Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Would time exist without an observer?

#11
Leigha Offline
However we define time, does it really explain the fundamental nature of it? Science “uses” time as a tool which gives the impression that time is objective to a scientist but to a lay person, it’s subjective?
Reply
#12
Syne Offline
(Nov 6, 2020 05:59 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: In a 2D+1 universe absent of depth, would we look at time the same way? IOW's how critical is depth to time measurement or perception?

It would be the same, as different events could still happen in the same 2D location.

(Nov 6, 2020 06:17 PM)Leigha Wrote: However we define time, does it really explain the fundamental nature of it? Science “uses” time as a tool which gives the impression that time is objective to a scientist but to a lay person, it’s subjective?

Time is objective, just like we can have different subjective views of the same objective space. But yeah, just because we can measure something scientifically doesn't mean we understand how it works.

Personally, I think science is most lacking in its fundamental understanding of time. Lots of physicists nowadays like to write it off as emergent, but I think understanding time explains everything.
Reply
#13
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 6, 2020 04:49 AM)Leigha Wrote: I guess what surprises me about the concept of time, is that for something so illusory, it's necessary for our existence.

What’s surprising to me is that most people want more of it but spend most of thier time trying to kill it.

I'm doing it right now. Big Grin
Reply
#14
Leigha Offline
(Nov 7, 2020 03:53 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 6, 2020 04:49 AM)Leigha Wrote: I guess what surprises me about the concept of time, is that for something so illusory, it's necessary for our existence.

What’s surprising to me is that most people want more of it but spend most of thier time trying to kill it.

I'm doing it right now. Big Grin

ha, so true!  Blush
Reply
#15
Zinjanthropos Offline
Don't laugh....I'm just musing.....

If you could slice time into a photo frame, like movie film, would the thinnest you could make it be one photon? If so, how many frames would make up one second? 

If so would that make time the continuous movement of photon thick frames passing by sensory equipment?

Does time ever begin for a photon? Travelling at c, I'm thinking theoretically no time elapses for a photon but when it strikes an observer's eye does that change?
Reply
#16
C C Offline
(Nov 16, 2020 06:51 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Don't laugh....I'm just musing.....

If you could slice time into a photo frame, like movie film, would the thinnest you could make it be one photon? If so, how many frames would make up one second? 


Planck-time is the "smallest" inferred temporal unit. Doesn't mean, though, that if the history of the universe was sliced-up into flip book pages, that each page would definitely or objectively be a Planck-time in duration. It's just the most mathematically significant "elemental" measurement (that arguably can never be executed).

As I've mentioned in the past, a variable, microseconds long instance of human consciousness that serves as our specious "now" for everyday experiences is a gigantic elephant compared to subatomic events or changes. Our subjective "now" would have to extend over a multitude of most of the intervals below. (Something like George Berkeley's immaterialism could perhaps get around that demotion of our faux "now" because even its objective version of the world only exists in minds (or God). Arguably not even the latter in a sense context, since he later clarified that God only harbored an intellectual version of the world similar to Plato's or Pythagoras' strain, which was the source of the phenomenal one for ordinary minds -- i.e., conversion from one to the other.)

Orders of magnitude (time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_...ude_(time)

(Nov 16, 2020 06:51 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [...] Does time ever begin for a photon? Travelling at c, I'm thinking theoretically no time elapses for a photon but when it strikes an observer's eye does that change?


Vaguely similar to a long highway depicted on a map, conceiving a photon as an extended worldline running through spacetime would simply have it "existing" from beginning to end -- i.e., it wouldn't be constantly "happening", anyway. Also, it lacks a brain needed for noting any supposed differences pertaining to itself along such a route, so a timeless or change-less "perspective" would not present problems for it in that respect, either.
Reply
#17
Leigha Offline
This guy ^ was banned under the name Doesitmatter on sci forums, yesterday. He’s a sock puppet of another banned member there.
Reply
#18
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Nov 17, 2020 02:12 PM)Leigha Wrote: This guy ^ was banned under the name Doesitmatter on sci forums, yesterday. He’s a sock puppet of another banned member there.

No surprise there Big Grin 

I don’t know if anyone gets banned here so I just don’t respond. I think there’s an ignore button but never been my choice.
Reply
#19
Leigha Offline
(Nov 17, 2020 02:17 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
(Nov 17, 2020 02:12 PM)Leigha Wrote: This guy ^ was banned under the name Doesitmatter on sci forums, yesterday. He’s a sock puppet of another banned member there.

No surprise there Big Grin 

I don’t know if anyone gets banned here so I just don’t respond. I think there’s an ignore button but never been my choice.

Same. Not sure why his original account was banned but since then, he spams threads with that ^^ lol
Reply
#20
Zinjanthropos Offline
More musings....

If you take a photograph, then take that 2D image and keep stretching it out in all directions will the image eventually show individual photons with a space between them?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  My Understanding of Observer-Participancy in Physics Ostronomos 2 513 May 22, 2018 03:20 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)