4 ms·

There is no time. Time has no physical representation. Time is an anthropomorphic abstraction and a mathematical concept that helps us track and understand the

There is no time. Time has no physical representation. Time is an anthropomorphic abstraction and a mathematical concept that helps us track and understand the flow of processes, but there is no time as a dimension, particle, or a constraint that limits the physics of our universe. There is only now. Time travel will never be possible, other than the side effects of time dilation from gravity or energy/motion. Gravity is not a particle or a wave either; it is merely a curvature of space (not space-time curvature, as time is a side effect of our observation and ability to remember and extrapolate. Time dilation is a slowdown of the process, though mathematically it is convenient to use the space-time concept) caused by mass or energy. There is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, any possible time-travel mechanics just show a hole in our understanding of the universe. I will print this text and eat the printout as soon as someone provides physical evidence of the graviton or time as anything other than an abstract concept or tool

galaxyLogic 3y ago
If you move very fast, or accelerate a lot, time moves slower for you. I think there is experimental evidence for this from the satellites put up. When you travel in a rocket like that and time moves slower for you it means when your rocket comes back to Earth for whose habitants time did not move slower (like for you the Rocket-Man) therefore you can spend a week in your rocket in the orbit etc. and when you come back, a year has passed for people and everything on the surface of the Earth. Thus time-travel is possible and even trivial there is empirical proof of it, when you want to move to the future. Moving to the past is a different story and seems like it is impossible because of the paradoxes involved. But this new paper seems to suggest that it is theoretically, if not technically possible.
- pk-protect-ai 3y ago
  Have you fully read my comment? Time dilation is not proof of the existence of time as a physical entity, it is proof of different process speeds. This seems redundant and recursive, but time means something only for a sentient observer. There is no requirement in a time as a particle or dimension for the universe to exist and function. Time dilation does not imply that there is a past you can return to. You can't use time dilation as proof of the existence of time. The mere existence of photons is possible only because of the time dilation effect as we call it. However, if you look at it from the perspective of different speeds of process flows under the effects of time dilation, you will see that time is not a physical entity, it is our means of perceiving changes. So, this time travel to the future at relativistic speed is actually the same process but at a slower rate of change. I know it makes it complicated because of how we measure things, we need time to perceive changes and measure them, but it does not actually mean that time exists as a physical entity. Assume it will be possible to freeze you to absolute 0 and unfreeze you afterwards and revive. Let's say we freeze you in New York, and move your frozen body to San Francisco. You wake up and here is your spacetime travel.
  - galaxyLogic 3y ago
    These are all semantic ontological questions which are worth thinking about. What would it mean that "time exists" vs. "time does not exist"? What would be some consequences of time existing or not? I tend to take a practical viewpoint: I can travel thousand years into the future of our planet by moving fast enough in space and coming back. Time-travel into the future works. Whether that means that "time exists" or not, I don't really care because I can't see practical consequences of that. What would be some verifiable consequences of time existing, or not?
    - pk-protect-ai 3y ago
      > What would be some consequences of time existing or not? The recognition of time as a non-fundamental concept reduces the amount of falsehood in the thinking process. Have you ever thought about why time is externalized in quantum physics? For example, if you look at the Schrödinger equation, what do you see? I've heard in recent discussions that there are attempts to make time responsible for gravitation as well. It seems so convenient. However, if you think about it a little bit deeper, you can see that it's the gravitational gradient that is responsible for time dilation. Interchanging the cause and effect was never proven to be useful. Yes, fantasy is very important for progress, though accepting time as a fundamental part of the universe's mechanics without any kind of empirical evidence is not really scientific. Einstein's spacetime and Minkowski's spacetime are amazingly useful abstractions. However, time as a physical entity or dimension in these concepts has never received any empirical evidence. No, time dilation is not a proof of time as a dimension or part of the universe's clockwork.
      - galaxyLogic 3y ago
        It is hard to wrap our minds around the concept of "Time", since we exist in it. Like fish in the sea are not aware that the sea exists. For humans it took a long time to realize that there is something called "air" around us. Or that Earth is round even though it looks flat from where we are looking at it currently. Yet, the gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been empirically verified, by scientists. They can measure how much faster or slower time passes under specific conditions. So we can "measure time itself", not just how long other physical processes take. If and since we can measure time itself, it gives credence to the claim that time exists as a measurable entity. It is something we can measure as separate from all other measurable things. If you can measure something, I would say it exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experim... : "Because the Hafele–Keating experiment has been reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. "

galaxyLogic 3y ago

If you move very fast, or accelerate a lot, time moves slower for you. I think there is experimental evidence for this from the satellites put up. When you travel in a rocket like that and time moves slower for you it means when your rocket comes back to Earth for whose habitants time did not move slower (like for you the Rocket-Man) therefore you can spend a week in your rocket in the orbit etc. and when you come back, a year has passed for people and everything on the surface of the Earth. Thus time-travel is possible and even trivial there is empirical proof of it, when you want to move to the future. Moving to the past is a different story and seems like it is impossible because of the paradoxes involved. But this new paper seems to suggest that it is theoretically, if not technically possible.

pk-protect-ai 3y ago
Have you fully read my comment? Time dilation is not proof of the existence of time as a physical entity, it is proof of different process speeds. This seems redundant and recursive, but time means something only for a sentient observer. There is no requirement in a time as a particle or dimension for the universe to exist and function. Time dilation does not imply that there is a past you can return to. You can't use time dilation as proof of the existence of time. The mere existence of photons is possible only because of the time dilation effect as we call it. However, if you look at it from the perspective of different speeds of process flows under the effects of time dilation, you will see that time is not a physical entity, it is our means of perceiving changes. So, this time travel to the future at relativistic speed is actually the same process but at a slower rate of change. I know it makes it complicated because of how we measure things, we need time to perceive changes and measure them, but it does not actually mean that time exists as a physical entity. Assume it will be possible to freeze you to absolute 0 and unfreeze you afterwards and revive. Let's say we freeze you in New York, and move your frozen body to San Francisco. You wake up and here is your spacetime travel.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  These are all semantic ontological questions which are worth thinking about. What would it mean that "time exists" vs. "time does not exist"? What would be some consequences of time existing or not? I tend to take a practical viewpoint: I can travel thousand years into the future of our planet by moving fast enough in space and coming back. Time-travel into the future works. Whether that means that "time exists" or not, I don't really care because I can't see practical consequences of that. What would be some verifiable consequences of time existing, or not?
  - pk-protect-ai 3y ago
    > What would be some consequences of time existing or not? The recognition of time as a non-fundamental concept reduces the amount of falsehood in the thinking process. Have you ever thought about why time is externalized in quantum physics? For example, if you look at the Schrödinger equation, what do you see? I've heard in recent discussions that there are attempts to make time responsible for gravitation as well. It seems so convenient. However, if you think about it a little bit deeper, you can see that it's the gravitational gradient that is responsible for time dilation. Interchanging the cause and effect was never proven to be useful. Yes, fantasy is very important for progress, though accepting time as a fundamental part of the universe's mechanics without any kind of empirical evidence is not really scientific. Einstein's spacetime and Minkowski's spacetime are amazingly useful abstractions. However, time as a physical entity or dimension in these concepts has never received any empirical evidence. No, time dilation is not a proof of time as a dimension or part of the universe's clockwork.
    - galaxyLogic 3y ago
      It is hard to wrap our minds around the concept of "Time", since we exist in it. Like fish in the sea are not aware that the sea exists. For humans it took a long time to realize that there is something called "air" around us. Or that Earth is round even though it looks flat from where we are looking at it currently. Yet, the gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been empirically verified, by scientists. They can measure how much faster or slower time passes under specific conditions. So we can "measure time itself", not just how long other physical processes take. If and since we can measure time itself, it gives credence to the claim that time exists as a measurable entity. It is something we can measure as separate from all other measurable things. If you can measure something, I would say it exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experim... : "Because the Hafele–Keating experiment has been reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. "