The Instigator
IntellectualAtheist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Physical reality is fundamentally timeless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 615 times Debate No: 45530
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

IntellectualAtheist

Pro

Rules

1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.

3. I am arguing in favor of the resolution that physical reality is fundamentally timeless, because that implies that EVERY MOVEMENT requires time.

4. BoP is shared.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.

Presentation

Special Relativity

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the faster something moves, the slower its/his/her time passes RELATIVE to others. So, light can travel a mile and yet, not even the very least second has past (Taking into mind the incredible speed of light).
oculus_de_logica

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen, what is time? Since my opponent failed to define the term we'll be using for this debate I'll be building my case around the following definition for the sake of argument;
a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues: duration
b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future1

Simply put, it is the process of changing states; the rate of which events, things and moments pass and change at a point in time. My opponent will argue that this rate of change does not exist in our physical universe, that it has no time. I however believe that in order for systems to change they require time. Nothing can truly happen instantly in the macro world and all motion requires some form of time to effectively do so.

My main column will be the theory of special relativity, as my opponent has already brought to the table. Let us take his presentation and see what we make of it:

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the faster something moves, the slower its/his/her time passes RELATIVE to others. So, light can travel a mile and yet, not even the very least second has past (Taking into mind the incredible speed of light).

What my opponent described I known as time dilation and is dictated by the value Gamma. If we have the frame of reference (FoR hereafter) T we know that a clock within that frame has no velocity in the same frame. This is the standby frame, it doesn't move in relations to us. A clock in the FoR T0 moving past us will inevitably have the velocity v in relations to us. Remember that in that reference frame the clock has no velocity and instead we zoom by with the velocity v.

The clock will be synchronized and tick with the same rate, but because one is moving and the other is still they will seem to tick out of synch with each other; time flows at different rates. The ratio between the two rates is called Gamma in this context and is described with the following equation:

With gamma being defined as:

where c is the speed of light.2

Now, we can deduce from this that a light carrying photon moving at the speed of light experiences a complete halt in time; for if we fill in V = C we see that gamma approaches the undefined value of 1/0 from the positive side; Essentially becoming an infinite quantity. So now we have the interesting paradox: A photon must move the finite distance X without having any measurable velocity, or rather in an infinite amount of time. How can the photon complete this task? How does any light complete it's journey from it's source to your eyes if they, from their own FoR, do not move and nothing else does either. The answer to this paradox is that they are already there, for just as time collapses when you reach speed of light, so does space.

May I present length contraction: the phenomenon that with increased velocity space decreases in the same ratio as time increases; the spacial counter to light dilation3. It too is dependant on Gamma and is defined in the following equation:

Where L is the length observed by the FoR at motion, L0 is the length as measured by a FoR that is at rest and gamma holds the same definition as before. So as velocity approaches the speed of light gamma will become smaller and smaller and smaller, eventually resulting in the length becoming 0. The world of a proton is a strange and paradoxical one. The world as viewed by a proton moving at the speed of light is a frozen universe where length does not exist, every single location in space and time is condensed into a single point. A photon travelling will reach it's end location instantly if we ignore the fact that they slow down once they come across a medium such as the atmosphere.

But does this mean that time does not exists? No, it simply means that time isn't an absolute value, it changes as we move around our physical world. It is a quantity we use to be able to distinguish the rate of change, the process of entropy increasing in the universe. We assume that for every action in the macro world there is a set time variable, something to define the world as every moment passes. In simple quantum systems time is reversible (think of a pendulum, from a physical viewpoint it would make no difference if time was reversed) but for the macro world you clearly see that there are changes in the universe, entropy is growing and change happens. Time is a linear fact. If you drop an egg you see that it moves down, towards the floor. You see it break and you notice the yolk spread. You never see the reverse happen, a broken egg does not spontaneously assemble itself, reform the shell, fly upward against gravity and land on the table.

In fact, the light that went a mile did take time, it takes a little over 5 microseconds from all other FoR not included within the photon FoR. Microseconds are a ridiculously small amount of time, but it still seems an eternity if we compare it to the planck time, the smallest time unit possible; it is the time required for light to travel a single (reduced) planck length, the smallest length a photon can move, or at least that is how the theory goes.4

Readers of the debate, I'm terribly sorry that I had to bore you with physics and I promise the next rounds won't be so heavy, but I went into this detail explaining the concept of time dilation because it in itself is a case I can build upon: It is the dilation of time, the change of time flow. It helps us in keeping the light speed, the distance light travels in a single unit of time, the second. For something that does not exist in the physical world time is appearing unusually often in this equation. When we look at the clock what are we looking at? We're looking at change, we're looking at a process that is continuing and existing, changing in space as a function of time. We're looking at the fourth dimension influencing us, helping us remember that the past is gone, that the future is not yet here and that time is as real as the space it flows around in all it's dilating glory.

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.pa.msu.edu...
3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
4) http://www.universetoday.com...

Debate Round No. 1
IntellectualAtheist

Pro

Rebuttals

"Ladies and Gentlemen, what is time? Since my opponent failed to define the term we'll be using for this debate I'll be building my case around the following definition for the sake of argument;
"a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues: duration
b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future"1

Simply put, it is the process of changing states; the rate of which events, things and moments pass and change at a point in time. My opponent will argue that this rate of change does not exist in our physical universe, that it has no time. I however believe that in order for systems to change they require time. Nothing can truly happen instantly in the macro world and all motion requires some form of time to effectively do so.
"

You misunderstood; Time IS (At times) physical. However, the fundamentality of time's physicality implies that all movement requires time, which is false. How so? I will present my argument again.

Special Relativity

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the faster something moves, the slower its/his/her time passes RELATIVE to others. So, light can travel a mile and yet, not even the very least second has past (Taking into mind the incredible speed of light).

I will leave others (Except for the following) out. He/She (Haven't checked) simply explains the concept of special relativity.

"But does this mean that time does not exists? No, it simply means that time isn't an absolute value, it changes as we move around our physical world."

Yes, I know. It varies depending on one's/someone's speed (Hence, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity). So, because of light's incredible speed (And this will be repeated over and over again), it can travel an inch, yet, not even the very least second passes, thus meaning that time isn't FUNDAMENTALLY physical.

"In fact, the light that went a mile did take time, it takes a little over 5 microseconds from all other FoR not included within the photon FoR. Microseconds are a ridiculously small amount of time, but it still seems an eternity if we compare it to the planck time, the smallest time unit possible; it is the time required for light to travel a single (reduced) planck length, the smallest length a photon can move, or at least that is how the theory goes.4"

Ah. I was trying to display an example. What if light travels 3 inches? Most probably, not even the very least second passes.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
oculus_de_logica

Con

My opponent seems to be fighting for the cause that either the speed of light is so large that it ignores time or that the mind boggling concept of time units even several magnitudes above the Planck time do not count as fundamental.

The speed of light is measured as approximately 2.997 * 10
8 m/s. I'll agree with you that this is a ridiculous speed and it is absurd to try and visualize it. in our daily lives we perhaps manage to reach 27 m/s when driving down the highway to attend to our daily duties. We don't even manage to reach a fraction of a fraction of the speed of light and thus time dilation seems insignificant, but we're still going pretty fast when we discuss the smaller length units.

The Planck length is the smallest length unit that we have, is approximately 1.616 * 10
-35 m long. In comparison the charge radius of a single proton is 'only' 8.768 * 10^-16 m long, almost 10000000000000000000 times larger than the Planck length. visualizing the size of an proton was already a daunting task. This size is so ridiculously small that no matter how you try to visualize it it will always seem abstract and out of reach. This terribly small unit is the smallest amount a photon, and in theory, any matter can move and we can still measure it without either breaking the laws of physics or creating a theoretical black hole, essentially the smallest unit that will ever exist that is practical.1

now, what happens when the unimaginably large speed passes the unimaginably small length?
I quote my opponent:

Yes, I know. It varies depending on one's/someone's speed (Hence, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity). So, because of light's incredible speed (And this will be repeated over and over again), it can travel an inch, yet, not even the very least second passes, thus meaning that time isn't FUNDAMENTALLY physical.”

Ah. I was trying to display an example. What if light travels 3 inches? Most probably, not even the very least second passes.

Reading into these arguments tells me that, for light, time breaks down since it is experiencing a complete halt in its FoR, but we already established that when light is in vacuum travelling at c space breaks down as well, meaning that whatever length it is travelling it will arrive instantly. at least in its FoR. It won't matter if it is travelling a meter or ten billion meters; length contraction provides the photons with the option that all lengths are equally long (0m). If this is the case then the statement “Time is not fundamentally physical” is as valid as the sentence “Space is not fundamentally physical.” if you debate one you must debate the other under this set of arguments.

The other, less elegant, interpretation is that because the time required to travel even an inch is so small for light it can be neglected and is almost mute. But the problem is, in all other FoR's light MUST move at c when it is in vacuum. This gives us a definite time limit, a measurable time limit. If the shortest length possible is the Planck length then the shortest time unit possible must be the speed at which light travels over it. This unit is called Planck time. The value? 5.4 * 10-44 seconds4 in round 1. Simply put, it's so ridiculously small that imagining it is impossible, we have no way of visualising it. BUT, this is still a number, it is still a measurable time. It may be so minuscule that for all practical purposes it could just as well be a 0, but it is still there. There will be a value that comes out of this wherever you add it into equations requiring t it will still return a defined, non-zero value.

I hand the debate over to my opponent with the request that he provides a detailed explanation on why time is not fundamental and what makes a fundamental value and what does not fit in the definition.

1) http://math.ucr.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
IntellectualAtheist

Pro

I concede; I have been, and currently am being, taught astromony, but am never taught science equations like this. So, from the lack of knowledge of what the variables represent, I didn't know this. So, now, I am persuaded; I believe that time is fundamentally physical, implying that EVERY MOVEMENT requires time, which is true.
oculus_de_logica

Con

All right, thank you for the debate then.


I've always had an interest in astronomy, what are you currently studying?
Debate Round No. 3
IntellectualAtheist

Pro

Astronomy (Hence (Direct quote):

"I have been, and currently am being, taught astromony"
oculus_de_logica

Con

Astronamy is a big field, There is a big difference in studying the inside of our solar system as opposed to learning about black holes and binary star systems for example. ;)

I was always most interested by black holes, they're just a big ball of chaos and paradoxical nonsense.
Debate Round No. 4
IntellectualAtheist

Pro

Yes, indeed; There is a difference. However, the root word is "astro", meaning "relating to outer space". DO YO' RESEARCH, DAWG!

Anyways, we will be in contact; Whenever we have disagreements, I'll be sure to instigate an argument, issuing YOU as opponent (Hopefully). I leave it up to the voters now.
oculus_de_logica

Con

All righty then. until next time. :)


Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by IntellectualAtheist 3 years ago
IntellectualAtheist
astronomy")
Posted by IntellectualAtheist 3 years ago
IntellectualAtheist
oculus, we present our arguments in R1, as I have.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
So I'm going to assume that we start with our full-blown arguments in round 1? Or are we just doing a cute little 'introduction' argument with no real value there?
No votes have been placed for this debate.