What is time?

[McCulloch]

What is time?

Is it finite or infinite? Does it flow or is it a path? Is there a minimum possible time interval or is it continuous? What is now? Did time begin? If so, what came before time?

Does religion aid at all in answering these questions?

[Icarus Fallen]

Aki,

Rather than appealing to the status quo, I'm appealing to the best knowledge of the physical universe we have; physics.

There was a time, not all that long ago, in which the prevailing thought in the so-called science of astronomy (I.E. in accordance with what would have been deemed in the status quo as "the best knowledge" of the day) had our beloved Earth at the center of the Universe ...and stationary, to boot.

In fact, were your postulates correct we would expect time to be independent of space in both relativistic and quantum physics. Rather than that, however, it is intertwined with space, and in rare cases, almost interchangeable.

First of all, your presentation of the postulate concerning the conflation of 'space' and 'time' (as a statement of fact) betrays your bias. In fact, whether my postulates are correct or not, we shouldn't expect time to be manintained as independent of space in relativistic or quantum physics, ...beyond the point(s) at which the theoretical conflation is granted. And since, nowadays, that theoretical principle is generally held as foundational, the maths that seem to shore up the notion of 'spacetime' are more often akin to 'self-fulfilling prophecies' than objectively verifiable evidence.

But listen, I've no intention of becoming embroiled in a series of lengthy exchanges with you or anyone else on these matters (been there; done that), so please, feel free to label me in any manner you see fit ...and move on. As far as I'm concerned, there'll be nothing more to see here.

[LiamOS]

There was a time, not all that long ago, in which the prevailing thought in the so-called science of astronomy (I.E. in accordance with what would have been deemed in the status quo as "the best knowledge" of the day) had our beloved Earth at the center of the Universe ...and stationary, to boot.

Indeed. We may be entirely wrong.

But we have reason to believe that we're not.

First of all, your presentation of the postulate concerning the conflation of 'space' and 'time' (as a statement of fact) betrays your bias. In fact, whether my postulates are correct or not, we shouldn't expect time to be manintained as independent of space in relativistic or quantum physics, ...beyond the point(s) at which the theoretical conflation is granted. And since, nowadays, that theoretical principle is generally held as foundational, the maths that seem to shore up the notion of 'spacetime' are more often akin to 'self-fulfilling prophecies' than objectively verifiable evidence.

While this is correct, it is the simplest and most elegant way to describe reality, and it's consistent with even those things found after the theory.

But listen, I've no intention of becoming embroiled in a series of lengthy exchanges with you or anyone else on these matters (been there; done that), so please, feel free to label me in any manner you see fit ...and move on. As far as I'm concerned, there'll be nothing more to see here.

Thus, I shall label you 'Icarus Fallen'.

[Icarus Fallen]

Goat,

Sorry for missing your questions in the earlier go 'round.

...does time need space to exist, or was the 'big bang' when time became entwined with space?

Well, I believe the material oneness that is 'the universe' needs room in order to move and foster 'interaction' between its many facets. So, yes: since, in my view, space is integral to matter in motion, it's also integral to 'time' ...by default.

...One theory of time is that the expansion of space time is when the arrow of time starting going in one direction.

The only "direction" that really matters, at least where 'time' is concerned, is ever onward.

So long as the impetus for motion (be it expansion, contraction, or whatever) is distributed commensurately within (not necessarily between) the various groups of material across the cosmos, the switch from one universal driving force to the other would be virtually undetectable from within any group.

BTW, as I interpret cosmic redshifting (and in line with my theory of "space"), the universe is presently contracting.

...How does time interact on the quantum level?

As I see things, "time" is self-interactive motion across the micro/macro spectrum.

Moreover, the 'interaction' is intrinsically behavioral, as the motion is multi-aspectual and unevenly distributed over many wavelengths. And since various waves behave differently in relation to each other, and because their behavioral interplay gives rise to entirely new self-cooperative behaviors, the universe, in all of its manifest glory and apparent complexity, is both fundamentally and ultimately simple.

[Goat]

Goat,

Sorry for missing your questions in the earlier go 'round.

...does time need space to exist, or was the 'big bang' when time became entwined with space?

Well, I believe the material oneness that is 'the universe' needs room in order to move and foster 'interaction' between its many facets. So, yes: since, in my view, space is integral to matter in motion, it's also integral to 'time' ...by default.

You believe that to be so. However, when it comes to 'time', that is more than just a philosophical question, it is a scientific question too. Why do so many physictist disagree with you?? Or, say 'We don't know , more evidence is needed'. Why are the physicists who are the acknowledged experts (as much as anybody is) about it disagree with you?

...One theory of time is that the expansion of space time is when the arrow of time starting going in one direction.

The only "direction" that really matters, at least where 'time' is concerned, is ever onward.

On the macro level, at the moment. However, is that true on the quantum scale? One way that it is theorized that the virtual particles exist is that energy is 'borrowed' from the future, and is paid 'back' when the positive particle and the negative particle cancel each other out. In my mind, that can only happen if the arrow of time can flow in two directions.

So long as the impetus for motion (be it expansion, contraction, or whatever) is distributed commensurately within (not necessarily between) the various groups of material across the cosmos, the switch from one universal driving force to the other would be virtually undetectable from within any group.

BTW, as I interpret cosmic redshifting (and in line with my theory of "space"), the universe is presently contracting.

And, every physicist and astronomer disagree with you. Funny how that happens.

[LiamOS]

BTW, as I interpret cosmic redshifting (and in line with my theory of "space"), the universe is presently contracting.

And just how do you manage that?
Are you familiar with the Doppler effect?

[Icarus Fallen]

Guys,

Here's an old but relevant thread that sheds a little more light on where I'm coming from.

True, I'm virtually alone in my beliefs on these matters; but to be perfectly honest, that's the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it.

Laterz.

[Icarus Fallen]

AKI,

And just how do you manage that?

By interpreting the 'evidence' as I see fit. We all know cosmic redshifting shows that groups of material are apparently speeding away from each other. Expansionists assume that "space" isn't constant and that it must be expanding between the groups; I suggest that the groups are shrinking in relation to constant space. The correct answer, as to which idea the "evidence" supports, is both -- meaning the issue of 'truth' stands on the veracity of opposing interpretations.

You, and those like you, apparently tend to favor the views of the status quo, and that's fine by me.

[LiamOS]

Your hypothesis necessarily assumes a variant speed of light, then, does it not?

I favour what I deem to be tenable as opposed to the status quo.

[Icarus Fallen]

Aki,

Don't know why I feel compelled to continue this (it's not an 'ego thing', really), but...

Your hypothesis necessarily assumes a variant speed of light, then, does it not?

...variant speeds in a vacuum, not necessarily.

However, even though my theory doesn't entail a formal denial thereof, I'm not a believer in the Einsteinian C hypothesis.

In my view, if there is a 'cosmological constant', it's 'space'.

I favour what I deem to be tenable as opposed to the status quo.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but at least in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Why you favor the status quo in this particular instance ...is of no effect to the fact that you favor it.

[Grumpy]

Icarus Fallen

Space/time is either expanding or it is shrinking, there can be no stasis just like you cannot balance a pencil on it's point. And the Doppler shift, the Cosmic Background and every other measurement we make shows that not only is the Universe expanding, it is accelerating in that expansion due to a force called Dark Energy(a really terrible name IMHO). I notice you have provided no evidence or reasoning for why you reject that.

Grumpy