Astronomy Without A Telescope – Is Time Real?

by Steve Nerlich on June 12, 2010

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history (Douglas Adams 1952-2001).

The way that we deal with time is central to a major current schism in physics. Under classic Newtonian physics and also quantum mechanics – time is absolute, a universal metronome allowing you determine whether events occur simultaneously or in sequence. Under Einstein’s physics, time is not absolute – simultaneity and sequence depend on who’s looking. For Einstein, the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant and time changes in whatever way is required to keep the speed of light constant from all frames of reference.

Under general relativity (GR) you are able to experience living for three score and ten years regardless of where you are or how fast you’re moving, but other folk might measure that duration quite differently. But even under GR, we need to consider whether time only has meaning for sub-light speed consciousnesses such as us. Were a photon to have consciousness, it may not experience time – and, from its perspective, would cross the apparent 100,000 light year diameter of the Milky Way in an instant. Of course, that gets you wondering whether space is real either. Hmm…

Quantum mechanics does (well, sometimes) require absolute time – most obviously in regards to quantum entanglement where determining the spin of one particle, determines the spin of its entangled partner instantaneously and simultaneously. Leaving aside the baffling conundrums imposed by this instantaneous action over a distance – the simultaneous nature of the event implies the existence of absolute time.

In one attempt to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics, time disappears altogether – from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for quantum gravity – not that many regard this as a 100% successful attempt to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, this line of thinking highlights the ‘problem of time’ when trying to develop a Theory of Everything.

The winning entries for a 2008 essay competition on the nature of time run by the Fundamental Questions Institute could be roughly grouped into the themes ‘time is real’, ‘no, it isn’t’ and ‘either way, it’s useful so you can cook dinner.’

The ‘time isn’t real’ camp runs the line that time is just a by-product of what the universe does (anything from the Earth rotating to the transition of a Cesium atom – i.e. the things that we calibrate our clocks to).

How a return to equilibrium after a random downward fluctuation in entropy might appear. First there was light, then a whole bunch of stuff happened and then it started getting cold and dark and empty.

Time is the fire in which we burn (Soran, Star Trek bad guy, circa 24th century).

‘Time isn’t real’ proponents also refer to Boltzmann’s attempt to trivialise the arrow of time by proposing that we just live in a local pocket of the universe where there has been a random downward fluctuation of entropy – so that the perceived forward arrow of time is just a result of the universe returning to equilibrium – being a state of higher entropy where it’s very cold and most of the transient matter that we live our lives upon has evaporated. It is conceivable that another different type of fluctuation somewhere else might just as easily result in the arrow pointing the other way.

Nearly everyone agrees that time probably doesn’t exist outside our Big Bang universe and the people who just want to get on and cook dinner suggest we might concede that space-time could be an emergent property of quantum mechanics. With that settled, we just need to rejig the math – over coffee maybe.

I was prompted to write this after reading a Scientific American June 2010 article, Time Is An Illusion by Craig Callender.

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    Time might be a by-product of entropy, just like gravity.

    Absolutely not, for both. Entropy is fundamentally merely the availability of energy levels. (I.e. in the overruling statistical physics micro state sense.) How could energy, which depend on time, reverse the dependence? Likewise for gravity and energy from gravity potentials.

    I think that time is really just the process of decay.

    More precisely, what you describe is the arrow of time from entropy. It sets its directionality, but doesn’t create the phenomena.

    The universe is not a series of events, it is all a single event which is happening everywhere

    Yeah, the block universe. For an alternate hypothesis, see Deutsch above.

  • wjwbudro

    “Likewise for gravity and energy from gravity potentials.”
    Which depend on mass.

  • wjwbudro

    “Likewise for gravity and energy from gravity potentials.”
    Per GR, doesn’t gravity potential depend on mass potential?

  • wjwbudro

    Sorry for the double post, I thought the 1st didn’t register and the 2nd was an attempt to clarify.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    The relationship between entropy and gravity is interesting. The area of a black hole horizon has an entropy S = A/4L_p, and the growth of black holes has a second law of thermodynamics interpretation.

    LC

  • wjwbudro

    LC,
    So, if black holes are the ultimate engines of the universe, their increasing entropy decreases universal gravity potential?

  • wjwbudro

    However, per the 2nd law, gravity would/should be the “lost usable” energy? AND, per the 1st, how, where and in what form will it resurface? I’m having fun speculating. lol

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    Which depend on mass.

    Yes. But the dependence doesn’t affect how the time arrow comes about.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    @ wjwbudro: The black hole decays by quantum radiance. The entropy of the black hole is associated with a temperature, and a temperature means that quanta is radiated. From a coarsed grain perspective the entropy of the black hole plus the local environment increases. This is even though the black hole decreases in entropy by its decay. However, the quantum entanglement entropy of states inside and outside the black hole is constant. This is a sort of fine grained entropy that some idealized observer might record.

    LC

  • wjwbudro

    “This is even though the black hole decreases in entropy by its decay.”
    I guess I have to say I’m confused,,,back to Wikischool.

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    @ wjwbudro:

    I can’t help you with BH and its entanglement if that is of interest to you, but entropy is fairly simple.

    The BH decreases in energy (mass) as it radiates to space. This will make fewer available energy levels, so a decrease in entropy according to its definition in statistical physics. (Entropy for microstates.)

  • wjwbudro

    Thanks TL and LC for trying to enlighten me. Every time I
    think I am on the verge of understanding, I get blind sided. The quantum world is unfair. lol

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    ????????????????u??s??

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    Ignore that above… HTML/XML test did not work.

Previous post:

Next post: