This is the question asked to several physicists, a few of whom, or at least the first two, who, at this precise juncture, are the only two I've listened to ( I am listening to the rest ) appear to agree with my position that time is an illusion or at least have given it some weight. I've always held the view that time is an illusion of the juxtaposition of that which will exist and that which has existed to that which does exist (present time). Both views, that it's fundamental, that it's an illusion, are discussed in fascinating depth in a series of short interviews. Christopher Isham suggested time is of great interest to physics and philosophy, which I find interesting. https://www.closertotruth.com/series/time-fundamental
I think this thread is outside the ability of people here to make meaningful contribution. One might see this in the Markopoulou interview. She points out that time is pretty darn fundamental to quantum mechanism. In fact, it's more fundamental than is mass. And, we see others go the other way, thinking that time is an illusion. The main point here is that there are theoretical physicists who are working seriously hard on attempting to find a model that includes both gravity and quantum mechanics. In fact, while physics uses quantum mechanics continuously. However, there isn't a fundamental understanding of why the tool works! Each of these people have general directions on how to go about this problem. And, these interviews are not nearly enough to convey what has been refuted, what is agreed, what comports with experimentation, what their full model might look like, whether their model successfully includes gravity and quantum mechanics, etc.
Depends If YOU Are Omnipotent, y'think? Observer's view. Or Consider De-Acceleration Physics. If acceleration counts, Why Not De-Acceleration? But, hey, I Am Not A Diving For $ Scientist! Moi Stop Continental Drift!
What I got from ( at least the first two interviews ) is that it depends on how time is being looked at, and, therefore, both views are valid plus the third view that no one really knows what time is.
It very well could be an illusion, but only in a similar way that everything else is an illusion. People say free will is an illusion, but until someone predicts what I will do with 100% accuracy, the illusion is still reality- I am able to choose to do things that arent predicted. In the same way, until someone travels back in time, it doesn't really matter if time is technically an illusion because the illusion is effectively reality.
Unfortunately , time seems to be fundamental at least as far as we can experience. My mirror tells me so. However, and here is the big question mark, I also believe that after death, we regenerate into forces (light and heat) or matter (in cemeteries). I confirm this via Antoine Lavoiser's law that matter can neither be created or destroyed. ie the sum total of "existing creation" is unchanging , just converted into different forms. So what is here NOW has always been and always will be, if he was right. That implies infinity. HOWEVER, we also take seriously the theory that creation involved something coming from nothing...even if nothing is forces we don't yet understand . and it has been shown that matter and anti-matter can spring into and out of "existence" in a vacuum. So that denies that infinity may be possible because the existence of these articles is in Time. However (there is always a however) as said, the appearance and disappearance of these particles my SEEM to be something from nothing, but that we just don't yet know the full extent of " creation", so Lavoisier was right and infinity does exist.
I don't see a way for both these views to be "valid". Surely one is correct and the other is not. How can something be emergent AND fundamental? Isn't that a contradiction? And yes, physicists don't know. That answer is clearly correct.
Let's remember that Einstein has shown that energy = mass (with a conversion factor). And, physics shows that the vacuum of space has energy. So, having that energy become mass for a moment and then become energy again is something that conforms to what Einstein has shown and is observed by physicists in laboratory conditions. Maybe enough energy came together for this universe to emerge, with the big bang expanding that energy and with some turning to mass and some not turning to mass. That wouldn't be a "creation" event - it would be an energy reorganization event.
I've listened to the first two videos, and will continue listen to the rest, today. Perhaps you'd like to get some input by prominent physicists on the subject. Link provided in the 'Is Time Fundamental" OP.
Sean Carroll is a reasonably prominent and actively publishing theoretical physicist who in my opinion does a better job of explaining time. He states what is not known. In my opinion he gives a clearer context for what he says than do these other interviewees. He has tons of stuff both written and on youtube. He's very interested in reaching an audience that is not steeped in Phd level theoretical physics or philosophy. He also has a podcast where he interviews notable physicists, Dr. Penrose, for example, as well as those whose are significant thinkers on the philosophy side of these same questions. I've posted his youtubes before, especially related to the difference in time and cosmology between Newton and Einstein. "Time" features in the titles of many his works. I'd suggest looking at some titles and see what you think.
I think the question hinted at in this thread is whether time is "fundamental" or whether it is "emergent". The next problem is that really understanding what the difference is is just not being presented, because what we as civilians know about time works perfectly well under either model. In either model, we know the past. We know the present. And, we know a lot about the future, too, but not as accurately. In either model we can look at events and know which direction time is moving. I think those interviews that Da Silva cited each need significant explanation and context. They don't present a complete model of time. Rather than teaching us about time, it's more like they are talking about the cool new aspects that they're focused on. And, I do think that these models require some drawings of what is being discussed - which is not present. I've suggested and cited Dr. Sean Carroll, as he is very interested in a civilian audience, and is very much interested in presenting the major viewpoints in a fair manner, including those he himself doesn't espouse. He's careful to mention proponents of different ideas so it's not just about Carroll. He's all over the internet, and has at least one series that includes time as works from Newton's view to relativity and then to quantum mechanics.
Amen. Any question about whether time is "real" needs some serious explanation concerning what the heck that actually means. We know the past actually happened - we were there, plus all sorts of clear evidence. We know a lot about the future, too, just not everything in detail. And, the "now" is constantly changing. Any suggestion that the "now" of a second ago isn't "real" needs some explanation more than just saying it isn't "now" anymore - an explanation concerning the level of importance and impact of that change.
Some of this stuff comes from Einstein. His mathematics combined time and space into a single entity. His theories are golden in the physical community. I'm not sure that mathematics is the answer to all physical mysteries.
Amen. In my view, Physicists deeply depend on math, but as a descriptive medium. Trying to keep facts and relationships they observe in mind without math would be impossible for a human. And, combining relationships would be ridiculously hard if one doesn't use math. Einstein communicated what he found using math. But, the revelations of Einstein and other physicists come from those physicists, not from mathematics. For example, if what was observed had been different, they would have used different math to describe it.
Of course. But combining space and time didn't arise from observation. Such a thing is not observable. It arose just from mathematics to help explain other theoretical concepts. I'm not criticizing mathematics as an important scientific tool. I'm just adding some perspective to the the discussion. I'm not only a defender of science, I am a fan of it. When it comes to cosmology, most things are a mystery and not observable. The scientific method works its way toward an explanation and full understanding but it hasn't progressed very far with cosmology because of the inaccessibility of the subject under study.
Actually, Einstein's ideas on space/time arose from the thought experiments that he designed. And, those DID come from observations - not of space-time directly, but of how things work, culminating in the theory that space and time had to be unified in order to address what was observed. It was then verified by experiments designed to carefully observe what Einstein predicted. That's true with the physics advances of today, too. The issues of the last 100 years have come from having questions and making observations of phenomena in the area. Dark energy doesn't come from math. It comes from measuring the cosmos. Dark matter doesn't come from math, it comes from measuring how galaxies behave, how light behaves, etc. Science IS about observation. Math is a tool used for recording, applying, and communicating what is found by observation. Math and physics are not tied together by any underlying truth. In fact, math and physics have sharp differences in logic. Math has nothing in it that has anything to do with our physical world.
Well, mathematics certainly includes infinities. In fact, there is a classification system for infinities in math, as not all infinities in math are equal. We know the size of the observable portion of our universe, because we know things like the speed of light and the expansion rate of the universe. So, astronomers can see at most 46.5 B light years in every direction. And, it is known that galaxies are leaving that radius due to the expansion rate, so we will never see them again, because of the cosmic speed limit for light. I do not know of a physicist who believes we have direct evidence of whether the universe is infinite. I think infinite would be the case that the universe is folded back on itself in some way. Somehow this needs to be reconciled with the age of the universe being 18.5 B years (as I remember). One can't reach infinity in a straight line in fixed time, obviously, so it has to be an issue of geometry - like a line on the surface of a ball. I thought this was still a reasonably open question.
RE: Is time fundamental? SUBTOPIC: Time and Infinity ※→ fmw, et al, I am not so sure that these concepts are valid as they are expressed here. (COMMENT) "Time" does not necessarily have a dependence or direct relationship to "infinity." It is based on time (t) = distance (d) / speed (s) or t = d/s (in a uniform motion) IF the distance (d) is infinite THEN the solution is undefined. Speed, as we know it today, has a limit relative to the outside observer. It cannot be infinite as we understand relativity today. ______________________________________________________________________ At the current time, energy in its small unit, is measured in single packets called quantum (when I went to school a photon is a single quantum of light). One quantum of energy is the smallest number. While we say any quantity can be divided infinately, that is not exactly true. There is no such number that can represent a factional part of a quantum. Because a fraction of a quantum is beyond imaginable use. In mathematics, "infinity" is not a number (and you cannot use the number+1trick). Infinity is a concept. But to get to insanely large numbers, you have to invent a new kind of notation (Rayo's Number). I was amazed by the Up Arrow notion, but it goes beyond that. But even this insanely x insanely large number is still finite. Agustín Rayo is a Mexican philosopher of logic, metaphysics, and language. He is not a mathematician. I have a PhD in Metapysics, and I have a hard time understanding Googleplex, let alone up-arrow notation and so on until you get to Rayo's Number. Just My Thought, Most Respectfully, R
I didn't say it had anything to do with time. I said it has something to do with mathematics and doesn't exist in nature.
