11 ms·

New theory suggests time is an illusion created by quantum entanglement

154 points by tlogan 2y ago

Khelavaster 2y ago
Time has quantum oscillations as it's lowest unit of measure. This is alright.
vintermann 2y ago
When they built up this physical theory, they assumed things about time, like that one thing happens after another, countless -- well -- countless times. There is no way to not do that. So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought. But whatever to get hype for your paper, I guess...
- coldtea 2y ago
  That's a facile dismissal if I ever saw one. You can "assume things about time" while writing a paper (including when it's due for sunmission), while still investigating whether the object of those assumptions has some fundamental properties, or whether it is just an emergent phenomenon from more fundamental things with no specific substance to it. Same way we can assume things about color, but still come to the conclusion that the qualia of color are just manufactured in our brain, and that the reality behind color, as far as the universe is concerned, is electromagnetic radiation at various frequences.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > That's a facile dismissal Not really. The paper referenced in this article basically says "time" for a quantum system emerges from entanglement between that system and a clock. What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time. Circular reasoning.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time In colloquial use, a clock is just a set of rotating gears with some spring - or some other such contraption - from sun dials to hourglasses and quartz. It might be used for measuring time, but it's existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time anymore than a drinking glass is based on the concept of liquids to exists. What's more, in this case the "clock" is just an example of an oscillator.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time Its existence as an object is not, but its definition as a clock is. Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. Which, as I said, is circular.
        fuzzfactor 2y ago
        Well Detective Larson, you've come right to the scene for investigation, but the chalk lines hold no clues. If you step away from the blackboard, and go downstairs to the basement where the physical labs are, two doors down from Dr. Frankenstein's lab, you'll find some high-frequency operators who've got an atomic clock. Mrs. Frankenstein will show you the way ;) Yes, they're using the matter itself as a clock. Who does that? What kind of universe is it anyway when nobody's ever needed any other kind of clock since the beginning of . . . time? Oh wait . . .
        coldtea 2y ago
        >Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. No, it's defining it as something that oscillates (literally: an oscillator). Nothing about the concept of time, calendar or otherwise. The analysis is that the flow of time we experience and the properties of time are an emergent property of this kind of physical behaviors existing.
        vintermann 2y ago
        > oscillates Try to explain what "oscillation" is without reference to the concept of time.
- blueprint 2y ago
  ok but what does it mean for anything to "happen"?
  - kfrzcode 2y ago
    I highly recommend listening to Alan Watts speak on this topic; his lecture "We as Organism" is quite compelling, if non-scientific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE
    - nico 2y ago
      Thank you. Not familiar with this lecture, but I love how eloquent Alan Watts was And it’s also great that he credits a lot of his insights to ancient Asian cultures. Essentially explaining that naturally, humans rediscover the nature of the universe, without the need for any special or modern technology, but rather through direct experience of the world
      - kfrzcode 2y ago
        There are many hours of his talks that range from silly to esoteric to outright transcendent, poetry-like explorations and observations of the human condition Highly prescient as well.
        fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >Highly prescient as well. This was already widely recognized as each talk was originally being given. Kind of stream-of-consciousness if you think about it. Or if your head's a blank.
    - lodovic 2y ago
      Having to listen to a 53 minute monologue is too much, especially with the expectation that I won't agree as the podcast is subjective and non-scientific. Could you perhaps provide at least a recap when referring to someone else?
- nico 2y ago
  > So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought If you think it’s pointless, it’s going to be pointless to you whether it’s true or not However, to give an alternative point of view. If you can model time differently and provide some predictions or enable some technology, then having a different understanding of time might be very useful. Even if we still need to use time in the models And that’s been the case with general relativity. For a long time, and for many physical phenomena, Newton laws and models are just fine. But relativity has enabled a lot of better technologies and finer understanding of some things, through re-defining how we model time
SillyUsername 2y ago
Loving this throw away comment without any context: "the only reason that an object appears to change over time is because it is entangled with a clock ... anyone observing the universe externally would see it as completely ... unchanging" How is a clock unchanging? Perhaps it's needs winding, maybe somebody pulled the plug, who knows, but that's the only kind of clock I know that doesn't change.
- Pompidou 2y ago
  Maybe the clock with the myriads of hands rotations is view as a whole ? All the possibles states of this clock would be seen simultaneously ? But this clock is itself made up of many parts, which are in turn composed of atoms, subatomic particles, etc. The set of all possible states of the clock also includes the set of states occupied by the different parts of the clock (down to the subatomic level) over time, before and after the clock is made and then disintegrates. The clock is, in fact, just one state among many of the atoms that make it up. These atoms were scattered before being assembled into a clock, and they will be scattered again when the clock is destroyed. So, we are not really talking about a clock, but rather a set of atoms that may have occupied very different positions in the universe, and whose supposed unity exists only transiently when a human being looks at this clock. In a certain way, considering the clock as outside of time almost turns it into a non-being, or at least a diaphanous and ephemeral being, lost in a cloud of particles randomly distributed throughout the universe.
- prawn 2y ago
  And that paragraph is just about the only meat in the article!
- memorylane 2y ago
  This might be in reference to an idea called the block universe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)#:~:text=It%20is%20sometimes%20referred%20to,by%20the%20passage%20of%20time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_ti....
- nico 2y ago
  It’s not talking about an unchanging clock. It’s saying that change depends on something that runs like a clock, that “ticks”, that alternates sequentially and in cycles An alternative analogy would be: imagine space and time as opposites of a spectrum. If you had just 1 moment in time, with no alternation, no change, then it would be akin to having all the space together at once, nothing moving. In the other extreme, if you had as many moments in time as possible, it would be non-stop change, in a seemingly infinite space that could never be fully explored, “unknowably large”. In a way they are saying that the universe is a sort of superposition of these extremes, and there isn’t any physical difference between them. At least in the models and experiments
ElijahLynn 2y ago
Source: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.052212 https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.0... (paywall)
- antonvs 2y ago
  arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386
  - AIorNot 2y ago
    Summary: The paper presents a theoretical model for understanding the concept of time in quantum mechanics. It builds upon the Page and Wootters (PaW) mechanism, a proposal that suggests time can be treated as a quantum observable. The Problem of Time in Quantum Mechanics In the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, time is not treated as an observable of a system, but rather as an external parameter. This means that time is not represented by an operator in the theory, unlike other physical quantities like position or momentum. This has been a long-standing issue in quantum mechanics, often referred to as the "problem of time." The Page and Wootters (PaW) Mechanism The PaW mechanism offers a potential solution to this problem. It proposes that time can be defined operationally by using a quantum system as a clock. The idea is that the state of the clock system is entangled with the state of the system whose evolution we want to track. By measuring the state of the clock, we can infer the time for the evolving system. The Model The paper presents a specific implementation of the PaW mechanism. It considers two quantum systems: The Evolving System (Γ): This is a harmonic oscillator, a system that exhibits simple oscillatory motion. The Clock (C): This is a magnetic system, like a spin in a magnetic field. The two systems are assumed to be non-interacting but entangled. This means that their states are correlated in a way that cannot be described classically. The entanglement is crucial for the PaW mechanism to work. Quantum to Classical Transition The paper explores how the quantum description of time transitions into a classical-like behavior under certain conditions. This is done by considering the case where the clock system becomes macroscopic, meaning it behaves more like a classical object. In this limit, the quantum description of time gives way to the familiar classical notion of time as a continuous parameter. Key Findings The paper's key findings include: Operational Definition of Time: The model provides an explicit way to define time operationally using a quantum clock. Quantum to Classical Transition: The model demonstrates how the quantum description of time can transition into a classical-like behavior as the clock system becomes macroscopic. Energy Scale of the Clock: The model highlights the importance of the energy scale of the clock in its ability to accurately describe the dynamics of the evolving system. Implications This work has potential implications for our understanding of time in quantum mechanics and its connection to classical physics. It could also be relevant for areas like quantum gravity, where the nature of time is a central question.
roughly 2y ago
If this topic interests you and you’d actually like some content on it, I can’t recommend Carlo Rovelli’s “The Order of Time” enough: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-order-of-time-carlo-rovelli/9709825 https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-order-of-time-carlo-rovelli... Rovelli is an absolutely wonderful author - you’ll arrive at the end of that book maybe not actually understanding quantum mechanics fully, but at least feeling like you’ve been given a glimpse of them.
- sdwr 2y ago
  Fantastic book, from what I remember it was more of an autobiography with some math sprinkled in. But he's a really good writer and seems like a wonderful person.
- adolph 2y ago
  That book is poetic. I need to reread it paired with Marletto’s Science of Can and Can’t.
- jddj 2y ago
  Seconded, very nicely written. Shook my foundations a little, I remember my partner and I were hiking for a few days at the time I was reading it and I recall having to drag myself back out of my head to experience the mountains
- tessellated 2y ago
  Combined with Benedict Cumberbatch's narration this makes my favourite audiobook.
WantonQuantum 2y ago
Sean Carroll’s site is a great place to read about this sort of stuff in an accessible way: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/07/18/space-emerging-from-quantum-mechanics/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/07/18/space-e...
- tlogan 2y ago
  The idea that time is emergent is considered unproven by most scientists. However, I personally believe there is some validity to it, even though I haven't found a single paper that convincingly supports this idea. I must admit that even some papers that are widely accepted as accurate are difficult for me to grasp and believe, as they are beyond my understanding and knowledge.
  - Guthur 2y ago
    I'd recommend Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will for mind opening view of time. Imo it elaborates on the distinction between space time and our temporal experience.
    - saintkaye 2y ago
      Does it explain why orangic matter deteriorates and has almost no example where it does not over extended time?
      - neom 2y ago
        Philosophically, one could argue that the distinction between organic and inorganic matter is somewhat arbitrary since, at the most fundamental level, everything is simply matter. If you wanted to go in that direction, it would probably be fair to say something like it deteriorated, simply because it's programmed to. It would also make sense evolution would choose not to change this programming.
      - Guthur 2y ago
        Is it destroyed? does matter some how disappear or is it just it transformed from one form to another? Why did consciousness arise from matter at all, does it disappear or is it transformed. If you only limit yourself to what you can see then existence is rather dull and seemingly mechanically. Every time we look we see little more, and so is there really anything to suggest there is not more beyond what we can or will ever see.
crystaln 2y ago
I’m not sure how an explanation for how time functions means that time is an illusion?
- CodeGroyper 2y ago
  I guess the word illusion is misused, as in a traffic jam is an illusion because it's just too many cars on too little road. I don't think illusion is meant like hallucinations. But if it is meant that way, then I guess I can't be convinced anyway, since without time I can't change my mind from not believing that to believing it.
richardman 2y ago
[flagged]
TrueGeek 2y ago
lunchtime doubly so
- foobar1962 2y ago
  Thanks for saving me the trouble to post that. Somebody needed to. DA - RIP.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  Thankfully, a Hoopy Frood was available this day.
spacedcowboy 2y ago
I have to say, it’s a pretty convincing illusion…
Xcelerate 2y ago
This phrase has always annoyed me. And if time isn’t an illusion, how does that come across differently than if it is?
- jc6 2y ago
  [flagged]
- nightowl_games 2y ago
  I agree. As a metaphysical ponderer, I often consider how "illusion" is fundamental to our understanding of science. Consider this: all physical laws and theories are verified through human experience on a time scale, ie: under these conditions, you will observe this result. There is always an observer and at least two points in time. Time, and observation of it, is the ground truth of all physical laws, of our very experience of the universe.
  - wordpad 2y ago
    You can also prove things by deriving it mathematically, without need for any observation. Some things can even be counter intuitive like relativity and quantum physics.
    - nightowl_games 2y ago
      Even in your mathematical derivations, there is an implied observer and time line. Ie: "Using these axioms, performing these operations, you will observe this result". (Precondition, action, result)
    - keefle 2y ago
      Valid point, but then I wouldn't consider classical mathematics to be a science
- coldtea 2y ago
  To you personally in everyday life, or in general? Because they're concerned with the latter.
cpncrunch 2y ago
Previously discussed here. A New Scientist article which has more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550164
jumploops 2y ago
atime=bspace
treebeard901 2y ago
Time is a result of entropy. Which is an inherent property of everything in the universe. From when light transmits the first existence of anything to when it returns to nothing after entropy runs its course. Time is just a measurement of degradation.
- wordpad 2y ago
  why dose entropy (and time) have a direction, though? This is famously referred to as "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  I have never understood this, it seems backwards to me. We notice that entropy tends to increase over time, and then say that entropy is a fundamental cause of time? The increase of entropy is a statistical certainty given a causal ordering of events, no new fundamental properties required. It is certainly true that the increase of entropy gives a measurable direction to the arrow of time, i.e. the future is where entropy is higher. But I cannot fathom how entropy is anything more than a statistical effect.
magicalhippo 2y ago
Preprint here[1]. The headline seems a bit click-baity, as it refers to the Page-Wooters mechanism which was introduced 30 years ago, and as mentioned in the paper has been extensively studied. A brief and accessible overview can be found here[2]. However this paper seeks to provide a more concrete and less constrained implementation of the Page-Wooters mechanism in order to connect it to our classical world better that previous attempts. So while probably not a breakthrough paper, a solid step in an interesting direction. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386 [2]: https://quantum-journal.org/views/qv-2019-07-21-16/ https://quantum-journal.org/views/qv-2019-07-21-16/
GenerocUsername 2y ago
Cosmic coincidence that time flows in the direction our brains utilize entropy to encode and retrieve information
- monkeydreams 2y ago
  > Cosmic coincidence that time flows in the direction our brains utilize entropy to encode and retrieve information Memory flows in the same direction as entropic growth. If time actually moved backwards according to an "outside observer" then they would see us remembering the future and holding the past to be unknowable.
petre 2y ago
Douglas Adams — 'Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.' Adams was right all along!
xyst 2y ago
If time is money, and time is an illusion. Power is also determined by money and wealth. By transitive property, money and power is also an illusion.
nico 2y ago
My intuitive, but not mathematical, model is that time is an illusion created by our perception “sampling reality” It’s like when it looks like wheels are spinning backwards, or when using a stroboscopic light you see something different “Time” is just flowing everywhere, not in any particular direction. But our perception assigns things an order, which gives us the impression of direction We are also perceiving multiple times simultaneously. Consider that whatever is on your ears right now, will be converted to electrical signals and then loop through your brain, and potentially trigger a conscious reaction, but right now you have some other signals from some “previous” sound on your brain. So technically, your whole body is perceiving things at different times and trying to blend it all together in an illusion of “present time” that “moves forward” My own, very personal opinion, is that there is no causality, only correlation
- unnouinceput 2y ago
  Getting old and dying seems like a very real causality to me. Let me know when you'll be able to overcome that, I'd love to perform that trick.
  - nico 2y ago
    Well, if you believe in causality, everything that happens in a certain progression might seem as the consequence of a previous event And that seems totally right and it’s a great model to understand our everyday life Now imagine for a second, that the whole universe was a big cycle, and that you are going to be repeating this very same life in a “future” cycle, and maybe infinitely many times Which one of those times is the first one? And what is happening first? Did you die first and then were born again, or were you born first before dying? If it’s a never ending cycle, would you know, or would you just be picking a point that seems convenient to you? At another extreme, when you feel like you are hungry, what is the cause for being hungry? Is it a certain signal in your brain, is a special hormone, is it because you have a habit of eating at a certain time? When exactly do you get hungry and what is the cause? There are pretty much infinite many possible causes to choose, because there are an infinite way of understanding and modeling the meaning of the question and how to answer it Usually we just take the fastest, “most reasonable” explanation as the reason, but it is arbitrary and subjective. Causes are agreements expressed in language and our models, they are not an absolute unbreakable order of reality
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mlboss 2y ago
As the philosopher's say there is no past or future only present. Nothing exists outside the present. All realities(as well as memories) can only be experienced in the current moment.
- skulk 2y ago
  There is no such thing as "the current moment" unless you arbitrarily choose an inertial reference frame.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    We know everything but the current moment only through the fragment of memory active in the current moment, so we don't even know if any past or future has or will ever exist for us to choose.
  - fizx 2y ago
    Most people choose themselves ;)
- yetihehe 2y ago
  Some philosophers also said that everything is made from small unsplittable parts, and even called them "atomos", meaning unsplittable in their language. Then we found them and splitted them, an then we've done that again and now we're on our third or four level of understanding world, while those philosophers try to catch up. Don't hold your breath on any particular philosophy, they are only a questions we didn't answer yet.
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    The fact we jumped the gun and called the first small things we found atoms doesn't mean the philosophers were wrong... It means we were wrong to use that label for those things. We do believe there are unsplittable particles, they are just not what we called atoms. Philosophers still looking good to me.
    - 2y ago
poikroequ 2y ago
Maybe I understand it wrong, but if time is not an illusion, does that mean the past still exists? Hypothetically, if we could reverse the flow of time, would that mean we could travel into the past? I ask this because I have a bit of a paradox regarding time travel. It's pretty simple, presumably we're all sentient beings, and our consciousness is here, now, in the present. The science fiction portrayal of time travel suggests that we could travel into the past and interact with our former selves. But if my conscious mind is here now in the year 2024, then what conscious mind are you talking to in the past? Surely my conscious mind cannot exist in two different eras simultaneously. This little "paradox" of mine has made me ponder the true nature of time. Though more likely these are just the ramblings of a person who has a poor understanding of physics.
- serf 2y ago
  >Surely my conscious mind cannot exist in two different eras simultaneously. mentally I think of it more like save/restore states. the future-person meeting the past person would just be past person+future person as a merged state, the past person would just be a working snapshot of everything before it without the accrued knowledge of future-person. if you're someone who believe in an untouchable intangible non-duplicable 'soul', then it breaks the framework. I see myself more as a collection of experiences, so it jibes well into that concept.
  - kitd 2y ago
    A more interesting idea is whether "you" cease to exist in the present while "you" travel back in time to meet "you" in the past. Ie, If time travel is possible, are there "yous" spread across every moment of your existence? That asks questions of our idea of timeless self-identity or "soul" if you like. Like Trigger's Broom [1], are we the same person as we were yesterday? [1] https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY?si=5_URpP6si31KWIWD https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY?si=5_URpP6si31KWIWD
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwanem 2y ago
m3kw9 2y ago
Is the notion and the feeling of 1 second a human made up thing? Surely the speed of time isn’t invented by us so I wonder if some other beings sense time differently
- skirmish 2y ago
  That has been studied: "A comparison of 138 species finds that dragonflies perceive changes in their environment five times faster than humans and 400 times faster than starfish." [1] [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352665-small-and-speedy-animals-perceive-time-faster-than-big-slow-creatures/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352665-small-and-speed...
tasty_freeze 2y ago
What if time is a a free variable that can freely move forward and backwards, perhaps doing a random walk? The people inside that spacetime (us) couldn't ever tell time changed directions or was going backwards because at any given time "t" the state would consistent with all prior states before t. It would also be consistent with future states of t, but the person at time t can only test for consistency with states prior to the current t, but not future states. To the person it like time is only moving forward.
- yetihehe 2y ago
  > What if time is a a free variable that can freely move forward and backwards, perhaps doing a random walk? It would have to have some measurable effects, distinguishable from "consistency with states prior to the current t". That consistency with previous states is written as t2=t1+X. If t1+X is always "previous state plus some small change", we simplify X to be 1. If you can invent HOW that random walk would manifest, you're up for a nobel prize.
- thehappypm 2y ago
  I’ve thought about this as well. We really only perceive time because we have memory; with no memory (like in 50 First Dates) time stands still. The only thing that breaks this is entropy. Even without memory, you can observe the universe and see how close we are to heat death at any moment. Thats an absolute age
revskill 2y ago
Time is like anti energy to me.
TZubiri 2y ago
It feels as if spending too much time on Physics has some psychotic effect on the mind, not unlike psychotropic substance abuse. There's much wrong in delegating authority over the concept of time to physicists as there is wrong in delegating authority over any concept to any science that did not create it. But of the specific case of Physics dense conception of Time, there's more wrong to point out. However I can only say that the heart better understands time than the mind does.
- bubblyworld 2y ago
  As someone who has tried both, I can assure you that spending too much time on physics is very unlike psychotropic substance abuse.
- asimovfan 2y ago
  What authority is this? Who delegated it? Which concept did science create?
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]
poulpy123 2y ago
> illusion > noun > UK /ɪˈluː.ʒən/ US /ɪˈluː.ʒən/ > an idea or belief that is not true: > have no illusion about He had no illusions about his talents as a singer. > under no illusion I'm under no illusions (= I understand the truth) about the > man I married. > be labouring under the illusion My boss is labouring under the illusion that > > (= wrongly believes that) the project will be completed on time. > something that is not really what it seems to be: > create the illusion of A large mirror in a room can create the illusion of space. > The impression of calm in the office is just an illusion The backpain I started to have since few years tells me that time isn't an illusion
barfbagginus 2y ago
Could be our universe and timeline is a boltzman universe/boltzman timeline embedded in some large timeless crystalline state space. That would kinda suck, because we'd be static crystals. But from the subjective perspective of a self aware sub crystal is maybe not so bad. Perhaps reality is malleable and magical. For instance it might be possible to travel to other universes. From the global view, we have multiple atemporal subjective timelines, with subjective agents popping out of one reality and into another thanks to some crystals and magnets with special geometries. From the subjective view, you have a Rick and Morty episode
- mcronce 2y ago
  I think I'd love to read a fantasy book based on this premise
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    A fantasy book that comes to mind is The Dark Tower, by King. The universe is unraveling into a bundle of broken times and locations, falling apart because the old society "moved on" to another plane of existence... It doesn't have this idea of the the world being a static crystal. But it's interesting to think of a static crystal spacetime that eventually seems to fall apart.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Why would it suck/what would it change? There are so many (largely metaphysical) theories for things that our universe might actually be a subjective emergent phenomenon of (a simulation, somebody's dream, a timeless static meta-universe, just to name a few) – but given that there is subjective consciousness in this universe, does it matter what substrate it's actually embedded in for our (or somebody else's, for that matter) ability to ascribe meaning to the emergent phenomenon itself? In other words, somehow I wouldn't feel much worse about "time not being real" than I'd feel about matter, gravity etc. "not being real", being caused by the vibration of cold, unfeeling superstrings etc.
  - entropicdrifter 2y ago
jb1991 2y ago
[flagged]
tines 2y ago
I've been thinking lately about whether mathematics "is" reality or whether mathematics merely represents reality, and something that I've noticed is that mathematicians and physicists seem to hold the philosophy that if one can create an isomorphism from one thing to another, then both of those things are "real" in some sense. Take the holographic universe idea for example. There is an isomorphism mapping information within a volume to the boundary on that volume's surface; some physicists, like Leonard Susskind afaict, believe therefore that the universe is a hologram, even when there aren't any tests we can do to prove that the universe can only be a hologram because only holograms behave in such and such a way. But when I think about it, this seems like a massive leap. We can hypothetically come up with isomorphisms that map, say, the four fundamental forces to like, four angels that work behind the scenes to orchestrate all the interactions in the universe. But that doesn't mean there really are four angels doing this. I suppose this is what someone means when they say we've "confused the map for the territory." I can't read the text of the paper referenced by the article because I don't have a subscription, but the abstract says: > We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it. Sounds to me like "we found an isomorphism between systems with internal time and systems without time that are entangled with external time..." and I just don't care, because I can come up with any isomorphism I want to. Without a prediction that contradicts our current theories, it's meaningless. A lot of headlines in theoretical physics strike me as displaying this behavior. Listening to Sabine makes me think that this is the totality of string theory as well. Am I the crazy one?
- entropicdrifter 2y ago
  No, you're not crazy. A ton of theoretical physics in the past several decades has gone into wild speculation about things we're able to mathematically justify and therefore imagine logically. That doesn't inherently mean it's the only possibility, just that it is one that fits what we know about the math right now.
gmuslera 2y ago
Is it falsifiable?
trojanhunt5 2y ago
[dead]
constantcrying 2y ago
- "not even True" headline - grand assertions about complex subjects, which aren't justified in any way - wildly incoherent terms and nonsense thought experiments - basic errors in science, which are so fundamentally confused that you instantly know the author is completely clueless about the subject - "some in X group believe" while either zero percent or a hundred percent of group X believes in that statement Yep, it is grade A nonsense pop science.

154 points by tlogan 2y ago

Time has quantum oscillations as it's lowest unit of measure. This is alright.

When they built up this physical theory, they assumed things about time, like that one thing happens after another, countless -- well -- countless times. There is no way to not do that. So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought. But whatever to get hype for your paper, I guess...

coldtea 2y ago
That's a facile dismissal if I ever saw one. You can "assume things about time" while writing a paper (including when it's due for sunmission), while still investigating whether the object of those assumptions has some fundamental properties, or whether it is just an emergent phenomenon from more fundamental things with no specific substance to it. Same way we can assume things about color, but still come to the conclusion that the qualia of color are just manufactured in our brain, and that the reality behind color, as far as the universe is concerned, is electromagnetic radiation at various frequences.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > That's a facile dismissal Not really. The paper referenced in this article basically says "time" for a quantum system emerges from entanglement between that system and a clock. What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time. Circular reasoning.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time In colloquial use, a clock is just a set of rotating gears with some spring - or some other such contraption - from sun dials to hourglasses and quartz. It might be used for measuring time, but it's existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time anymore than a drinking glass is based on the concept of liquids to exists. What's more, in this case the "clock" is just an example of an oscillator.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time Its existence as an object is not, but its definition as a clock is. Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. Which, as I said, is circular.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        Well Detective Larson, you've come right to the scene for investigation, but the chalk lines hold no clues. If you step away from the blackboard, and go downstairs to the basement where the physical labs are, two doors down from Dr. Frankenstein's lab, you'll find some high-frequency operators who've got an atomic clock. Mrs. Frankenstein will show you the way ;) Yes, they're using the matter itself as a clock. Who does that? What kind of universe is it anyway when nobody's ever needed any other kind of clock since the beginning of . . . time? Oh wait . . .
      - coldtea 2y ago
        >Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. No, it's defining it as something that oscillates (literally: an oscillator). Nothing about the concept of time, calendar or otherwise. The analysis is that the flow of time we experience and the properties of time are an emergent property of this kind of physical behaviors existing.
        vintermann 2y ago
        > oscillates Try to explain what "oscillation" is without reference to the concept of time.
blueprint 2y ago
ok but what does it mean for anything to "happen"?
- kfrzcode 2y ago
  I highly recommend listening to Alan Watts speak on this topic; his lecture "We as Organism" is quite compelling, if non-scientific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE
  - nico 2y ago
    Thank you. Not familiar with this lecture, but I love how eloquent Alan Watts was And it’s also great that he credits a lot of his insights to ancient Asian cultures. Essentially explaining that naturally, humans rediscover the nature of the universe, without the need for any special or modern technology, but rather through direct experience of the world
    - kfrzcode 2y ago
      There are many hours of his talks that range from silly to esoteric to outright transcendent, poetry-like explorations and observations of the human condition Highly prescient as well.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >Highly prescient as well. This was already widely recognized as each talk was originally being given. Kind of stream-of-consciousness if you think about it. Or if your head's a blank.
  - lodovic 2y ago
    Having to listen to a 53 minute monologue is too much, especially with the expectation that I won't agree as the podcast is subjective and non-scientific. Could you perhaps provide at least a recap when referring to someone else?
nico 2y ago
> So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought If you think it’s pointless, it’s going to be pointless to you whether it’s true or not However, to give an alternative point of view. If you can model time differently and provide some predictions or enable some technology, then having a different understanding of time might be very useful. Even if we still need to use time in the models And that’s been the case with general relativity. For a long time, and for many physical phenomena, Newton laws and models are just fine. But relativity has enabled a lot of better technologies and finer understanding of some things, through re-defining how we model time

SillyUsername 2y ago

Loving this throw away comment without any context: "the only reason that an object appears to change over time is because it is entangled with a clock ... anyone observing the universe externally would see it as completely ... unchanging" How is a clock unchanging? Perhaps it's needs winding, maybe somebody pulled the plug, who knows, but that's the only kind of clock I know that doesn't change.

Pompidou 2y ago
Maybe the clock with the myriads of hands rotations is view as a whole ? All the possibles states of this clock would be seen simultaneously ? But this clock is itself made up of many parts, which are in turn composed of atoms, subatomic particles, etc. The set of all possible states of the clock also includes the set of states occupied by the different parts of the clock (down to the subatomic level) over time, before and after the clock is made and then disintegrates. The clock is, in fact, just one state among many of the atoms that make it up. These atoms were scattered before being assembled into a clock, and they will be scattered again when the clock is destroyed. So, we are not really talking about a clock, but rather a set of atoms that may have occupied very different positions in the universe, and whose supposed unity exists only transiently when a human being looks at this clock. In a certain way, considering the clock as outside of time almost turns it into a non-being, or at least a diaphanous and ephemeral being, lost in a cloud of particles randomly distributed throughout the universe.
prawn 2y ago
And that paragraph is just about the only meat in the article!
memorylane 2y ago
This might be in reference to an idea called the block universe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)#:~:text=It%20is%20sometimes%20referred%20to,by%20the%20passage%20of%20time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_ti....
nico 2y ago
It’s not talking about an unchanging clock. It’s saying that change depends on something that runs like a clock, that “ticks”, that alternates sequentially and in cycles An alternative analogy would be: imagine space and time as opposites of a spectrum. If you had just 1 moment in time, with no alternation, no change, then it would be akin to having all the space together at once, nothing moving. In the other extreme, if you had as many moments in time as possible, it would be non-stop change, in a seemingly infinite space that could never be fully explored, “unknowably large”. In a way they are saying that the universe is a sort of superposition of these extremes, and there isn’t any physical difference between them. At least in the models and experiments

ElijahLynn 2y ago

Source: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.052212 https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.0... (paywall)

antonvs 2y ago
arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386
- AIorNot 2y ago
  Summary: The paper presents a theoretical model for understanding the concept of time in quantum mechanics. It builds upon the Page and Wootters (PaW) mechanism, a proposal that suggests time can be treated as a quantum observable. The Problem of Time in Quantum Mechanics In the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, time is not treated as an observable of a system, but rather as an external parameter. This means that time is not represented by an operator in the theory, unlike other physical quantities like position or momentum. This has been a long-standing issue in quantum mechanics, often referred to as the "problem of time." The Page and Wootters (PaW) Mechanism The PaW mechanism offers a potential solution to this problem. It proposes that time can be defined operationally by using a quantum system as a clock. The idea is that the state of the clock system is entangled with the state of the system whose evolution we want to track. By measuring the state of the clock, we can infer the time for the evolving system. The Model The paper presents a specific implementation of the PaW mechanism. It considers two quantum systems: The Evolving System (Γ): This is a harmonic oscillator, a system that exhibits simple oscillatory motion. The Clock (C): This is a magnetic system, like a spin in a magnetic field. The two systems are assumed to be non-interacting but entangled. This means that their states are correlated in a way that cannot be described classically. The entanglement is crucial for the PaW mechanism to work. Quantum to Classical Transition The paper explores how the quantum description of time transitions into a classical-like behavior under certain conditions. This is done by considering the case where the clock system becomes macroscopic, meaning it behaves more like a classical object. In this limit, the quantum description of time gives way to the familiar classical notion of time as a continuous parameter. Key Findings The paper's key findings include: Operational Definition of Time: The model provides an explicit way to define time operationally using a quantum clock. Quantum to Classical Transition: The model demonstrates how the quantum description of time can transition into a classical-like behavior as the clock system becomes macroscopic. Energy Scale of the Clock: The model highlights the importance of the energy scale of the clock in its ability to accurately describe the dynamics of the evolving system. Implications This work has potential implications for our understanding of time in quantum mechanics and its connection to classical physics. It could also be relevant for areas like quantum gravity, where the nature of time is a central question.

roughly 2y ago

If this topic interests you and you’d actually like some content on it, I can’t recommend Carlo Rovelli’s “The Order of Time” enough: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-order-of-time-carlo-rovelli/9709825 https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-order-of-time-carlo-rovelli... Rovelli is an absolutely wonderful author - you’ll arrive at the end of that book maybe not actually understanding quantum mechanics fully, but at least feeling like you’ve been given a glimpse of them.

sdwr 2y ago
Fantastic book, from what I remember it was more of an autobiography with some math sprinkled in. But he's a really good writer and seems like a wonderful person.
adolph 2y ago
That book is poetic. I need to reread it paired with Marletto’s Science of Can and Can’t.
jddj 2y ago
Seconded, very nicely written. Shook my foundations a little, I remember my partner and I were hiking for a few days at the time I was reading it and I recall having to drag myself back out of my head to experience the mountains
tessellated 2y ago
Combined with Benedict Cumberbatch's narration this makes my favourite audiobook.

WantonQuantum 2y ago

Sean Carroll’s site is a great place to read about this sort of stuff in an accessible way: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/07/18/space-emerging-from-quantum-mechanics/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/07/18/space-e...

tlogan 2y ago
The idea that time is emergent is considered unproven by most scientists. However, I personally believe there is some validity to it, even though I haven't found a single paper that convincingly supports this idea. I must admit that even some papers that are widely accepted as accurate are difficult for me to grasp and believe, as they are beyond my understanding and knowledge.
- Guthur 2y ago
  I'd recommend Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will for mind opening view of time. Imo it elaborates on the distinction between space time and our temporal experience.
  - saintkaye 2y ago
    Does it explain why orangic matter deteriorates and has almost no example where it does not over extended time?
    - neom 2y ago
      Philosophically, one could argue that the distinction between organic and inorganic matter is somewhat arbitrary since, at the most fundamental level, everything is simply matter. If you wanted to go in that direction, it would probably be fair to say something like it deteriorated, simply because it's programmed to. It would also make sense evolution would choose not to change this programming.
    - Guthur 2y ago
      Is it destroyed? does matter some how disappear or is it just it transformed from one form to another? Why did consciousness arise from matter at all, does it disappear or is it transformed. If you only limit yourself to what you can see then existence is rather dull and seemingly mechanically. Every time we look we see little more, and so is there really anything to suggest there is not more beyond what we can or will ever see.

crystaln 2y ago

I’m not sure how an explanation for how time functions means that time is an illusion?

CodeGroyper 2y ago
I guess the word illusion is misused, as in a traffic jam is an illusion because it's just too many cars on too little road. I don't think illusion is meant like hallucinations. But if it is meant that way, then I guess I can't be convinced anyway, since without time I can't change my mind from not believing that to believing it.

richardman 2y ago

[flagged]

TrueGeek 2y ago

lunchtime doubly so

foobar1962 2y ago
Thanks for saving me the trouble to post that. Somebody needed to. DA - RIP.
bloopernova 2y ago
Thankfully, a Hoopy Frood was available this day.

spacedcowboy 2y ago

I have to say, it’s a pretty convincing illusion…

Xcelerate 2y ago

This phrase has always annoyed me. And if time isn’t an illusion, how does that come across differently than if it is?

jc6 2y ago
[flagged]
nightowl_games 2y ago
I agree. As a metaphysical ponderer, I often consider how "illusion" is fundamental to our understanding of science. Consider this: all physical laws and theories are verified through human experience on a time scale, ie: under these conditions, you will observe this result. There is always an observer and at least two points in time. Time, and observation of it, is the ground truth of all physical laws, of our very experience of the universe.
- wordpad 2y ago
  You can also prove things by deriving it mathematically, without need for any observation. Some things can even be counter intuitive like relativity and quantum physics.
  - nightowl_games 2y ago
    Even in your mathematical derivations, there is an implied observer and time line. Ie: "Using these axioms, performing these operations, you will observe this result". (Precondition, action, result)
  - keefle 2y ago
    Valid point, but then I wouldn't consider classical mathematics to be a science
coldtea 2y ago
To you personally in everyday life, or in general? Because they're concerned with the latter.

cpncrunch 2y ago

Previously discussed here. A New Scientist article which has more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550164

jumploops 2y ago

atime=bspace

treebeard901 2y ago

Time is a result of entropy. Which is an inherent property of everything in the universe. From when light transmits the first existence of anything to when it returns to nothing after entropy runs its course. Time is just a measurement of degradation.

wordpad 2y ago
why dose entropy (and time) have a direction, though? This is famously referred to as "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov
MattPalmer1086 2y ago
I have never understood this, it seems backwards to me. We notice that entropy tends to increase over time, and then say that entropy is a fundamental cause of time? The increase of entropy is a statistical certainty given a causal ordering of events, no new fundamental properties required. It is certainly true that the increase of entropy gives a measurable direction to the arrow of time, i.e. the future is where entropy is higher. But I cannot fathom how entropy is anything more than a statistical effect.

magicalhippo 2y ago

Preprint here[1]. The headline seems a bit click-baity, as it refers to the Page-Wooters mechanism which was introduced 30 years ago, and as mentioned in the paper has been extensively studied. A brief and accessible overview can be found here[2]. However this paper seeks to provide a more concrete and less constrained implementation of the Page-Wooters mechanism in order to connect it to our classical world better that previous attempts. So while probably not a breakthrough paper, a solid step in an interesting direction. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386 [2]: https://quantum-journal.org/views/qv-2019-07-21-16/ https://quantum-journal.org/views/qv-2019-07-21-16/

GenerocUsername 2y ago

Cosmic coincidence that time flows in the direction our brains utilize entropy to encode and retrieve information

monkeydreams 2y ago
> Cosmic coincidence that time flows in the direction our brains utilize entropy to encode and retrieve information Memory flows in the same direction as entropic growth. If time actually moved backwards according to an "outside observer" then they would see us remembering the future and holding the past to be unknowable.

petre 2y ago

Douglas Adams — 'Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.' Adams was right all along!

xyst 2y ago

If time is money, and time is an illusion. Power is also determined by money and wealth. By transitive property, money and power is also an illusion.

nico 2y ago

My intuitive, but not mathematical, model is that time is an illusion created by our perception “sampling reality” It’s like when it looks like wheels are spinning backwards, or when using a stroboscopic light you see something different “Time” is just flowing everywhere, not in any particular direction. But our perception assigns things an order, which gives us the impression of direction We are also perceiving multiple times simultaneously. Consider that whatever is on your ears right now, will be converted to electrical signals and then loop through your brain, and potentially trigger a conscious reaction, but right now you have some other signals from some “previous” sound on your brain. So technically, your whole body is perceiving things at different times and trying to blend it all together in an illusion of “present time” that “moves forward” My own, very personal opinion, is that there is no causality, only correlation

unnouinceput 2y ago
Getting old and dying seems like a very real causality to me. Let me know when you'll be able to overcome that, I'd love to perform that trick.
- nico 2y ago
  Well, if you believe in causality, everything that happens in a certain progression might seem as the consequence of a previous event And that seems totally right and it’s a great model to understand our everyday life Now imagine for a second, that the whole universe was a big cycle, and that you are going to be repeating this very same life in a “future” cycle, and maybe infinitely many times Which one of those times is the first one? And what is happening first? Did you die first and then were born again, or were you born first before dying? If it’s a never ending cycle, would you know, or would you just be picking a point that seems convenient to you? At another extreme, when you feel like you are hungry, what is the cause for being hungry? Is it a certain signal in your brain, is a special hormone, is it because you have a habit of eating at a certain time? When exactly do you get hungry and what is the cause? There are pretty much infinite many possible causes to choose, because there are an infinite way of understanding and modeling the meaning of the question and how to answer it Usually we just take the fastest, “most reasonable” explanation as the reason, but it is arbitrary and subjective. Causes are agreements expressed in language and our models, they are not an absolute unbreakable order of reality

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mlboss 2y ago

As the philosopher's say there is no past or future only present. Nothing exists outside the present. All realities(as well as memories) can only be experienced in the current moment.

skulk 2y ago
There is no such thing as "the current moment" unless you arbitrarily choose an inertial reference frame.
- vidarh 2y ago
  We know everything but the current moment only through the fragment of memory active in the current moment, so we don't even know if any past or future has or will ever exist for us to choose.
- fizx 2y ago
  Most people choose themselves ;)
yetihehe 2y ago
Some philosophers also said that everything is made from small unsplittable parts, and even called them "atomos", meaning unsplittable in their language. Then we found them and splitted them, an then we've done that again and now we're on our third or four level of understanding world, while those philosophers try to catch up. Don't hold your breath on any particular philosophy, they are only a questions we didn't answer yet.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  The fact we jumped the gun and called the first small things we found atoms doesn't mean the philosophers were wrong... It means we were wrong to use that label for those things. We do believe there are unsplittable particles, they are just not what we called atoms. Philosophers still looking good to me.
  - 2y ago

poikroequ 2y ago

Maybe I understand it wrong, but if time is not an illusion, does that mean the past still exists? Hypothetically, if we could reverse the flow of time, would that mean we could travel into the past? I ask this because I have a bit of a paradox regarding time travel. It's pretty simple, presumably we're all sentient beings, and our consciousness is here, now, in the present. The science fiction portrayal of time travel suggests that we could travel into the past and interact with our former selves. But if my conscious mind is here now in the year 2024, then what conscious mind are you talking to in the past? Surely my conscious mind cannot exist in two different eras simultaneously. This little "paradox" of mine has made me ponder the true nature of time. Though more likely these are just the ramblings of a person who has a poor understanding of physics.

serf 2y ago
>Surely my conscious mind cannot exist in two different eras simultaneously. mentally I think of it more like save/restore states. the future-person meeting the past person would just be past person+future person as a merged state, the past person would just be a working snapshot of everything before it without the accrued knowledge of future-person. if you're someone who believe in an untouchable intangible non-duplicable 'soul', then it breaks the framework. I see myself more as a collection of experiences, so it jibes well into that concept.
- kitd 2y ago
  A more interesting idea is whether "you" cease to exist in the present while "you" travel back in time to meet "you" in the past. Ie, If time travel is possible, are there "yous" spread across every moment of your existence? That asks questions of our idea of timeless self-identity or "soul" if you like. Like Trigger's Broom [1], are we the same person as we were yesterday? [1] https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY?si=5_URpP6si31KWIWD https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY?si=5_URpP6si31KWIWD
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwanem 2y ago

m3kw9 2y ago

Is the notion and the feeling of 1 second a human made up thing? Surely the speed of time isn’t invented by us so I wonder if some other beings sense time differently

skirmish 2y ago
That has been studied: "A comparison of 138 species finds that dragonflies perceive changes in their environment five times faster than humans and 400 times faster than starfish." [1] [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352665-small-and-speedy-animals-perceive-time-faster-than-big-slow-creatures/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352665-small-and-speed...

tasty_freeze 2y ago

What if time is a a free variable that can freely move forward and backwards, perhaps doing a random walk? The people inside that spacetime (us) couldn't ever tell time changed directions or was going backwards because at any given time "t" the state would consistent with all prior states before t. It would also be consistent with future states of t, but the person at time t can only test for consistency with states prior to the current t, but not future states. To the person it like time is only moving forward.

yetihehe 2y ago
> What if time is a a free variable that can freely move forward and backwards, perhaps doing a random walk? It would have to have some measurable effects, distinguishable from "consistency with states prior to the current t". That consistency with previous states is written as t2=t1+X. If t1+X is always "previous state plus some small change", we simplify X to be 1. If you can invent HOW that random walk would manifest, you're up for a nobel prize.
thehappypm 2y ago
I’ve thought about this as well. We really only perceive time because we have memory; with no memory (like in 50 First Dates) time stands still. The only thing that breaks this is entropy. Even without memory, you can observe the universe and see how close we are to heat death at any moment. Thats an absolute age

revskill 2y ago

Time is like anti energy to me.

TZubiri 2y ago

It feels as if spending too much time on Physics has some psychotic effect on the mind, not unlike psychotropic substance abuse. There's much wrong in delegating authority over the concept of time to physicists as there is wrong in delegating authority over any concept to any science that did not create it. But of the specific case of Physics dense conception of Time, there's more wrong to point out. However I can only say that the heart better understands time than the mind does.

bubblyworld 2y ago
As someone who has tried both, I can assure you that spending too much time on physics is very unlike psychotropic substance abuse.
asimovfan 2y ago
What authority is this? Who delegated it? Which concept did science create?

Slava_Propanei 2y ago

[dead]

poulpy123 2y ago

> illusion > noun > UK /ɪˈluː.ʒən/ US /ɪˈluː.ʒən/ > an idea or belief that is not true: > have no illusion about He had no illusions about his talents as a singer. > under no illusion I'm under no illusions (= I understand the truth) about the > man I married. > be labouring under the illusion My boss is labouring under the illusion that > > (= wrongly believes that) the project will be completed on time. > something that is not really what it seems to be: > create the illusion of A large mirror in a room can create the illusion of space. > The impression of calm in the office is just an illusion The backpain I started to have since few years tells me that time isn't an illusion

barfbagginus 2y ago

Could be our universe and timeline is a boltzman universe/boltzman timeline embedded in some large timeless crystalline state space. That would kinda suck, because we'd be static crystals. But from the subjective perspective of a self aware sub crystal is maybe not so bad. Perhaps reality is malleable and magical. For instance it might be possible to travel to other universes. From the global view, we have multiple atemporal subjective timelines, with subjective agents popping out of one reality and into another thanks to some crystals and magnets with special geometries. From the subjective view, you have a Rick and Morty episode

mcronce 2y ago
I think I'd love to read a fantasy book based on this premise
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  A fantasy book that comes to mind is The Dark Tower, by King. The universe is unraveling into a bundle of broken times and locations, falling apart because the old society "moved on" to another plane of existence... It doesn't have this idea of the the world being a static crystal. But it's interesting to think of a static crystal spacetime that eventually seems to fall apart.
lxgr 2y ago
Why would it suck/what would it change? There are so many (largely metaphysical) theories for things that our universe might actually be a subjective emergent phenomenon of (a simulation, somebody's dream, a timeless static meta-universe, just to name a few) – but given that there is subjective consciousness in this universe, does it matter what substrate it's actually embedded in for our (or somebody else's, for that matter) ability to ascribe meaning to the emergent phenomenon itself? In other words, somehow I wouldn't feel much worse about "time not being real" than I'd feel about matter, gravity etc. "not being real", being caused by the vibration of cold, unfeeling superstrings etc.
- entropicdrifter 2y ago

jb1991 2y ago

[flagged]

tines 2y ago

I've been thinking lately about whether mathematics "is" reality or whether mathematics merely represents reality, and something that I've noticed is that mathematicians and physicists seem to hold the philosophy that if one can create an isomorphism from one thing to another, then both of those things are "real" in some sense. Take the holographic universe idea for example. There is an isomorphism mapping information within a volume to the boundary on that volume's surface; some physicists, like Leonard Susskind afaict, believe therefore that the universe is a hologram, even when there aren't any tests we can do to prove that the universe can only be a hologram because only holograms behave in such and such a way. But when I think about it, this seems like a massive leap. We can hypothetically come up with isomorphisms that map, say, the four fundamental forces to like, four angels that work behind the scenes to orchestrate all the interactions in the universe. But that doesn't mean there really are four angels doing this. I suppose this is what someone means when they say we've "confused the map for the territory." I can't read the text of the paper referenced by the article because I don't have a subscription, but the abstract says: > We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it. Sounds to me like "we found an isomorphism between systems with internal time and systems without time that are entangled with external time..." and I just don't care, because I can come up with any isomorphism I want to. Without a prediction that contradicts our current theories, it's meaningless. A lot of headlines in theoretical physics strike me as displaying this behavior. Listening to Sabine makes me think that this is the totality of string theory as well. Am I the crazy one?

entropicdrifter 2y ago
No, you're not crazy. A ton of theoretical physics in the past several decades has gone into wild speculation about things we're able to mathematically justify and therefore imagine logically. That doesn't inherently mean it's the only possibility, just that it is one that fits what we know about the math right now.

gmuslera 2y ago

Is it falsifiable?

trojanhunt5 2y ago

[dead]

constantcrying 2y ago

- "not even True" headline - grand assertions about complex subjects, which aren't justified in any way - wildly incoherent terms and nonsense thought experiments - basic errors in science, which are so fundamentally confused that you instantly know the author is completely clueless about the subject - "some in X group believe" while either zero percent or a hundred percent of group X believes in that statement Yep, it is grade A nonsense pop science.