Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ramen · 10-15-2002, 07:35 PM

In the following link, it's proposed that a paradox in quantum physics can be solved if we propose that time does NOT exist. I don't know jack about quantum physics, so I'm hoping some of you who do can share your thoughts on the following link...

<a href="http://www.near-death.com/experiences/physics2.html" target="_blank">http://www.near-death.com/experiences/physics2.html</a>

Liquidrage · 10-15-2002, 07:45 PM

This is best sutied for the Science forum.
But..

The argument is generally semantical in that it really is stating that time is not a fluid process but can be broken down into smallest segments of time, his "nows".
Much like Zeno's arrow is either where it is or where it isn't, so is everything in Barber's theory.
Many people have this view (Smolin uses it and provides references to others that do as well in Three Roads to Quantum Gravity) but they do not semantically throw away the concept of time.

It also uses the theory that what seperates the past from the future is that the future has the past built into it.

Monkeybot · 10-15-2002, 07:50 PM

Agreed, I think this would find a better home in Science and Skepticism.

atrahasis · 10-15-2002, 11:27 PM

Time does not exist...period.....all what we perceive as time is change...

1)Just before the big bang, there was no time..
2)The upcoming superstring theory is taking a timeless direction...

Ted Hoffman · 10-15-2002, 11:35 PM

So long as there is change, Time exists.
GR states that there is no ABSOLUTE time.
Thats why the twin paradox makes sense in GR: (the twin paradox is about twins who are separated - one leaves the earth at the speed of light while leaving the other behind - when he comes back, he would find his brother is much older than him [because time moves faster closer to the earth - the greater the gravitational energy, the higher the frequency - so the further away from gravity, the slower the frequencies thus the length of time between one light wave crest and another is longer so time moves slower away from the earth]) - its a paradox for those who beleive that there is absolute time.
The whole idea is that each one of us has his own personal time depending on where and how he is moving (sometimes referred to as ones frame of reference).
Read some intro in GR, about time dilation and length contraction and you will have a clear understanding of time.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Friar Bellows · 10-16-2002, 12:47 AM

SR, too, Intensity. It makes sense in special relativity, too.

echidna · 10-16-2002, 01:05 AM

Peeramid, you do Julian Barbour a disservice by quoting him from a second-rate mechanical engineer�s homepage. Mechanical engineers are notoriously unreliable sources of information.

I think this site allows Barbour to explain himself a little better than Monsieur Rollins.

<a href="http://www.bygatita.com/Truth/time_barbour.html" target="_blank">http://www.bygatita.com/Truth/time_barbour.html</a>

From what I can tell, his notion that time is an illusion created by consciousness seems popular with those with a New Age leaning, but less so with the conservative mainstream scientists who would rather that consciousness itself was an illusion.

Despite that, the concept seems to have some substance albeit out of left field. Can�t get my mind around it for the moment, but his concept of Platonia seems interesting. Pardon a long quote.

Quote:

BARBOUR: Let's take a simple model; suppose there were just three particles in the universe and nothing else. In some instant they would be in certain positions relative to each other and would form some triangle. Newton claimed that this triangle has in addition some position in absolute space and that it's changing in time. What I'm saying is that there isn't any of that external framework of space and time, there's just the possible triangles that the particles form. The triangles do not occur somewhere in absolute space at some instant of time, some Now. The triangles are the Nows. You are forced to some view like this if the invisible framework is denied. If we had a universe with a million particles in it there would be some relative configuration of those million particles and nothing else. That would form one Now, and all the different ways you could arrange all the million particles would make all the different possible Nows. I think the actual Nows of this universe are more sophisticated constructs involving fields, but Nows formed by arrangements of particles can get the idea across.

JB: Didn't Einstein abolish Nows?

BARBOUR: In fact no. He only showed that they do not follow one another in a unique sequence. There is no absolute simultaneity in the universe, or at least not in the classical universe. But relative simultaneity remains, and Nows as I define them form an integral part of Einstein's theory. Actually the discovery of Dirac that started all my interest in time was that Nows appeared to be far more significant in the quantum world than one might have expected coming from the normal interpretation of Einstein's relativity.

What really intrigues me is that the totality of all possible Nows of any definite kind has a very special structure. You can think of it as a landscape, or country. Each point in the country is a Now. I call it Platonia, because it is timeless and created by perfect mathematical rules. Most strikingly, it is lopsided with a most definite end and frontiers that are there by sheer logical necessity. For example, if you consider triangles as Nows, the land of these Nows comes to an absolute end in the degenerate triangle in which all three particles coincide. This point is so special I call it Alpha. Other frontiers, like ribs, are formed by the special triangles in which two particles coincide and the third is at some distance from them. Finally, another kind of frontier is formed by collinear configurations � all the three particles are on one line. The Platonia for triangles is like a pyramid with three faces. Its apex is Alpha. All the points on its faces correspond to collinear configurations, and the faces meet in the ribs formed by the triangles with two coincident vertices.

JB: I like the sound of Platonia, but what is it good for?

BARBOUR: My conjecture is that some Platonia is the true arena of the universe and that its structure has a deep influence on whatever physics, classical or quantum, is played out in it. In particular, I believe the phenomenon that we call the Big Bang is not some violent explosion that took place in the distant past. It is simply the highly special place in Platonia that I call Alpha.

JB: I never heard or read other physicists talk like that. What do they make of Platonia?

BARBOUR: Platonia is a special case of a very basic concept in physics called a configuration space. It has been around for a long time, long before relativity. The technical name for any Platonia is a stratified manifold � the strata are what I call frontiers. Stratified manifolds are what remain if you take the potentially redundant absolute structure out of configuration spaces. Stratified manifolds have been recognized as significant for at least sixty years. But somehow configuration spaces, or the leaner stratified manifolds, have never acquired the
glamor of Einstein's space � time or the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics. They are the Cinderellas of theoretical physics. I see quantum cosmology as the Prince Charming that cannot live without them. It's a hunch I have come to from thinking so much about those basic questions: What is time? What is motion?

JB: So what do you do in Platonia?

BARBOUR: There are two tasks: first of all, can you describe classical physics using that picture? That's really where my main work has been done, showing that everything Newton could do with absolute space and time can be done more economically in Platonia. That's the first thing Bertotti and I showed. Then we found that Einstein's general relativity, which was created as a theory of space � time, can be recast as a timeless theory in the appropriate Platonia. This is closely related to the discovery that Dirac made and leads on to the second task: what are the implications of the 'Platonic structure' of general relativity in the quantum universe? This is relevant because quantum theories are generally arrived at by starting from a classical picture and performing something which is called quantization.

Maybe not Barbour himself, but I suspect our next breakthrough to the understanding of the universe will be from someone who makes some fairly shattering assertions which are difficult to swallow.

atrahasis · 10-16-2002, 01:48 AM

We occupy a place in space, but we do not occupy a place in time, simply because time does not exist. Time is only a tool to help us make calculations, mostly for predicting movement.

Look around you for a moment. Do you see that stuff between you and the wall across from you? That is space, and there is an infinate supply of it. Without space, there wouldn't be any place to put anything.

Time is sometimes confused, or put into the same context, with evolution and space. Life can spawn, evolve, and die without the assistance of time. Life cannot flourish without a space for it to occupy.

Ronin · 10-16-2002, 03:36 AM

Time is a measurement of agreed upon 'relative intervals' relating to observable 'relative changes'.

As long as we insist on itemizing and quantifying 'stuff' we detect with our nervous systems then time is a necessary component.

The moment we realize that 'signs' are no longer required then the StarBreed can return to pick us all up.

Answerer · 10-16-2002, 03:53 AM

Sorry guys, but I thought that the discussion of whether time exists or not had been debated for many times already, can't we change something new?

10-15-2002, 07:35 PM	#1
Ramen Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Uppa U.S. Posts: 1,153	Does Time Exist? In the following link, it's proposed that a paradox in quantum physics can be solved if we propose that time does NOT exist. I don't know jack about quantum physics, so I'm hoping some of you who do can share your thoughts on the following link... <a href="http://www.near-death.com/experiences/physics2.html" target="_blank">http://www.near-death.com/experiences/physics2.html</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2002, 07:45 PM	#2
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	This is best sutied for the Science forum. But.. The argument is generally semantical in that it really is stating that time is not a fluid process but can be broken down into smallest segments of time, his "nows". Much like Zeno's arrow is either where it is or where it isn't, so is everything in Barber's theory. Many people have this view (Smolin uses it and provides references to others that do as well in Three Roads to Quantum Gravity) but they do not semantically throw away the concept of time. It also uses the theory that what seperates the past from the future is that the future has the past built into it.

10-15-2002, 07:50 PM	#3
Monkeybot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 8,102	Agreed, I think this would find a better home in Science and Skepticism.

10-15-2002, 11:27 PM	#4
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	Time does not exist...period.....all what we perceive as time is change... 1)Just before the big bang, there was no time.. 2)The upcoming superstring theory is taking a timeless direction...

10-15-2002, 11:35 PM	#5
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	So long as there is change, Time exists. GR states that there is no ABSOLUTE time. Thats why the twin paradox makes sense in GR: (the twin paradox is about twins who are separated - one leaves the earth at the speed of light while leaving the other behind - when he comes back, he would find his brother is much older than him [because time moves faster closer to the earth - the greater the gravitational energy, the higher the frequency - so the further away from gravity, the slower the frequencies thus the length of time between one light wave crest and another is longer so time moves slower away from the earth]) - its a paradox for those who beleive that there is absolute time. The whole idea is that each one of us has his own personal time depending on where and how he is moving (sometimes referred to as ones frame of reference). Read some intro in GR, about time dilation and length contraction and you will have a clear understanding of time. [ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

10-16-2002, 12:47 AM	#6
Friar Bellows Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: arse-end of the world Posts: 2,305	SR, too, Intensity. It makes sense in special relativity, too.

10-16-2002, 01:48 AM	#8
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	We occupy a place in space, but we do not occupy a place in time, simply because time does not exist. Time is only a tool to help us make calculations, mostly for predicting movement. Look around you for a moment. Do you see that stuff between you and the wall across from you? That is space, and there is an infinate supply of it. Without space, there wouldn't be any place to put anything. Time is sometimes confused, or put into the same context, with evolution and space. Life can spawn, evolve, and die without the assistance of time. Life cannot flourish without a space for it to occupy.

10-16-2002, 03:36 AM	#9
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Time is a measurement of agreed upon 'relative intervals' relating to observable 'relative changes'. As long as we insist on itemizing and quantifying 'stuff' we detect with our nervous systems then time is a necessary component. The moment we realize that 'signs' are no longer required then the StarBreed can return to pick us all up.

10-16-2002, 03:53 AM	#10
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Sorry guys, but I thought that the discussion of whether time exists or not had been debated for many times already, can't we change something new?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.