Does Time Exist?

>>7794234
>>>/x/

>>7794234
No, but the concept of time does exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvpbW7JRu0Q

File: SI_base_units.svg.png (28KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 440x440px

It is something that can be given measure, but it is arbitrarily defined and ubiquitous to conscious thought. It can not be certain that moments before us have a tangible, physical implication with existence.

>>7794238
She reminds me of Ali G, "Coming through my middle bits."

>>7794234
Doth timeth existeth?

That's more of an existential question than a scientific one.

Also it really depends on what you define "time" as.

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

-- Albert Einstein

What it mean?

Time exists, but the *flow* of time is an illusion

According to Minkowski, we live in a 4D block

>>7794261
Albert Einstein was ignorant of QM. I wouldn't trust those quotes.

>>7794234
The only think we can be sure of is the feeling that time passes by.
But time itself could be just an illusion.

>>7794261
>"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me.
>That means nothing.
I claim he is asserting that he is concurrently with him, that the depart (past tense) is merely an assignment of memory with measure.
>People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
I claim he is saying that time is a means by which we draw proportion to events in distinction that all things are as the thought. Existing as one.

>>7794265
Quantum mechanics is deterministic. Dirac derived the Schrodinger equation from the simple assumption of unitary time evolution. That is to say, probability is conserved over time.

>>7794234
If you can measure something, then it exists.

How do you measure anything? You make some standard and use that as a reference. Like a ruler against a string, you count off tick marks to as precise as the measuring instrument is.

Same thing with time, we just measure off turns of a clock tick by tick.

Alright, so maybe that's not the answer you want, and I agree it's unsatisfying, but it's the best we've got.

>>7794343
But what force causes the ticking of a clock?

>>7794358
You should just ask what you mean.

I wouldn't say time exists. I would consider time a man made concept.

No, but it will.

>>7794358
The torque of the underlying gears.

File: 1449875059525.jpg (13KB, 540x488px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 540x488px

our measurement of time is man made... but time itself does exist. and it moves in one direction.

we can conclude this because of age. we know as a certain amount of what we call time passes, things change, begin to deteriorate. it shows physical involvement in the world surrounding us, therefore it exists.
just because we created the measurement for time (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years) does not mean we created time itself.
just like other measurements like mass and length. we created the measurements for these, but did not create an illusion of mass or length.

Yes, in the metaphysical sense. Epistemologically time is a conscious qualia (inter alia, a tulpa). Whether it exists as a physical praxis is an auxiliary matter, and phenomenologically moot.

>>7794265
Einstein was friends with Neils Bohr. Not only that, Einstein died in the 50s, decades after quantum mechanics was a thing. Of course Einstein wasn't ignorant of QM.

>>7794238
This ripe cunt had me going for a good second.

Doing QM right now. Why is time not an operator?

>>7794265
>Einstein literally proposed the photon to exist

He just didn't like it. He didn't deny the evidence of existence.

>>7794243
Thank you, next thread everybody.

>>7795462
Position at a given time is an operator. Time at a given time is just a scalar. Time at a given position suffers from the problem of not being uniquely defined even for a classical particle.

>>7795715
>Position at a given time is an operator

In the Heisenberg picture. In the Schrödinger picture operators are time independent.

>>7794238
12/10 holy shit

>>7794237
kek

File: gtd4.jpg (32KB, 456x345px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 456x345px

>>7794234
Boring question

Answer this instead:
What are the limits involved with using time dilation as a method of traveling into the future at a faster rate?
Would it ever be possible to reverse this rate?