# Time.

Time.

s

Space.

ss

Change.

Can one exist without another?

Time... an idea so fundamental to our existence, yet so alien to conception.

Behold... as John Muradeli - the alien, Michael Mendrin - Mr. Mathopedia, and Brian Charlesworth - Dr. Philosophy debate it out in a ravaging intellectual flame war.

Key arguments:

$\huge John$ $\huge Muradeli$ -

Time is money. Money runs the world. You live in the world.

Thus, by proof by contradiction, if Time is not real, Money is not real, the World is not real, and You are not real. But if you want to believe that you're not real, go ahead. :)

$\huge Michael$ $\huge Mendrin$-

All right, my "argument" about time is that quite a number of theoretical physicists today see time as an emergent property, and there are even some experiments which are said to prove this. Have a look at this:

Time From Quantum Entanglement

Quantum Experiment

This should give one an idea of actual experimentation being done on this, it's already moved beyond mere speculation. In other words, get on with the program already.

Time is a complex subject, and I think one should be careful about making sweeping statements about it, such as "time precedes existence", or "change cannot happen without time", because when one does that, it wouldn't be any different from making sweeping statements about geometry, such as "parallel lines never meet", and "it is not possible to re-arrange the contents of one solid sphere and produce two solid spheres identical to the original from it". Always be prepared for surprises which seems contrary to intution, because they can often lead to very interesting and rich new fields.

$\huge Brian$ $\huge Charlesworth \huge$

('Twilight Zone' music playing in the background ....)

"Imagine, if you will, a world without time"..... or at least a mathematical model of the universe that does not employ the variable of time. This is not the stuff of science fiction, but rather the result of the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. I've only been recently introduced to this revelation by the Time Lord himself, @Michael Mendrin , in the midst of a conversational thread embedded in this post. In this thread, Michael notes that, although the variable of time can be very useful in dealing with "practical" questions in physics, it is not in fact necessary. Many theoretical physicists are of the mind that such primary (yet nebulous) concepts as time, space and mass are in fact "emergent properties" of a more fundamental formulation of nature than we currently are aware of. And herein lies the rub ....

Is time merely a convenient illusion, the result of our psychologically-driven need for a cause and effect paradigm? Or is it indeed an essential and unavoidable element of a reality that we can we only glimpse as a wispy shadow out of the corner of our collective vision? (Yeah.... a bit melodramatic, but I'm trying to set the stage here for a dynamic discussion.) If time is a an illusion, then does this imply that we inhabit a temporally "static" universe, in which all times are equally real, (or unreal)? Would time travel then be possible, at least in theory? What is the relationship between time and memory/information; would one exist without the other? So many questions, so little ......

ssss

Let's do this.

Note by John M.
5 years, 9 months ago

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

• Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
• Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
• Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold
- bulleted- list
• bulleted
• list
1. numbered2. list
1. numbered
2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in $$ ... $$ or $ ... $ to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 $2 \times 3$
2^{34} $2^{34}$
a_{i-1} $a_{i-1}$
\frac{2}{3} $\frac{2}{3}$
\sqrt{2} $\sqrt{2}$
\sum_{i=1}^3 $\sum_{i=1}^3$
\sin \theta $\sin \theta$
\boxed{123} $\boxed{123}$

Sort by:

!!!NOTE:!!!

This note is under construction!

- 5 years, 9 months ago

u r a funny bone . Muradeli rocks!!

- 5 years, 9 months ago

:)

s

- 5 years, 8 months ago

You wasted no time to start on time, didn't you?

- 5 years, 8 months ago

All right, my "argument" about time is that quite a number of theoretical physicists today see time as an emergent property, and there are even some experiments which are said to prove this. Have a look at this:

Time From Quantum Entanglement

Quantum Experiment

This should give one an idea of actual experimentation being done on this, it's already moved beyond mere speculation. In other words, get on with the program already.

Time is a complex subject, and I think one should be careful about making sweeping statements about it, such as "time precedes existence", or "change cannot happen without time", because when one does that, it wouldn't be any different from making sweeping statements about geometry, such as "parallel lines never meet", and "it is not possible to re-arrange the contents of one solid sphere and produce two solid spheres identical to the original from it". Always be prepared for surprises which seems contrary to intution, because they can often lead to very interesting and rich new fields.

- 5 years, 8 months ago

('Twilight Zone' music playing in the background ....)

"Imagine, if you will, a world without time"..... or at least a mathematical model of the universe that does not employ the variable of time. This is not the stuff of science fiction, but rather the result of the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. I've only been recently introduced to this revelation by the Time Lord himself, @Michael Mendrin , in the midst of a conversational thread embedded in this post. In this thread, Michael notes that, although the variable of time can be very useful in dealing with "practical" questions in physics, it is not in fact necessary. Many theoretical physicists are of the mind that such primary (yet nebulous) concepts as time, space and mass are in fact "emergent properties" of a more fundamental formulation of nature than we currently are aware of. And herein lies the rub ....

Is time merely a convenient illusion, the result of our psychologically-driven need for a cause and effect paradigm? Or is it indeed an essential and unavoidable element of a reality that we can we only glimpse as a wispy shadow out of the corner of our collective vision? (Yeah.... a bit melodramatic, but I'm trying to set the stage here for a dynamic discussion.) If time is a an illusion, then does this imply that we inhabit a temporally "static" universe, in which all times are equally real, (or unreal)? Would time travel then be possible, at least in theory? What is the relationship between time and memory/information; would one exist without the other? So many questions, so little ......

- 5 years, 8 months ago

Time isn't an "illusion", it's simply a different way of looking at the same thing. In mathematics, we learn pretty early about the idea of coordinate transforms, i.e., e.g. going from cartesian to spherical coordinates, and a bit later on, we learn how to transform from a Hamiltonian formulation to a Lagrangian one, and vice versa. We learn about projective geometry an duality. We learn about how Heisenberg matrix mechanics is really the exact same thing as Schrodiner's wave mechanics, even though on a first read, we'd never guess that, being that they seem so different conceptually. But in fact, we see this over and over again in all of physics---even in string theory we learn about how physicist Witten managed to show that 5 different 10D string theory models are "really" just different facets of a 11D M-theory.

We simply HAVE a lot of different ways of looking at the same thing, and they can all be mathematically equivalent.

Hence, a lot of useful physics make use of time as a concept, and just because there's an esoteric way of doing physics without time doesn't mean that, therefore, time is an illusion. It's simply doing things in a more convenient way for us. We have a choice whether to use it or not.

- 5 years, 8 months ago

First off, apologies for my dramatic opeening presentation; I was just feeding off of the tone that John was setting before "getting with the program". That said, in talking about time as a "concept" and time as an "emergent property", are we referring to the same thing? The former seems like just a convenient variable to work with, while the latter seems to be an actual entity, for lack of a more precise term. Also, if "time travel" is already a feature of quantum mechanics, does that not blur the lines as to what we mean by the "present", at least in the domain of quantum information?

- 5 years, 8 months ago

"Time travel" is already a feature of quantum mechanics, i.e., quantum information flows to and from both the past and the future. That's what quantum field theory is all about. Too bad we can't quite travel like quantum information.

- 5 years, 8 months ago

Hm, guyz, too wordy. I'll gotta rephrase this, later.

But yeah Michael's on point with time being contrary to intuition. I've read Paul Davies's About Time, where he discusses some abnormal properties of time, including the Theory of Relativity implications of it. So, it really boils down to Mr. Mendrin's all-time quote: "Before you solve a problem, first figure out what the problem is..." - wait a minute, that's not it. I think he changed question to problem. Bah... bad timing. Anyway, replace that with QUESTION. So what this will really spin off to will be us arguing not whether time is real, not real, necessary, or unnecessary, but what time really is. And this on this subject have been written great volumes of books by great philosophical minds, and yet not even the synthesis of all those writings explain the true essence of time.

So, yeah... It was a bad idea for me to start this note. It's pointless.

Currently I'm reading Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. It's a truly great book (even though I only read the prelude). I'd ESPECIALLY suggest to Mr. Mendrin. Dunno about anyone else, but you need to be substantially intelligent to understand this book.

(oh and I didn't get time to read Brian's argument, I got too much @*!% going on! and probably won't. I'll just be looking for that terse rephrase of ya'll's arguments. Then, probably in a month, I'll come in and CRUSH ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS!!! MWHAHAHAHA!!)

- 5 years, 8 months ago

I have Roger Penrose's book, The Road to Reality It's a great read, and it's buried in my pile of books somewhere. Really, I need to find a place for a good bookshelf and pull these books together.

Let me paraphrase my own quote, "Before you start an argument, first figure out what the argument is' I believe the original question here as posted is, "Can we have either time or change without the other?" That is a very good question to ask, and far from a trivial one. When you have more time, or if anyone else jumps in, we can continue with this thread.

- 5 years, 8 months ago

Yes, starting this note seemed like a good idea at the time, but I'm not sure where we would go from here. I obviously need to do some reading, and you, John, with 7 AP classes, have a lot of reading to do on matters other than time. @Michael Mendrin is clearly up to speed as to where the forefront of research is on the subject, so until I know enough to ask substantive questions I would just be wasting his time.

Anyway, by way of the previous conversation I've been introduced to the Wheeler-Dewitt equation and the notion that time may not have an independent existence but may "just" be an emergent property, (emerging from what I'm still not entirely clear), so it's not a total loss. This is an "argument" with no end, I suspect, so until later... Cheers!

- 5 years, 8 months ago

Time ! It's the only thing that a human can never have in sufficience. This moment

- 5 years, 7 months ago

Pretentiousness.

The prefix "pseudo-".

Can one exist without another?

- 5 years ago

Um... what? Are you saying I'm pretentious or "pseudo" or ...

- 5 years ago

"Pseudo-John-Muradeli" is such an interesting concept. It means, "Something that appears to be or behaves like John Muradeli". Will the real John Muradeli please strand up? Usually, in science fiction stories, when a human has been cloned, as in the movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the pseudo human distinctly has diminished color and personality. I have to wonder what the real John Muradeli is like if his clone is putting out stuff like this.

- 5 years ago

Nope.

He's an alien.

I figured that long time ago.

- 5 years ago

Hey Mr. Obvious. I think we all figured out after I've stated knowledge to $|x|<0$. Besides, OverLordGoldDragon's Messageboard is no human's messageboard ;)

- 5 years ago

This note was created just after I joined Brilliant :)

As the saying goes..."it takes one alien to recognize another"

- 5 years ago

If I'd see my clone I'll murder it. Immediately.

- 5 years ago