-8

Given the widespread acceptance that “Einstein’s Relativity” reasonably proves the existence of Space-‘Time’, and thus “Time”... Can any member of the Physics StackExchange please show precisely where, in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", (or related core Relativity) papers, “Time” is actually, in any reasonable way shown to exist, as opposed to just, or only being (unscientifically) “assumed”? (added) or, why it is legitimate for the paper to make this assumption or axiom?

Many individuals and publications refer to Relativity as our best theory of Space, and “Time”, and thus imply it is a given that time exists... because Relativity intricately employs the concept of time.

But wherever such claims are made, they are rarely accompanied by any clear justification or specific reference to a specific section of SR or GR. At best, it is claimed that SR proves “Time dilation”, and thus the existence of “time” as a genuine dimension.

Therefore unless it can be shown that Relativity, ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" etc), actually incorporates a reasonable proof of times existence, or cites such a proof, or even just gives a valid reason to “suspect” a thing called “time” might exist, then the “time dilation” shown may in fact prove only that moving things “are” changing “slower” (i.e just at a dilated rate), than stationary things, and not that a “temporal past”, and/or “temporal future”, or thing called “time” also exists. (As per space-“time”, block-“time”, growing block-“time” etc).

Precisely where Relativity is valid in assuming a thing called time exists, is a very important question, given the large number of theories based on the belief Relativity does proves time’s existence. And, the large number of fundamentally conflicting theories about time, problems resolving quantum and classical “time”, and even disagreement about time’s actual existence or not.

Therefore, if anyone here on the stack exchange can show just where "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" actually, legitimately validates its use of "time", or why they accept its assumptions in the specific area of "Time", please clarify this not just for me, but I assume many others..

MattMars
  • 23
  • 5
    Prove space exists. – Kyle Kanos Oct 08 '14 at 13:10
  • 4
    You can't prove an axiom. (Alternatively, the proof of an axiom is trivial. "Axiom 1 is true via axiom 1. QED.") The existence of space and time as axiomatic in special relativity. It's a part of axiom #1. – David Hammen Oct 08 '14 at 13:15
  • To the close-voter(s): this does not seem to be non-mainstream to me. It's asking for the (scientific) assumptions for time being a dimension. – Kyle Kanos Oct 08 '14 at 13:16
  • All that special relativity does is unify the principle of relativity with Maxwell's equations. Nobody (reasonable) thinks that the theory proves the existence of time, therefore the question does not make sense. (Moreover, the prevailing opinion seems to be that science does not prove anything about nature, it just provides models that allow to make predictions of measurements. But this is not a place for this discussion, as it is philosophical.) – physicus Oct 08 '14 at 13:23
  • @KyleKanos - That would be me. This is screaming non-mainstream physics to me. The question doesn't understand the difference between mathematical axioms, mathematical theorems, and scientific theories. That space and time exist is axiomatic in both Newtonian mechanics and relativity. Ignoring the problem of Godel's theorems, the two theories and their underlying axiomatizations appear to be mathematically consistent but they lead to different predicted outcomes of some physical experiments. – David Hammen Oct 08 '14 at 13:31
  • 1
    @DavidHammen: Not understanding the difference of types theorems does not make this non-mainstream though. "Unclear" or "specific concepts" are probably valid close reasons, I just don't see how lack of knowledge can be labeled non-mainstream. – Kyle Kanos Oct 08 '14 at 13:36
  • 1
    The question is valid, but it would probably get good answers and upvotes if it wasn't phrased in such a hostile way, implying that the whole of 20th century physics is wrong because Einstein forgot to check if he had proved time exists. – Javier Oct 08 '14 at 16:04
  • Hi David Hammen. RE :” the proof of an axiom is trivial.”. Could you please supply the proof that as things move where energy is available, another thing called time must also exist, and “pass”, e.g. between a proposed but unobserved “past” and/or “future”, for this to be possible. M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:15
  • Hi Kyle Kanos. RE: “Prove space exists”, proof or non proof of space is off the topic of this question, (Re my request 3). and only becomes critical if you can address the specific question, or show that “time” must exist if a thing called space exists. M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:19
  • Hi physicus. Thank you for your comment.To be clear (as per request r3) I am not interested in philosophical detours. Only in empirical evidence and scientific proofs, e.g. here, a proof that what is suggested in SR, that a thing called time can be dilated , and thus exists, is valid, and not just a very misleading discussion about the way rates of change are dilated. M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:27
  • How could anyone have up-voted this nonsense question? @MattMars, the concept of time predates Einstein by a number of centuries. Oh, right, time and hence centuries don't exist. Forget I wrote that. – David Hammen Oct 08 '14 at 16:30
  • Hi Kyle Kanos. RE: “That space and time exist is axiomatic”. I strongly disagree. I have no issue with space, that indeed seems axiomatic . The entire point of the question is that (with respect) you, like many others seem jump to, or just accept, the conclusion that Relativity does indeed show what is true of space is related to the truth or not of a thing called “time”. But if Relativity does not show any reason to assume a thing called time also exists, then it is only about space and simple, directional spatial motion, and dilated rates of change for moving objects (r5).M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:34
  • 2
    @MattMars: We assert that space exists as an axiom; in the same way, we assert that time exists as an axiom. You cannot prove axioms, they are definitions. For convenience, the metric combined all three spatial elements with the temporal one, creating the space-time manifold. – Kyle Kanos Oct 08 '14 at 16:34
  • Note also that to directly respond to someone (and alert them of a post), you can type @KyleKanos (for example) in your post. NB: this only works for 1 alert at a time in a comment. – Kyle Kanos Oct 08 '14 at 16:35
  • Both time and space a referents for observed facts. Observed facts don't need proving, they just are. That's what makes physics a science and not mathematics or philosophy. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 08 '14 at 16:37
  • Hi Javier Badia. Thank you for your comment, my apologies if the question seems hostile, it is not meant to be at all, just direct, logical, and not 'chatty'. RE: “implying that the whole of 20th century physics is wrong...”, no absolutely not. I haven’t mentioned the rest of physics at all. I'm clearly and only discussing 1 aspect of a seminal paper to check a specific fact, and conclusions drawn from it. If unreliable, the scientific method dictates that no matter how we feel about it, or how ‘hostile’ the questioning of an assumption might be, the issue must be correctly understood.M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:46
  • MattMars, do you understand the concept of the relativity of simultaneity? That at least indicates that there can be no physics-based definition of an objective "present", and thus no basis in physics for saying events in the "the future" or "the past" have any less reality than events in the present (though I suppose you could still posit an unobservable metaphysical truth about what events are in 'the present', akin to hidden variables interpretations of QM). – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 16:49
  • And note that it's because of the relativity of simultaneity that different inertial reference frames can disagree about which of two clocks is running slower, and the first of the two postulates of SR says that there is no basis in physics for preferring one inertial frame over any other. So, there can't be a basis in physics for saying that 'moving things “are” changing “slower”' in any objective sense. Both the relativity of simultaneity and the postulates of SR are discussed in Einstein's paper. – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 16:53
  • 1
    Math can never prove something from nothing. The best it can ever do is make a set of assumptions and reach a set of conclusions. Asking whether special relativity "proves" time exists is to make a nonsense demand. – Zo the Relativist Oct 08 '14 at 17:06
  • 1
    Also, what is the point of going to Einstein's 1905 paper? On this matter, the insight you want will be in Minkowski's work. You assume a spacetime, endow it with a lorentzian metric, and work out properties. The dimensionality of time is assumed, and the difference between time and space is baked into the Lorentizian metric. – Zo the Relativist Oct 08 '14 at 17:08
  • Dear @dmckee, re "Both time and space a referents for observed facts", can you please describe the observations from which you conclude if an object is moving there is also a thing called time involved, as an observed fact, as opposed to just an assumption. (e.g. give some reason to legitimately, scientifically, suspect or prove (to any reasonable degree) that a "future" is also approaching, or a "past" receding, or a thing called time with a direction etc is "passing"? or any variation of this).m.m. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 18:32
  • @ Jerry Schirmer , re "Math can never prove something from nothing. The best it can ever do is make a set of assumptions and reach a set of conclusions.", Agreed. Hence I am specifically questioning the assumption that extra to space and motion a thing called time exists to any extent at all other than just an idea. (if it is just an idea then the "merging" of 3d space, with just an idea is not scientific). Agreed we make assumptions, but it's illogical to just make an assumption and insist that's the end, otherwise we end up with astrology etc as being as credible as rigorous science. m.m – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 18:39
  • Hi @Hypnosif, Thank you, Your link exposes exactly the issue I am raising in my question. It says “According to relativity, it is impossible to say that two distinct events occur at the same time if separated in space” (paraphrased)- i.e. it accepts Relativity has legitimate things to say about a thing called “time”. Showing people do take Relativity as confirming time. But no one here has been able to show where relativity does so.Without extra proof the fact a moving oscillator oscillates slowly does not prove things are existing or changing at different times in different places.m.m. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 18:49
  • The basic assumption of relativity is that all the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz-symmetric, which means they obey the same equations when translated into different inertial coordinate systems whose coordinates are related to one another by the Lorentz transformation. And the Lorentz transformation implies that these different frames define simultaneity differently, i.e. a pair of separated events with the same time-coordinate in one frame have diff. times in another. – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 18:58
  • So, do you just want evidence that the fundamental laws of physics are in fact Lorentz-symmetric, so they obey exactly the same equations in different frames with different definitions of simultaneity? Or do you somehow think that even if it's true that the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz-symmetric, it could still somehow be true that we could do an experiment that would pick out a preferred frame? (i.e. experimenters in two different windowless chambers moving relative to one another would be able to do some experiment to show which was moving faster relative to a preferred frame?) – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 19:01
  • Hi @ David Hammen, re: “non mainstream physics”, physicsstackexchange page http://goo.gl/UVIsc9 accepted answer says, “Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community”. I would suggest Relativity is most definitely “accepted by a significant portion of the physics community”, therefore a specific question about a specific Relativity paper, questioning a key assumption in the paper is entirely legitimate here. Imo,That a question may point to an awkward problem is more a reason it should be addressed, than dismissed for convenience. M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 19:01
  • As a last option, I suppose you could accept that the laws of physics are Lorentz-symmetric, and accept that no physical experiment could pick out a preferred frame, but just believe that there is a preferred frame whose definition of simultaneity is objectively correct, even if we have no way to ever figure out which it is. This would be a sort of metaphysical "interpretation" similar to the various experimentally indistinguishable interpretations of quantum physics, and relativity doesn't deny this possibility since it concerns only physical claims about measurable things. – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 19:04
  • @Hypnosifl re:Lorentz symmetry, named for Hendrik Lorentz, is "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space"(wiki), Agreed, but how does the fact The laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference, show a thing called time must exist or pass, for an experiment to be being conducted? i.e. Why is this suggested “time” component not just an unproven and undisprovable assumption? What is the experiment to show things are not just existing and interacting? or the reason for not having one? – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 19:11
  • @MattMars - do you understand why Lorentz-symmetry makes it impossible to point to any experiment that will let the experimenter determine their velocity relative to some specific "special" frame, and that with the absence of experimental evidence for a "special" frame there can also be no experimental evidence for any "special" definition of simultaneity? If you doubt that conclusion then I or someone else could try walking you through the logic. – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 19:24
  • (cont.) On the other hand, if you accept that, but are just arguing that some definition of simultaneity might be "true" even if there's no experimental way to determine which it is--then I agree! Relativity simply doesn't comment on the question of whether one definition of simultaneity is more "true" than another in some absolute metaphysical sense, it solely concerns what can actually be measured experimentally. – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 19:25
  • Hi @Hypnosifl, thank you. re "arguing some definition of simultaneity might be "true" "... not quite. I'm clearly asking "Where in Electrodynamics is time proven to exist OR (if not) Why is it a valid assumption"... i.e. I'm trying to actually check our foundational facts. Those needed for discussions about whether terms like simultaneous, or nonsimultaneous actually are themselves valid. P1 of my question is answered (electrodynamics assumes, but does not prove time), can you please post a link etc that explicitly answers P2 "why is time a valid assumption". i.e. Actually clarify the "axiom". – MattMars Oct 10 '14 at 10:31
  • Hi 'Physics' exchange,@dmckee re on hold.
    If Physics is :“knowledge of nature”, the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and "time”(wiki). And PSE insists on TAGS “SPACETIME”,”TIME”,”RELATIVITY” and “THE ARROW OF TIME”, why is a question about a key fundamental assumption of spacetime, time, relativity and the arrow of time, “off topic”?

    Re “mainstream physics” quote PSE:“Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community.” why do you think Relativity not been accepted by the physics community?

     – MattMars Oct 10 '14 at 10:48
  • @MattMars--"Why is time a valid assumption" is a meaningless phrase, like "why is banana a valid assumption". Neither are "assumptions", they are just nouns. Would it be reasonable to translate your question as "why is it assumed that things existing at all times are equally real as in 'eternalism', as opposed to the assumption that only things in the present are real as in 'presentism'"? See here for more on presentism vs. eternalism. But if you're not asking a question about what things can be said to "exist" you'll have to clarify what it is you're asking. – Hypnosifl Oct 10 '14 at 15:42

3 Answers3

4

First of all, physics does not ever talk about the question of existence, but about useful descriptions and predictions of observations. No physicist will ever prove to you he is not just a figment of your imagination but he can prove to you that Newton's law works pretty well for what you see.

In the scientific method, a theory is indeed used until it becomes useless because it does not describe facts properly. But relativity does describe facts properly and gives sound predictions. Hence in the eyes of the scientific method, there is no reason to throw it away unless a better proposal is put forward.

To sum it up, nobody in science cares whether time exists or not - unless you show hard facts which distinguish between the statement of the existence/non-existence of time. Obviously, this requires that the statement of "existence" is given a specific interpretation. However, if the given interpretation does not show a factual distinction between the statements, the question of their validity is non-scientific. So what factual distinction does the statement of non-existence of time represent?

Einstein does not prove time to exist and it is safe to assume he did not really aim to discuss it's "existence" in a philosophical sense. The work is a "mere correction" to the Newtonian paradigm with the Galilean transform where a parameter $t$ commonly called "time" is assumed. The need of such a parameter is assumed implicitly, the same way that it is commonly assumed that the world is not just a figment of your imagination.

So what does this parameter $t$ mean? Citing from Einstein's article on electrodynamics of moving bodies:

It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for “time.” And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.

That is, for Einstein "time" is just the number you read off from a clock. Nothing more, nothing less, no discussion of existence of some abstract "time" entity is needed. A part of the body of the article then concerns itself with deriving how you can relate what does your clock show to things that other clocks show under certain synchronization procedures. (I described one such procedure in this answer.) You could eliminate "real time" and just talk about "change" and no-one can stop you. But the tacit fact still holds that you need a certain number $t$ to unambiguously label events.

I can already picture the comment which says things such as "But this is no proof the label $t$ is not redundant...". So ask yourself "How would I prove my dog exists?". You would say you see him in your living room. But you see an image in the shape of a dog in your head. Which means there are neurons flashing in your head somehow. How is this proof such a thing as a "dog" exists? And we could go on like this for a long time.

A truly scientific approach is to propose specific hypotheses associated with the fact of the existence and non-existence of your dog. E.g. "My dog exists if I hear him, see him, touch him, there is no logical inconsistency in these phenomena, and my psychiatrist is not telling me I am mad." But in the end these are only necessary, not sufficient conditions for the existence of your dog. You never gain sufficient conditions for the existence of anything from science.

The need of a fourth label "t" has a specific form and the proposal of non-existence of time would have to reformulate science in a specific and quantitative way to prove itself at least equally true as the proposal of need of $t$. The scientific method is open, it verifies only necessary conditions and this is also the case of the $t$ label. I.e. the necessary conditions for the "essentiality" of $t$ are given by it being a part of working scientific theories. As far as I know, this is not the case of "non-time" theories. (Even Barbour has a fourth parameter which is just not called $t$.)

Community
  • 1
Void
  • 19,926
  • 1
  • 34
  • 81
  • Thank you @void for your response. I added a reply to it and asked if that was ok, but it seems to have been removed without any communication. Re "the proposal of non-existence of time would have to reformulate science in a specific and quantitative way", politely, in science, it is not up to one to prove the "non-existence" of anothers theory. They need to provide some scientific evidence that 'clock' hands (dilated or not) do not just show things exist and move, but that there is also a 'thing' called 'time',and,how it is apparently 'passing'.We cannot just claim 'Time exists' is axiomatic. – MattMars Oct 10 '14 at 10:16
  • But nobody is claiming "Time exists". The claim just is that "science without a time record is not possible" and this claim fulfills "only" the sufficient condition of not being contradicted by the whole body of science. I.e. to study a process scientifically, we have to write into the "time" column in our data - the "space" columns would not be enough. Yes, we do in fact write another "space" variable under $t$ corresponding to say the position of the clock hand. But you do get different records corresponding to different arrangements of all "space" variables. – Void Oct 10 '14 at 14:03
  • Different means not identical, so the two arrangements are not the same which means we have a family of arrangements and we need a label to organize these arrangements. This label is commonly denoted $t$. – Void Oct 10 '14 at 14:06
  • Thank you @Void that’s very clear. If I understand correctly, Nobody is claiming Time exists. We just live in a world in which matter 'is' just existing, moving and interacting in different ways, in all directions. And where studying complex motion it is useful to compare that motion to an example of simple motion, and use the symbol ‘t’. So the answer to my question is, ‘time’ (e.g. with a past, future, or arrow etc) is not shown to exist in Relativity, and it is not valid to assume ‘Time’ exists, other than as a useful system to explore the ways matter 'is' being arranged in the universe? – MattMars Oct 10 '14 at 16:17
  • Well, matter? Does matter exist? Does energy exist? Does space/universe exist? In a sense yes, you have got the right gist, but similar statements can be made about any term X used in science: "In the light of plain scientific methodology, X is a useful term to explore and organize observations." Be X time, space, energy, matter... Existence of X is not commented upon (i.e. this is not a pro-timeless statement). Some adopt physical realism to establish a correspondence between science and the "really real" - but that procedure is ambiguous and out of the realm of plain science. – Void Oct 10 '14 at 19:49
2

The aim of special relativity and of spacetime (in particular: the Minkowski space time) is not to know about what time is. Spacetime is showing a relation between space and time from an observer's view only - and this whatever time is in reality (including the question if time exists or not). The result is that time (i.e. the value measured by clocks) may be different from one observer to the other.

In special relativity "time" does not mean anything else than that a clock is running.

Moonraker
  • 3,135
  • "OEMB" cannot scientifically be quoted as showing a relation between space and "time", unless somewhere it shows that a thing called time exists, as opposed to just observing motion in a simple spatial direction, and "calling" it time. Implying, without scientific proof that an extra unobserved phenomena with the implied attributes* of "time" exists.

    *”Time : The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole” (O.E.D)

    The value measured by “clocks” is only the movement or location of a motorised pointer rotating on a dial. M.M.

     – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:05
  • Re:”In special relativity "time" does not mean anything else than that a clock is running.”

    Therefore the “measurable quantity” (dimension), of the rotation of a motorised hand, is just the simple, spatial, directional “motion” of an object. And cannot just be “called” an extra “dimension” of a phenomena called “time”, or taken to prove a thing called “time” with a flow, direction, “past” and/or “future” exist...i.e 4dimensional “spacetime”. M.M.

     – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:09
  • This is exactly your misunderstanding! Special relativity does not treat all these issues you are mentioning, it just uses some clocks and some rulers (measuring always from the point of view of an observer) without bothering about the nature of what is measured. Calling "time" what is measured by clocks and "space" what is measured by rulers. There is no further truth within special relativity! – Moonraker Oct 08 '14 at 16:39
  • Hi Moonraker. Thank you for your comment. I agree “"space" what is measured by rulers” Seems a valid observation by the paper. But you seem to jump to the conclusion that therefore “"time" [is] what is measured by clocks” is equally valid. This unchecked assumption seems to lead to scientific establishments like SA (http://goo.gl/qzmAVH) asking questions about “time”, where only simple rotational motion is described by the OEMB. And misleadingly implying “Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real”.M.M. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 16:56
  • Dear answerer "First of all, physics does not ever talk about the question of existence," thank you, i added a response to your answer post, becasue these comment boxes are too small to address the issues raised. (is that ok ?) m.m – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 18:06
  • Ive got he dreaded "may be subjective" warning. (subjective "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."(google dictionary). My question specifically dismisses "feelings", and is based entirely on a strictly logical analysis of OEMB, and about a specific factual aspect of that paper. I'm specifically asking for a clear logical objective scientific response. (I have reworded the question slightly to "Where in, Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (Relativity), is “Time” reasonably shown to exist, or why is it a valid assumption?" to clarify this). m.m. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 19:58
2

The question seems to imply that the OP has a fundamental problem with existential questions. Those are for psychology and philosophy to ponder. Physics simply observes that one can build very precise clocks that agree with each other reasonably well under certain circumstances and not at all under others. The theory of special relativity clarifies when these clocks will agree and by how much they will disagree, when they don't.

CuriousOne
  • 16,318
  • Thank you @curiousone I have no existential issues, if claims are supported as per the scientific method. Agreed we can build very refined oscillators, and that Relativity clarifies such oscillators are dilated if moving. But Relativity seems to imply that thus unobservable "instants" of a thing called time exist, and that "different times" exist etc. If "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I'm asking what is the scientific evidence supporting Relativity's assumption that an oscillator shows the existence and passage of "Time"? i.e.Proof the emperor is not in fact just naked. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 22:22
  • That clocks exist is hardly an extraordinary claim and neither is the sentence "Time is that which is measured by clocks.". Don't get me wrong, but you don't sound like someone who is on an easy footing with reality. Physics starts with the acceptance that there are things in this universe which behave rationally. If you don't have that, physics is simply not for you. – CuriousOne Oct 08 '14 at 22:37
  • 1
    But Relativity seems to imply that thus unobservable "instants" of a thing called time exist -- does it? How? Physics doesn't concern what "exists", only what results are predicted when you perform various experiments. "Existence" is a matter of metaphysics, specifically ontology (the view that only present things exist is called 'presentism' by philosophers, the view that events at all times have the same ontological status is called 'eternalism'--relativity doesn't comment on this, though it may make eternalism seem more appealing by occam's razor) – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 22:38
  • Relativity only requires that we can read a clock and use a yardstick, any assumptions beyond that (and simple algebra and geometry) are, IMHO, a sign of messy thinking. – CuriousOne Oct 08 '14 at 22:47
  • Hi, @curiousone With respect, suggestions such as “The question seems to imply the OP has fundamental problem with existential questions” or “you don't sound like someone who is on an easy footing with reality”, sound more like ad hominem, than scientific reasons supporting the suggestion that extra to just motion, “time” is a legitimate phenomena. I think requesting scientific proof to back up the theory that intangible unobservable time exists, or why the scientific method should be ignored for Time shows one is not just accepting what others say, but actually exploring reality logically. – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 23:01
  • 1
    I think requesting scientific proof to back up the theory that intangible unobservable time exists As I keep telling you, this is just a strawman, relativity makes no claims about what "exists". If you disagree, please point us in the direction of any paper by Einstein (or any paper or textbook by some other mainstream author) claiming that relativity proves different times "exist" in the eternalist sense. – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 23:04
  • @MattMars: I merely describe what I observe. Right now I am observing that you are using words like "proof" in a matter which is intellectually not appropriate in a scientific context, which just adds more evidence to my observation that your thinking is messy and not suitable for analyzing reality. We can give you the correct answers as many times as we like, if you can't make good use of them, you are wasting our and your time. – CuriousOne Oct 08 '14 at 23:10
  • @curiousone in other words, while I understand and use the very useful concept/theory of time, as I do the concept of money, the question is, is there any proof time is not just a concept, essentially just motion by a confusing name? If so "It doesn't matter how beautiful our theory is, it doesn't matter how smart we are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong", and if we cant even provide an experiment, and instead use our energies to dismiss or avoid awkward questions, rather than explore what they may reveal, then we may end up in a physics cul-de-sac e.g. "the problem of time". – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 23:13
  • @MattMars: Your personal concept of time is as irrelevant to physics as your concept of money is to economics theory and banking. I gave you the physicist's definition of time. Can you read a clock? – CuriousOne Oct 08 '14 at 23:15
  • 1
    @MattMars - "and if we cant even provide an experiment" -- provide an experiment to show what?? If it's "other times exist" or "time exists" then you're asking for an experiment to prove something relativity never claimed in the first place. Are you familiar with the term "strawman argument"? – Hypnosifl Oct 08 '14 at 23:19
  • Hi @Hypnosifl re “seems to imply that thus unobservable "instants" of a thing called time exist” (how?), in the statement (Electrodynamics section 10, Slowly accelerated Electrons) “If the electron is at rest at a given epoch, the motion of the electron ensues in the next instant of time according to the equations” ( epoch:“instant of time”, “next” implies next instant). – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 23:29
  • Hi @Hypnosifl These comments seem to be a little tense, which is not my intention. If we hit reset, my question is,“Where in, Einstein’s “Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, is “Time” reasonably shown to exist, -or- why is it a valid assumption?”.(note the "or"). I know Electrodynamics makes no claims as to what exists, but it makes 70 references to “time”, and from it, it is deduced and widely accepted that space-time is a valid phenomena. I’m just asking where it cites an argument to raise the idea “that time exists” above mere speculation, or, from anyone here “why is it a valid assumption”? – MattMars Oct 08 '14 at 23:45
  • @MattMars: Science is not religion. We don't read our books like some of the religious are reading theirs. You are expected to know the basic definitions for space, time and everything else and to have a working knowledge of the phenomenology of nature. You just gave an excellent example for the intellectual train wreck that is bound to happen to those who don't. – CuriousOne Oct 09 '14 at 00:21
  • 2
    @MattMars, nowhere in physics is it claimed that any element of any mathematical model used for predicting experimental results -- whether the element we're talking about is "time" or "the electromagnetic field" or "light waves" or "forces" or "space" -- "exists". Did you see my earlier comments about how existence is a matter of ontology, not physics? If I seemed a little frustrated, it's because I made this comment several times before and you didn't respond, but just kept on repeating the claim that relativity says time "exists". – Hypnosifl Oct 09 '14 at 02:21
  • Hi @Hypnosifl, re:"time/different times exist" “you are asking for an experiment to prove something relativity never claimed in the first place”. I politely disagree. "Electrodynamics" part 1 quote'[we] have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” “. (‘simultaneous’:“Occurring, operating, or done at the same time:” O.E.D), and thus implies time and different times exist. i.e the paper is very clearly referring to a 'thing' called time ('time'."The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future" O.E.D) m.m. – MattMars Oct 10 '14 at 11:09
  • Hi @curiousone re:“Science is not religion. We don't read our books like some of the religious are reading theirs. You are expected to know the basic definitions for space, time... working knowledge of the phenomenology of nature.”. You may be right, re books, Can you let me know which of my research books Is misleading, or recommend one I missed? http://goo.gl/Qvqug9 . The "basic definition" of "time" involves a "past" and/or "future", but i see no "scientific evidence" that these, and 'time', are not just (useful) 'ideas'. Precisely why do you think their unobservable 'existence' axiomatic? – MattMars Oct 10 '14 at 11:22
  • 1
    @MattMars - why do you think referring to a 'thing' in a scientific paper involves any belief that it "exists" in some ontological sense? One can just view it as an element of a mathematical model useful in making predictions. If a paper defines a particular coordinate system, must they believe the coordinate grid "exists"? If a paper defines the value of some number useful in physics (Avagadro's number, say), does that commit them to mathematical platonism, the view that numbers themselves have objective existence? – Hypnosifl Oct 10 '14 at 15:48
  • @MattMars: I am sorry, my friend, but I had about enough of your deliberate misreading of physics. Have a good life and believe whatever you wish. – CuriousOne Oct 10 '14 at 18:30
  • Hi @CuriousOne Thank you for your responses they are sincerely appreciated. You may be incorrect in assuming I'm deliberately misreading physics. My intention is to rigorously understand and check our most fundamental observations, science, logic and conclusions surrounding the concept of time, about which there are clearly many conflicting views and theories. It seems to be widely assumed that Relativity shows "time" can be dilated, leading to Minkowski 4D space-time etc. I'm trying to confirm if "time" is an actual phenomenon, or if there are just dilated rates of change in 3d space 'now'.MM – MattMars Oct 11 '14 at 11:24