Note: Sorry this is kind of long, I have been thinking a lot about time and how it relates to life. This is basically the conclusion that I have drawn based on my own experiences. It is not meant to offend or ridicule anyone, I am just curious what thoughts and arguments people may have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is time exactly? The dictionary defines it as “the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.” Progress of existence and events? Progress is defined as the “forward or onward movement toward a destination.” Movement is defined as the “act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.” So the definition of time could be broken down to:
the indefinite continued change in physical location or position of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Does this mean that time cannot exist without change? If when you are reading this sentence, time were to stop for 100 years, would it take you 100 years to read this sentence? No, because nothing changed in that time so that “time” did not exist. The truth is, that time is only a measurement of how much things change in comparison to a set standard. Does a mile exist? Does a gallon or a pound? A mile of land, a gallon of water, and a pound of iron all exist but without the physical matter to measure, the measurements are meaningless. Time is no different.
So is time travel possible? If you think about one instant in time, one freeze-frame, it is simply an array of how each particle of matter in the universe is arranged at that instant. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, so everything on this Earth, from the food we eat to the elements that compose our bodies, is made up of particles that have existed as long as the universe. It is a crazy thought, but everything on this planet is made up of only three different kinds of particles. Everything is composed of varying combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The complex interactions of these particles create every element on the periodic table. These elements make up everything we experience on this planet. 98% of our body mass consists of only four of these elements: Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen. It is crazy when you consider that the only thing that makes Oxygen different than Nitrogen is that Oxygen has one more proton in it’s nucleus. The only thing that makes Nitrogen different than Carbon is that Nitrogen has one more proton. That something that seems so small is what made life possible, is hard to imagine.
Evolution is the concept that living organisms developed from simpler organisms, but I think with only a bit of deductive reasoning, it is clear that even “life” evolved from something much simpler. Even protons and neutrons are made up of smaller subunits called “quarks.” That is as basic as technology allows us to get at the moment, but quarks could be made up of something even smaller. If it is true that matter cannot be created or destroyed then it means that the universe has always, and will always be. Everything that exists is just an always-changing form of matter. But if this is true, then we were neither created, nor can we be destroyed. If we are merely a chance combination of molecular building blocks then what is our purpose for living? Why do we laugh and cry and love? If there is no reward for our actions in this life then why do we even live? If there is no punishment for doing awful things then why not indulge ourselves?
The truth is that if everyone believed this, I do not know how people would act. Religion is nice, I go to a Baptist university and I grew up Christian, but it just seems to be a double-edged sword. It gives people hope, purpose, and a reason to wake up in the morning. I believe that it is the main reason that we developed humanistic qualities such as neighborly love and selflessness. On the other hand, it also allows people to justify terrible actions. How many wars have been fought in the name of God? To this day people use the argument that God is on our side to gain support for war. I have yet to read anywhere in the New Testament that says killing people is fine as long as you are fighting for Gods cause. I have yet to understand how a message of ‘love thine enemy’ can be perverted into kill people with different beliefs than you.
I am not trying to bash anyone, but it seems like religion is often only a justification of things that people do not understand. Such as why people have to suffer and how we came to exist and why disasters and miracles exist. I do not claim to understand everything, in fact, I feel as if I know less than most. It seems to me, though, that all of these questions that have plagued mankind throughout history, can be answered with only one explanation. Nearly any “why” question can be answered with the answer “because that is what happens when such a combination of matter interacts with another combination of matter.” For example, “why do we exist?” The question that could be considered the basis for every religion, really seems kind of simple. Life exists because protons bonded with neutrons and attracted electrons. Different combinations of these basic particles lead to amazingly complex compounds. Over untold amounts of time these combinations interacted with other combinations creating new combinations. We know that our planet has existed (in it’s current form) for at least 4.5 billion years. It is believed that we may have developed the ability to control fire about 800,000 years ago. That means that we have only been developing for less than 0.02% of the time that the planet has been developing everything that pre-dated us. We exist because of the reactions that occurred between the different combinations of the basic elements of matter. If you really think about it, we always talk about the end of the world but can the world ever truly end? If the world exploded tomorrow it would be the end of comprehension, but all of the matter that composes everything on the planet would disperse into space and be drawn toward the strongest gravitational pull until it reached a new planet or star and underwent further change. The only rational explanation for the beginning of the universe is that this change is what the “universe” is. Whether or not matter has reached a form as complex as humans, or whether it has reached an even more complex state is unknown but if our most basic concepts of physics are correct then it has always existed in some form. It is also clear that no matter how complex combinations of matter become, they can be broken apart almost instantly. A black hole could reduce everything in our solar system to one dense point, erasing any history of the combinations of matter found before.
I kind of got away from the original topic about time, but to get back on the subject of time travel…
I cannot understand the argument that going faster than the speed of light is a form of time travel. I understand that we can see stars that are no longer in existence because the light takes so long to reach our planet. What I do not understand is how traveling away from earth faster than the light that is being emitted by earth is supposed to be able to allow us to see into the past. Theoretically we would be catching up to light that existed on Earth thousands, or even millions, of years before we existed, but how would that be traveling through time? We would be looking at light, not history. That light is not from the “past,” it is just light that has been traveling for a long time. The most we could learn from that is when the Earth began to emit light.
Another form of time travel I have heard of is traveling to a different dimension that is actually a previous or future time. I think this model has been displayed as something similar to a film reel, where each individual shot is a moment in time. Like the shots on the roll of film, every instant of time exists simultaneously. I have been told that there are scientific theories that state that it would be possible to “jump” to one of these instants. I have two arguments against this one. First of all, I don’t see any scientific evidence to support multiple dimensions. I had to go to a string theory lecture for one of my classes once that attempted to explain how string theory supports the idea of multiple dimensions. I am sorry, but I just thought it was kind of ridiculous. I do not understand how the mathematics of knots explains that there are other dimensions. Also, if there were multiple dimensions then wouldn’t they have to exist completely independently of our dimension? To travel to another dimension would be to add, or “create,” matter in that dimension. Since there is a set amount of matter, wouldn’t taking matter out of this universe and adding it to another defy that concept?
Finally, it is commonly said that time is a “fourth dimension.” I was always very against that idea. I never really gave it consideration because I did not see a relation between height, width, and length compared to time. When I considered the definition of the word dimension though- “a measurable extent of some kind”- I could agree with that title. I think that change can be measured, so time could be considered a 4th dimension. This also makes sense because we can “travel” through time. After all we age, things decay, and so on. This is similar to the way we travel through the other dimensions. My only problem with this is the connotation that it creates. That we can travel through it implies that we are in control, like we are in control of where we travel on Earth. However, change is a one way road, things can change but never has something un-changed. To change something is to change the position or structure of matter in some way, the only way to “undo” this is to change it again, back to how it was. This, to me, means that the only way to go “back” in time is to change every particle in the universe back to its exact position in space at a given instant. Even if we could miraculously achieve this, that would have been a change occurring in the present, we would not be traveling through time, we would simply be changing the position and state of matter. However, I do think that would be similar to time travel because things would play out in exactly the same way they had. Every molecule would have the same forces acting on it that it had had, so when you jumped to this instant every action and reaction would occur the same as it had the first time. Obviously instantaneously changing every bit of matter to a state that it was in before is not possible, I just thought that was an interesting note.
The only form of time travel that seems logical is reaching the temperature of absolute zero. If time truly is defined by change, than the only way to “stop” time is to stop change. At absolute zero every molecule is frozen in place. Nothing changes at all. If you were instantly frozen to absolute zero, every molecule in your body would remain exactly the same for an indefinite amount of time. In this way you would be “unaffected” by time. At some time in the future if you were unfrozen you would have traveled through that time unchanged. You still would have traveled through time at the normal speed of time though.
For this reason it seems like the only way to have a true effect on time is for the entire universe to reach absolute zero. At that point nothing would change so time would essentially be stopped. That would, however, also be the end of time. If everything was at a point that change was not possible, nothing could create the change required to unfreeze a single particle. Matter would continue to exist though; there is no change that can be made that stops something from existing. Even in a black hole matter is not destroyed, light does not cease to exist. These things are just trapped in a very dense point. People often show a giant black hole as ending the universe, but eventually the black hole would explode and the matter would spread out again throughout space.
Things are always changing; everything we experience and observe seems just a form of change. Our bodies are the most complex combination of matter that we have yet observed, so it seems counter-intuitive to assume that the answers to our most complex questions come from much more basic concepts. That we are more complex than a vast majority, if not all, of the combinations of matter in the universe is a strange thought to have. It is in our nature to think there is something greater than us out there that is responsible for the way things are. I can not say for sure that there is not, but I can say that everything that we experience in this life is a result of basic particles interacting in extremely complex ways. Human consciousness, dreams, ambitions, they all result from particles reacting to stimulus from other particles. It is my opinion that these reactions, these changes in position of matter, are no different than the change that causes a rock to degrade. Though conscious, we are nothing more than a more complex combination of the same basic building blocks. Upon death we will simply return to a less complex form. These particles will disperse, eventually returning Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and the rest of the elements found in our bodies to the atmosphere, free to form new combinations. So in the end time seems irrelevant.
All of these arguments seem logical to me, but normally when someone believes something, they close their minds to other ideas. I am really curious what peoples reactions to any part of what I have said may be. Whether in support or opposition I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is time exactly? The dictionary defines it as “the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.” Progress of existence and events? Progress is defined as the “forward or onward movement toward a destination.” Movement is defined as the “act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.” So the definition of time could be broken down to:
the indefinite continued change in physical location or position of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Does this mean that time cannot exist without change? If when you are reading this sentence, time were to stop for 100 years, would it take you 100 years to read this sentence? No, because nothing changed in that time so that “time” did not exist. The truth is, that time is only a measurement of how much things change in comparison to a set standard. Does a mile exist? Does a gallon or a pound? A mile of land, a gallon of water, and a pound of iron all exist but without the physical matter to measure, the measurements are meaningless. Time is no different.
So is time travel possible? If you think about one instant in time, one freeze-frame, it is simply an array of how each particle of matter in the universe is arranged at that instant. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, so everything on this Earth, from the food we eat to the elements that compose our bodies, is made up of particles that have existed as long as the universe. It is a crazy thought, but everything on this planet is made up of only three different kinds of particles. Everything is composed of varying combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The complex interactions of these particles create every element on the periodic table. These elements make up everything we experience on this planet. 98% of our body mass consists of only four of these elements: Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen. It is crazy when you consider that the only thing that makes Oxygen different than Nitrogen is that Oxygen has one more proton in it’s nucleus. The only thing that makes Nitrogen different than Carbon is that Nitrogen has one more proton. That something that seems so small is what made life possible, is hard to imagine.
Evolution is the concept that living organisms developed from simpler organisms, but I think with only a bit of deductive reasoning, it is clear that even “life” evolved from something much simpler. Even protons and neutrons are made up of smaller subunits called “quarks.” That is as basic as technology allows us to get at the moment, but quarks could be made up of something even smaller. If it is true that matter cannot be created or destroyed then it means that the universe has always, and will always be. Everything that exists is just an always-changing form of matter. But if this is true, then we were neither created, nor can we be destroyed. If we are merely a chance combination of molecular building blocks then what is our purpose for living? Why do we laugh and cry and love? If there is no reward for our actions in this life then why do we even live? If there is no punishment for doing awful things then why not indulge ourselves?
The truth is that if everyone believed this, I do not know how people would act. Religion is nice, I go to a Baptist university and I grew up Christian, but it just seems to be a double-edged sword. It gives people hope, purpose, and a reason to wake up in the morning. I believe that it is the main reason that we developed humanistic qualities such as neighborly love and selflessness. On the other hand, it also allows people to justify terrible actions. How many wars have been fought in the name of God? To this day people use the argument that God is on our side to gain support for war. I have yet to read anywhere in the New Testament that says killing people is fine as long as you are fighting for Gods cause. I have yet to understand how a message of ‘love thine enemy’ can be perverted into kill people with different beliefs than you.
I am not trying to bash anyone, but it seems like religion is often only a justification of things that people do not understand. Such as why people have to suffer and how we came to exist and why disasters and miracles exist. I do not claim to understand everything, in fact, I feel as if I know less than most. It seems to me, though, that all of these questions that have plagued mankind throughout history, can be answered with only one explanation. Nearly any “why” question can be answered with the answer “because that is what happens when such a combination of matter interacts with another combination of matter.” For example, “why do we exist?” The question that could be considered the basis for every religion, really seems kind of simple. Life exists because protons bonded with neutrons and attracted electrons. Different combinations of these basic particles lead to amazingly complex compounds. Over untold amounts of time these combinations interacted with other combinations creating new combinations. We know that our planet has existed (in it’s current form) for at least 4.5 billion years. It is believed that we may have developed the ability to control fire about 800,000 years ago. That means that we have only been developing for less than 0.02% of the time that the planet has been developing everything that pre-dated us. We exist because of the reactions that occurred between the different combinations of the basic elements of matter. If you really think about it, we always talk about the end of the world but can the world ever truly end? If the world exploded tomorrow it would be the end of comprehension, but all of the matter that composes everything on the planet would disperse into space and be drawn toward the strongest gravitational pull until it reached a new planet or star and underwent further change. The only rational explanation for the beginning of the universe is that this change is what the “universe” is. Whether or not matter has reached a form as complex as humans, or whether it has reached an even more complex state is unknown but if our most basic concepts of physics are correct then it has always existed in some form. It is also clear that no matter how complex combinations of matter become, they can be broken apart almost instantly. A black hole could reduce everything in our solar system to one dense point, erasing any history of the combinations of matter found before.
I kind of got away from the original topic about time, but to get back on the subject of time travel…
I cannot understand the argument that going faster than the speed of light is a form of time travel. I understand that we can see stars that are no longer in existence because the light takes so long to reach our planet. What I do not understand is how traveling away from earth faster than the light that is being emitted by earth is supposed to be able to allow us to see into the past. Theoretically we would be catching up to light that existed on Earth thousands, or even millions, of years before we existed, but how would that be traveling through time? We would be looking at light, not history. That light is not from the “past,” it is just light that has been traveling for a long time. The most we could learn from that is when the Earth began to emit light.
Another form of time travel I have heard of is traveling to a different dimension that is actually a previous or future time. I think this model has been displayed as something similar to a film reel, where each individual shot is a moment in time. Like the shots on the roll of film, every instant of time exists simultaneously. I have been told that there are scientific theories that state that it would be possible to “jump” to one of these instants. I have two arguments against this one. First of all, I don’t see any scientific evidence to support multiple dimensions. I had to go to a string theory lecture for one of my classes once that attempted to explain how string theory supports the idea of multiple dimensions. I am sorry, but I just thought it was kind of ridiculous. I do not understand how the mathematics of knots explains that there are other dimensions. Also, if there were multiple dimensions then wouldn’t they have to exist completely independently of our dimension? To travel to another dimension would be to add, or “create,” matter in that dimension. Since there is a set amount of matter, wouldn’t taking matter out of this universe and adding it to another defy that concept?
Finally, it is commonly said that time is a “fourth dimension.” I was always very against that idea. I never really gave it consideration because I did not see a relation between height, width, and length compared to time. When I considered the definition of the word dimension though- “a measurable extent of some kind”- I could agree with that title. I think that change can be measured, so time could be considered a 4th dimension. This also makes sense because we can “travel” through time. After all we age, things decay, and so on. This is similar to the way we travel through the other dimensions. My only problem with this is the connotation that it creates. That we can travel through it implies that we are in control, like we are in control of where we travel on Earth. However, change is a one way road, things can change but never has something un-changed. To change something is to change the position or structure of matter in some way, the only way to “undo” this is to change it again, back to how it was. This, to me, means that the only way to go “back” in time is to change every particle in the universe back to its exact position in space at a given instant. Even if we could miraculously achieve this, that would have been a change occurring in the present, we would not be traveling through time, we would simply be changing the position and state of matter. However, I do think that would be similar to time travel because things would play out in exactly the same way they had. Every molecule would have the same forces acting on it that it had had, so when you jumped to this instant every action and reaction would occur the same as it had the first time. Obviously instantaneously changing every bit of matter to a state that it was in before is not possible, I just thought that was an interesting note.
The only form of time travel that seems logical is reaching the temperature of absolute zero. If time truly is defined by change, than the only way to “stop” time is to stop change. At absolute zero every molecule is frozen in place. Nothing changes at all. If you were instantly frozen to absolute zero, every molecule in your body would remain exactly the same for an indefinite amount of time. In this way you would be “unaffected” by time. At some time in the future if you were unfrozen you would have traveled through that time unchanged. You still would have traveled through time at the normal speed of time though.
For this reason it seems like the only way to have a true effect on time is for the entire universe to reach absolute zero. At that point nothing would change so time would essentially be stopped. That would, however, also be the end of time. If everything was at a point that change was not possible, nothing could create the change required to unfreeze a single particle. Matter would continue to exist though; there is no change that can be made that stops something from existing. Even in a black hole matter is not destroyed, light does not cease to exist. These things are just trapped in a very dense point. People often show a giant black hole as ending the universe, but eventually the black hole would explode and the matter would spread out again throughout space.
Things are always changing; everything we experience and observe seems just a form of change. Our bodies are the most complex combination of matter that we have yet observed, so it seems counter-intuitive to assume that the answers to our most complex questions come from much more basic concepts. That we are more complex than a vast majority, if not all, of the combinations of matter in the universe is a strange thought to have. It is in our nature to think there is something greater than us out there that is responsible for the way things are. I can not say for sure that there is not, but I can say that everything that we experience in this life is a result of basic particles interacting in extremely complex ways. Human consciousness, dreams, ambitions, they all result from particles reacting to stimulus from other particles. It is my opinion that these reactions, these changes in position of matter, are no different than the change that causes a rock to degrade. Though conscious, we are nothing more than a more complex combination of the same basic building blocks. Upon death we will simply return to a less complex form. These particles will disperse, eventually returning Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and the rest of the elements found in our bodies to the atmosphere, free to form new combinations. So in the end time seems irrelevant.
All of these arguments seem logical to me, but normally when someone believes something, they close their minds to other ideas. I am really curious what peoples reactions to any part of what I have said may be. Whether in support or opposition I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions.
Comment