object in any arbitrary galilean system of coordinates. See Minkowski's four-dimensional space. Jon Schubbe wrote at 4:33pm yesterday Yes. I still believe though our mind can only perceive 3 dimensions, but the fourth, one dimensional linear 'time' is all consciousness. Bobby you may find this interesting: """Altered states of consciousness are sometimes characterized by a different estimation of time. Some psychoactive substances – such as entheogens – may also dramatically alter a person's temporal judgement. When viewed under the influence of such substances as LSD, psychedelic mushrooms and peyote, a clock may appear to be a strange reference point and a useless tool for measuring the passage of events as it does not correlate with the user's experience. At higher doses, time may appear to slow down, stop, speed up, go backwards and even seem out of sequence. A typical thought might be "I can't believe it's only 8 o'clock, but then again, what does 8 o'clock mean?" As the boundaries for experiencing time are removed, so is its relevance. Many users claim this unbounded timelessness feels like a glimpse into spiritual infinity. To imagine that one exists somewhere "outside" of time is one of the hallmark experiences of a psychedelic voyage.[citation needed] Marijuana, a milder psychedelic, may also distort the perception of time to a lesser degree.[46] The practice of meditation, central to all Buddhist traditions, takes as its goal the reflection of the mind back upon itself, thus altering the subjective experience of time; the so called, 'entering the now', or 'the moment'.""" If drugs can change the human perception of 'time', is time really real or is it really just all a count of how many 'nows' go through our head when we're sitting here at the computer bored off our butts? Delete Jon Schubbe wrote at 4:34pm yesterday lol this is a fun, educational discussion. we should have had more of these in physics class.... Delete Jake Wincek (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 5:58pm yesterday I look through the hourglass waiting for time to pass. The hours are like old traces of lines in the sand. It seems I've strayed from the path somehow. Lost in the memories of old tomorrows. Not recalling where I am, I stop for a moment in thought. A voice calls out to me in the darkness of my imagination. Take my hand and walk with me, for I will show you the way.Take my hand and walk with me, for I will lead the way You dream of that which lies beyond, but once you're there, there is no turning back. When you walk with me, your fate has been sealed until time without end. Desiring to be enlightened at every cost, no matter the consequence. A weakness greater than you will ever know, for the means justify the end. A moment seems like a lifetime in this mindset. As if time stands still, yet the sand seeps down at a steady pace. I bend my thoughts in contemplation, challenging accepted insight. In deepest thought I am as time runs out Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 5:59pm yesterday http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/11-how-your-brain-can-control-time read it. and then you will see how drugs could alter the perceived passage of time. also, can you think of any real experiment which could truly verify what you're saying? I believe it's just an exercise in nihilism. If we cannot trust our own perception to give us the truth about time, how can we trust our other senses to give us reliable information? how then can we know anything for certain? Oh and btw, we're living in a matrix. Design an experiment to prove me wrong. Jon Schubbe wrote at 6:21pm yesterday Well you would have to define what 'real' really is. Is it the ability to think for yourself? Or that you are made of flesh instead of machine? There is no proof that would defy the possibility of living in a matrix, but that also means there is no proof that God doesn't exist. It's like saying you can't prove that the laws of physics will exist for every movement in space, because our creator could alter the laws of physics right before it happens. The whole argument is circular... I just believe that time is more of a sequence of events that occur. And you can't go back in 'time' because the movements in space that occurred within a certain time interval cannot be reversed, and the energy cannot be replaced the exact same way. If time does exist and is linear, why can it not be reversed? There are two ways to go in any x y z direction in our coordinate system. If time is another coordinate, say a W direction, why can we not move both ways like the other 3 dimensions? (That could also bring up another argument for why time travel will never be possible, because of the colossal amount of energy that would need to be replaced.) Delete Jake Wincek (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 6:34pm yesterday Hey jon your point is interesting and it's making me think: Ok there's the xyz 3 dimensions. To "travel back in time" for those dimensions, you need to do work. W=Force x Distance. Why can this not be done for another dimension? What is the work for traveling in a direction of time? It could be as easy as pushing a ball along the 4th dimension (with invisible hands of course) just like you can push the ball along the x axis. Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 6:40pm yesterday precisely. if time flows in the direction of increasing entropy in a closed system, then time travel would require the removal of that disorder created during the time interval from now to the point in the past to which you want to travel. that is an awful lot of energy. Jon Schubbe wrote at 6:48pm yesterday Haha, yes jake, you hit the nail on the head! lol and yea time travel is a pain in the arse. It'd be interesting to live long enough where the matrix we live in suddenly becomes clear and all the laws of physics become haywire hah... I just don't see time existing as a fourth dimension. If time does exist, it exists as a concept, sort of like 'heat'; a simplistic way to describe perception. Hmm i'm done arguing for awhile. others can if they want to, i think i've covered most of what I think. Delete Alex D'Aversa (UVA) wrote at 6:56pm yesterday our perception of heat is our nerve endings responding to the vibrations of the atoms and whatnot of our surroundings imparting that energy onto us. this is our minds way of abstracting the concept of vibrating atoms into something we can comprehend. it could be similar with time, but our perception of time is such an abstract concept to begin with... Jon Schubbe wrote at 7:16pm yesterday haha exactly. theoretical physics has no limits and therefore any argument made will never have an end. it was fun lol... Delete George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 7:37pm yesterday I think Chaos Theory essentially negates any chance that we live in a matrix. Design an infinitely nondeterministic computer processor to prove me wrong. Daniel Kempner (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 7:51pm yesterday I also did not take the time to read through all of your long, quote filled, and nearly purposeless replies. Bobby said it as easily as it needs to be said. Time exists because we feel it. For those of you that have studied the famous Double-slit experiment, you by now know that in terms of our measurement, certain things exist simply because there is an observer to interpret the action. Just as Thomas Young saw, light can appear as waves if it is observed. Without the measurements being taken, light waves are basically particles. Does this mean light waves do not exist? Of course not, we've seen them. So of course the fact that we can measure time in any infinite number of ways conclusively proves its existence. Matthew Cruder (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 8:30pm yesterday Time is love man, time is love. Bob Mint (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 8:41pm yesterday Ah, but what about the theory that we're almost CERTAINLY living in a matrix, because if a (perfect) matrix was created, eventually the people in that matrix would advance to the point in which THEY would create a matrix, and so on and so forth. Would the differences between matrices even begin to matter anymore? If a fake world is a perfect replica of a real world, then what's the difference? I also remember arguing relatively recently with someone (jake maybe?) about how the theory that there's got to be life out there because there's an infinite number of worlds is bullshit. Not that I DON'T believe there's life out there, but that's a pretty retarded argument. Arguing metaphysics is fun! George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 8:49pm yesterday Yeah, sorry about the quotes, I'm just a little existential and I really liked The Sun Also Rises. And when you're talking metaphysics, philosphy always fits! (S'why most phyics colleges also advertise their philosophy departments to prospective students.) Jon Schubbe wrote at 8:52pm yesterday I know! this is fun. Mr. Hopkins would be proud of us!! Delete Daniel Kempner (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 9:01pm yesterday To Mr. D'Aversa's point that heat as well as time are just perceptions of our body: So? Mr. Schubbe and I were conversing about earlier, some of you seem to think that because heat, time, whatever, isn't the bare bones answer, it isn't an answer. Just because our nerves reaction to vibrations is heat, doesn't mean it's not heat. That's like saying we're made up of water molecules. But wait actually we're made up of H and O atoms, so we're not made of molecules. Yes there may be a more detailed explanation or cause, but that doesn't make the more apparent result any less existent. And sure right now I'm just arguing about the semantics of existence. But hey, by any measure I can think of, time certainly "exists." Matthew Cruder (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 10:44pm yesterday Time will only exist if there is love. Love is the solution to this age old controversy. Love man, love. Jon Schubbe wrote at 12:05am So you're saying if there is no love, there is no time and therefore the world comes to a halt indefinitely? Genius, Cruder, genius. Delete Matthew Cruder (Severna Park Senior High) wrote at 12:32am Hey man, I'm just here for the love. Jon Schubbe wrote at 12:32am I notice Delete George Furbish (Chatham High) wrote at 1:08am Fuck the Higg's Boson, the folks at CERN should look for love!