Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Few-Swordfish-780 t1_j0zmiod wrote

What if time isn’t real, it simply defines a state of all matter in the universe.

18

NefariousNaz t1_j0znpmp wrote

Time travel to the future through relativistic speeds and time dilation is very real. Time travel to the past is likely impossible though.

7

BeardOfEarth t1_j0zpsxj wrote

By that measure then we’re all “time traveling” right now just by existing, which is obviously not what the phrase is referring to.

1

dannygloversghost t1_j0zrpwx wrote

I feel like I’m traveling to the past repeatedly by reading this thread and seeing the same conversation play out over and over.

0

BeardOfEarth t1_j0zudsh wrote

And the same complaint from people. Way to be the thing you’re whining about.

1

dannygloversghost t1_j0zuhi8 wrote

Haha it’s not that serious buddy, I just thought it was funny. Have a good one!

1

BeardOfEarth t1_j101gml wrote

I assure you that you never have to worry about people taking you seriously.

1

fizzbubbler t1_j0zr8dk wrote

i think of time traveling as traveling to a time and place where another version of me exists separately to my own self. time dilation lets you move into the future of your reality, but does not take you from one reality and place you in another.

1

GenericHam t1_j0zobn5 wrote

I worked with a physic PhD once. He said "Time is just how we measure change"

3

illuminatecho t1_j0zpaz7 wrote

Bingo. Time is something we perceive in order to define change. You cannot travel back in time because there is nothing to travel back to.

6

lordbruwin t1_j0zst3p wrote

I have always preferred “causality” but it is essentially the same.

1

illuminatecho t1_j0ztkbr wrote

Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states. Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.

1

lordbruwin t1_j0zu5rm wrote

>Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states.

Not exactly sure what you mean by this.

>Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.

I disagree. I think change is simply a less precise way to sum up causality. Things “change” over time because from t1 to t2 a force caused a change in state. The progression of time is “required” for forces to act on things.

1

illuminatecho t1_j0zwl5g wrote

I just mean that, when you apply a force to an object, you can know what the effect will be without applying the measurement of time. It's only with the metric of time that you can define the entire process of change.

You would know that heat + ice will work out to water. The application of time tells you at what point the ice will be 1/4 melted, 1/2 melted, entirely melted.

1

lordbruwin t1_j0zx80w wrote

I don’t think that differentiates those things like you think it does. That “critique,” in so far as it actually has any validity, applies to the two words equally. The problem with change is that locally things aren’t always changing.

0

illuminatecho t1_j0zy9i7 wrote

>The problem with change is that locally things aren't always changing

Until absolute zero is reached, change is constantly taking place

1

lordbruwin t1_j10kmwj wrote

>locally

No it isn’t.

0

illuminatecho t1_j10mjip wrote

Lol macroscopically?

2

lordbruwin t1_j10nqrg wrote

Lol what?

Look you are missing the point. Change is just a clumsy way to describe something because it depends too much on reference frames and is a less precise way to describe the fact that time is just the measure of causality. “Change” is the result of causality. When you just say “change” you are missing the fundamental driver of change which is the interaction of forces that cause things to change. The speed of causality (time) is affected by the frame of reference and forces themselves.

0

illuminatecho t1_j10ow9h wrote

Our disagreement was on your statement that "change" and "causality" are "essentially the same". Am I crazy or are you literally saying that they are entirely not the same?

>"Change" is the result of causality.

1

lordbruwin t1_j10q6ft wrote

I wouldn’t use the word “crazy” but I’d assert this is a reading comprehension issue on your end. They are “essentially” the same. They are not the same. I have explained why. Change is a less precise term.

1

illuminatecho t1_j10qvdw wrote

How can they be at all the same if one is the result of another. Lolol

1

lordbruwin t1_j10rkxd wrote

Lolol can you really not see how one can be an umbrella term that describes the effects from our pov while the other is the underlying mechanism? Come on buddy, stop pretending it’s that hard to parse.

1

illuminatecho t1_j10sd6f wrote

Change doesn't describe the effects though friend. "Change" is quite abstract. Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.

1

lordbruwin t1_j10sp66 wrote

It does though friend. It describes the consequence of the laws of physics in action.

>"Change" is quite abstract.

That has literally been my point lmfao.

>Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.

Nonsense.

1

olbettyboop t1_j10euhh wrote

Lol what the fuck is this take

1

lordbruwin t1_j10klcm wrote

Lol the correct one. Seriously you must not have much actual exposure to modern physics.

0

olbettyboop t1_j114sq4 wrote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

0

lordbruwin t1_j1151e5 wrote

It’s adorable that you think this makes what I said incorrect.

In fact, please direct yourself to the subheadings about “the causal arrow of time”

0

olbettyboop t1_j12z5ft wrote

I’m not saying your pedantic causality argument is wrong. I’m saying your statement about “locally, things aren’t always changing”. Which is not true, and actually runs counter to your causality argument.

Things are in a constant state of flux. Please show and provide sources on how there is no change and please define what is “locally” in regards to there being no change.

Also, it’s interesting that you call it adorable. Weird thing to say.

1

lordbruwin t1_j12ze3b wrote

The irony of calling me pedantic after this bad faith interpretation of my point. You are not a serious person.

0

olbettyboop t1_j12zjw3 wrote

Nice sources, bum.

0

lordbruwin t1_j12zp4j wrote

Locally is a frame of reference. You need a source for basic physics you clown?

−1

olbettyboop t1_j130v7p wrote

Yes, please provide a source on locally and what it means in the context you provided.

Also, again, please provide a source on your claim that things actually don’t change locally.

1

lordbruwin t1_j131l0n wrote

I’m not going to sit here and explain basic physics to you. Learn it or don’t, I don’t care. Some basic reading comprehension would help too. Just know that you are embarrassing yourself.

−1

olbettyboop t1_j132mqr wrote

Got it. No sources or even any attempt to explain. Have a good rest of the year and take care.

1

lordbruwin t1_j148kb8 wrote

Lol. Yeah you caught me, I didn’t bother to link you to the frame of reference wiki page nor do I have any intention of teaching you basic physics.

−1

DudesworthMannington t1_j0znwpb wrote

I think instant long distance communication isn't often considered and it's more realistic. Imagine if we could communicate with aliens a million light years away that possess a hypothetical super telescope that could view the surface of the Earth. They could send us a live feed of dinosaurs walking around.

1

IsoscelesCircle t1_j0zpci7 wrote

If my understanding is correct, with quantum entanglement it very well might be feasible. There have been a few experiments using quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication regardless of distance. Now the question would be how we go about quantum entangling particles that are physically nowhere near each other, such as light years away from each other.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
https://newatlas.com/telecommunications/quantum-entanglement-atoms-distance-record/

3

riderxc t1_j0zt8s2 wrote

Let’s say we want to meet up at a coffee shop, or anywhere in the universe. You always need 4 “coordinates”. X, Y, Z and a Time. That’s why believe time is a real thing, not a man made concept as some suggest.

1