Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit



There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 28 March 2013
I believe this is a re-print of articles that appeared in 'Scientific American'. It is divided into sections with a number of articles in each section. Sections include 'History and Philosophy', 'Physics' and 'The Human Side'. The articles are of a quality and complexity that you would expect from a scientific journal of this nature and the wide coverage of the topic allows the user to make better informed choices about which aspects of time they would like to investigate further. I found it to be a 'treat' and started by rationing myself to one chapter a day. This was a discipline I managed to keep up for nearly two days.

If you're like me; you'll find it fascinating and great value at the £3.00 mark. However, I have noticed that there are quite a few people who aren't like me at all.
0Comment| 19 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 June 2013
So, since I'm a bit of a junkie for anything time related in both philosophy and science, I was glad to get my hands on this nice compilation of articles from Scientific American. Each article has the same subject -- time. The problem of the nature of time is tackled from many different angles -- starting with an economic view of the importance of time and ending in the role of time in physics. The articles are mostly easy to read and seem to be easily accessible to laymen for the most part. However, as you might expect for such a compilation of articles, there is some repetition. Also, I was unpleasantly surprised after finding only a few pictures, which were of rather poor quality. After all, one of the many reasons why Scientific American is popular is, of course, colorful and informative illustrations.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 24 August 2013
The book contains all you need to know about time, in every point of view. I learnt quite a lot about the history of time keeping till how our own body keeps track of time. It is an excellent book for those who has always been curious about the our little fourth dimension!
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 January 2014
Having now read a few books on quantum mechanics, particle physics etc., I did get something from this book. However, I am just an interested amateur with the normal school physics background; thus I would not recommend this book for first-timers into this vastly complex world of theory and counter theory. I was completely lost in some parts but was able to pick up the thread in another chapter occasionally....yes, this the equivalent of 'rocket science', so don't be surprised if you feel slightly stupid as the end.....will there be an end?
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 January 2015
Very disappointing. Just a series of articles with no bridging and no new material. A cheap cash-cow.

The title "the ultimate paradox" is misleading. This seems to refer to the fact that we all perceive time but scientists cannot account for it properly within their current theories. This just points to a lack of understanding about time - not a paradox "per se". The fact that there aren't that many articles and a lot of overlapping material confirms this. There seems to be no firm understanding since Einstein and this material is already well known and repeated many times in this discourse.

One article was mainly about string theory and no real relationship to main topic beyond that it may help understand time better. Although perversly, this was probably the most interesting article.

The scientists seem to admit their understanding is flawed, yet still insist on telling us what might happen toward the end of the universe.

I only read this to its conclusion as I had already paid for it otherwise i would not have bothered.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 January 2014
An extremely interesting and engaging survey of time in modern physics. Packed full of thought provoking ideas and concepts, it raises more questions than it answers.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 January 2014
Each chapter looks at a different perspective on time. Complex concepts are explained with great clarity and without recourse to difficult mathematics. The different chapter authors also offer differing opinions so you do not get hooked into thinking any one theory has all the answers.
A discussion forum would be great. I still do not really understand why time dilation affects only the traveller and not the home bound who could be viewed as just travelling in the opposite direction to the traveller.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 November 2013
A collection of articles ( a magbook) well worth the money and will certainly get you thinking about the whole idea of time.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 November 2013
I found the book, a collection of papers on 'time' submitted to SM over the recent past,to be quite absorbing in places. But there are some papers which are very difficult to follow. Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 November 2014
A Brief History of Time-lessness (r2): "Does Time exist?", "What is Time?","Is Time-Travel possible?" - We examine how all these questions may unfounded, if everything is 'timeless'.A Question of Time The Ultimate Paradox
Scientific American

Amazon Kindle review, Matthew Marsden
(auth A Brief History of Timelessness)

"Is the elephant in the room wearing the emperor's new robe?"

(one star, well written, but I have to fundamentally question the work)

One of the biggest mistakes to make in science is to jump to a conclusion, and then try to make the observables fit your assumption. An even bigger error might be to assume your initial conclusion is so sound that you can ignore the scientific method completely and just get on with describing what you think exists. This is ultimately the problem of confirmation bias, which I think runs strongly in each article in this Scientific American special "A Question of Time The Ultimate Paradox". (And in all fairness throughout most articles on the theory of time).

(For an excellent lesson on jumping to conclusions, and then applying confirmation bias see
"2,4,8 can you solve this?" by Veritasium, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo )

Introduction.
---------------
In his section "A Hole at the Heart of Physics" George Musser cites an interesting quotes in this book -Carlo Rovelli "the contributions of philosophers to the new understanding of space and time in quantum gravity will be very important.", and suggests "some physicists and philosophers argue that it [the problem with time] has deeper roots, right down to one of the founding principles of relativity. I'm no great fan of philosophy, but I hope the following review at least suggests a different paradigm, related to these ideas, that is worth investigating. M.M.

Fundamentally, each contributor seems to have started from the position "a thing called time exists", and no matter how conflicting the conclusions drawn from this theory become, each seems to plough forwards regardless, and (with respect), none seem to apply the scientific method, check their most basic observations and hypothesises, and produce experiments to confirm each suggested component of "time" (e.g. the existence of a "past" and or "future", or "flow" or "direction" of time). Failure to methodically hypothesise, experiment, and modify ones hypotheses, while accepting ones general assumptions as in some way correct, will almost certainly lead to apparent "paradoxes"... which may be why SA thinks "time" is a paradox.

There are 17 sections to this book, each of which I think can be clarified and resolved throughout, if one carefully checks what we actually observe, without allowing conjecture to seep in unchecked. In other words if, in the interests of comprehensive science, we consider not only...

-the hypothesis... "that a thing called `time' flows between an unobservable `future' and an unobservable `past' " , but also,

-the antithesis... "that all we actually observe is matter existing moving and interacting in all physical directions"

(note: the suggested antithesis is not "Presentism", "Eternalism", "Relationism" or "substantivalism" etc, but just the suggestion that the world may be just as it seems, i.e. matter just existing and interacting (it makes sense to consider the most basic possibility before eliminating it) )

Re this I`ll just give a few examples from 4 of the articles.

1--Introduction: What Time Is It? (the editors)

2--Real Time by Gary Stix

3--That Mysterious Flow. ( by Paul Davies )

4--Is Time an Illusion? (by Craig Callender)

(my opinions...)
1- Introduction: What Time Is It? (the editors)
-----------------------------------------------

"Relativity dictates that, like a strange syrup, time flows slower on moving trains than in the stations and faster in the mountains than in the valleys. The time for our wristwatch is not exactly the same as the time for our head."

This clearly starts with the assumption that a thing called time exists, and flows, and that Relativity suggests or confirms this. However

Though many people assume Einstein's relativity in some way proves time exists (and is merged with space), in fact very few people seem to actually check the source paper "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" itself.
https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

If you do so, you may find Relativity itself only actually observes that there is "movement", and "assumes" there is "time".

Specifically, the (translated) paper in actual fact says...

"Electrodynamics" (special relativity) "section 1 Kinematics
-----------------------------------------

If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time...

If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this:

"The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."

This seems perfectly acceptable, unless you realise that the paper says we compare the co-ordinates (location) of one thing to a thing called "time",

But in fact the co-ordinates of one thing (a train) are only compared to the coordinates of another thing (the location of a rotating pointer).

At this point you really have to think for yourself, logically

-IF a thing called time exists, THEN a rotating point is a useful indicator,
but

-a rotating pointer does NOT prove there is a past, a future, or a thing called time that flows etc.

The paper uses the term "simultaneous" which implies time, same times, and `different' times exist, but nowhere is this actually observed, and no experiment to support this assumption is cited.

Therefore, all that is observed is that things (matter/energy), e.g. a train, or a rotating pointer, can be moving or stationary, and their locations and velocities can be being compared. The idea the rotating pointer shows the current "time" is only valid if "time" is shown to exist in some other paper... and more importantly, any argument based on the assumption Relativity in some way proves time, is thus invalid and circular.

Relativity does however show us that moving "oscillators", (or oscillators in high gravity fields) do indeed run slower than stationary oscillators. But trapping a photon so as to reflect between opposing mirrors, (moving or stationary),shows such a device oscillates more slowly, but in no way proves that extra to the photons motion, it is "heading into a future", or "leaving a past behind it", or that a thing called time is also "slowing".

So, I would contest that "Relativity dictates that, like a strange syrup, time flows slower on moving trains than in the stations and faster in the mountains than in the valleys. The time for our wristwatch is not exactly the same as the time for our head", and say instead "Relativity shows us that matter is moving and interacting in all directions more slowly on moving trains, and in areas of high gravity...but his in no way proves there is a also a thing called time that exists and `flows' more slowly".

2-Real Time by Gary Stix
-------------------------

"By one definition, time is a continuum in which one event follows another from the past through to the future."

This definition relies on the terms "the past" and "the future" being in some way valid. But no experiment , or scientific evidence is found to support these ideas. However, if one views the world with the hypothesis in mind "that a thing called `time' flows between an unobservable `future' and an unobservable `past' " , then one will see no evidence to contradict this... but no evidence against, is not evidence for. ( just as we see no evidence to disprove invisible ghosts exist).

If one considers the antithesis... "that all we actually observe is matter existing moving and interacting in all physical directions", then we can consider that objects around us *are* moving. Light from those objects *is* hitting our eyes, signal from our senses *are* affecting our brains, and we *are* reorganising some of the matter in-formation in our minds as this is happening.

We may bring to mind some of the patterns of matter information in our brains... and we ma "call" these "memories of `the past' ", but in fact all they prove is that matter exists and can interact. And they do not prove that as matter exists and interact the universe also creates and stores a record of all events in a place or thing called "the past".

Likewise we can observe a cloud moving and changing in the sky, and we can *be* running a model based on what we are seeing in our minds, but assuming that model is in some way about, or indicates the existence of a "future", is invalid without supporting scientific evidence.

Therefore, the suggestion "... time is a continuum in which one event follows another from the past through to the future." Relies on unobserved conjecture (the past, and the future), and without these things being proven there is no reason to conclude "events" follow each other, into `the future".

As Mr Stix points out, St Augustine asks in his Confessions.

"How , then, can these two kinds of time, the past and the future, be, when the past no longer is and the future as yet does not be?"

To which the logical answer seems to be "the past is not no longer", we may be wrong from the outset to assume there is a "past" in any sense, and there is no "future yet to be". All we observe is a massive set of matter, moving changing and interacting in special directions... misleading us into assuming "past" "future", and thus "time" exist, and need understanding.

3- That Mysterious Flow. ( by Paul Davies )
-------------------------------------------

"Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,/ Old time is still a-flying." so wrote 17th-century English poet Robert Herrick, capturing the universal cliché that time flies. And who could doubt that it does? The passage of time is probably the most basic facet of human perception, for we feel time slipping by in our innermost selves in a manner that is altogether more intimate than our experience of, say, space or mass."

Here, with respect, Professor Davies may be displaying confirmation bias. The idea "The passage of time is probably the most basic facet of human perception", is highly questionable, and while apparently feeling something is a good basis for hypothesis and experiment, alone feelings are not sound scientific evidence.

Who could doubt that time flies? Well anyone who considered that we do not perceive a future or a past, but that we do perceive matter/energy existing, moving, changing, and interacting, in all physical directions within and around us.

And, we may perceive air moving in our out of our lungs, or blood flowing through our veins in obvious physical directions. We may perceive wrinkles forming in our skin where collagen is low, or joints aching where wear is high, and we may perceive an increased collection of information in our minds etc but to suggest we perceive an invisible intangible thing called time, flowing from an unobservable future, into an unobserved past (or vice versa), does not in fact seem to be observed.

"moment. According to the theory, simultaneity is relative. Two events that occur at the same moment if observed from one reference frame may occur at different moments if viewed from another."

As per my comments on "Electrodynamics" above. It seems Relativity does not prove time exists and flows, but is only written "as if" time exists and flows. Thus moving objects may not be existing in different "times" or "nows", but just existing, and experiencing simple physical change, within themselves at different rates.

Therefore, re " during a future manned expedition to Mars, mission controllers back on Earth "I wonder what Commander Jones is doing at Alpha Base now." Looking at their clock and seeing that it was 12: 00 p.m. on Mars, their answer might be "eating lunch." But an astronaut zooming past Earth at near the speed of light at the same moment could, on looking at his clock, say that the time on Mars was earlier or later than 12: 00 p.m., depending on his direction of motion. That astronaut's answer to the question about Commander Jones's activities would be "cooking lunch" or "washing dishes."

May be wholly invalid. Our own (scientifically testable) experience is that wherever we are we are always somewhere doing some (one) thing. Thus we should assume the same is true for commander Jones on mars. "An astronaut zooming past earth at near the speed of light" may indeed be moving and changing more slowly than Jones, or Earths mission controllers, as may be the rotating hands on a numbered dial he looks at. But without scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, he, Jones, and the controllers are all just somewhere, doing something, at various rates.

"[the arrow of time] Events in the world undeniably form a unidirectional sequence. For instance, an egg dropped on the floor will smash into pieces, whereas the reverse process-- a broken egg spontaneously assembling itself into an intact egg-- is never witnessed.

It is agreed an egg can be falling, and breaking, and the reverse is not seen. But all this proves is that an egg can be falling and breaking, and that the odds are a large number of atoms will not fly up in specific directions to form any specific object. If seen in the hypothesis that there is a thing called time that has a direction, this will "seem to be confirmed", but a falling or breaking egg in no way proves there "is" a past, future or thing called time that passes. And failure to observe matter moving in some imagined way, in no way proves there is a thing called time, that exists and cannot be "reversed"... this may just be habitual application of confirmation bias, combined with not testing (or even considering) any logical antithesis.

4- Is Time an Illusion? (by Craig Callender)
----------------------------------------------

". The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening."

This seems to be another example of confirmation bias, and circular reasoning. If we assume there are "moments", and that "moments pass", then we conclude that there are "passing moments".

Unless proved otherwise we do not remember "the past", we are forming patterns in our minds, and we can bring certain patterns to consciousness, but this does not prove there "is" a "past" that we are remembering.

"the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening."... is true, if there are moments, but all that is actually observed is that you, what you are reading, and the light carrying the text to your eyes, all exists, and all the components of that scene are always somewhere doing something. Just as you might watch a spiders web being formed, or a cigarette burning, nothing seems to come out of a future, or go into a past, so it seems wrong to assume moments, or instants of a thing called time are "passing", or something is no longer "happening" to every bit of matter or energy in the universe, just because it is changing form or moving in special directions.

"The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now-- they are like a map without the "you are here" symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time."

This may be confused logic, if there is no past or future, then there is only "now" ( so to speak), so the equations of physics are what they are, useful understandings of how matter/energy can interact under various conditions, as it is doing so, everywhere. Hence "the present" may be all there is.

"neither does the flow of time.[exist in equations]", possibly because there is no flow of time. All we ever do is compare one example of motion (e.g. Einstein's train in "Electrodynamics"), to another example of motion (e.g. a rotating hand on a numbered dial)

"Albert Einstein's theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real. Fundamentally the future is no more open than the past".

This seems based on the assumption that time exists, and that Einstein's relativity in some way confirms this, (and thus that Minkowski's (block/ growing bock) space time interpretation is correct). If however Relativity is interpreted as just showing that moving object ( or those in high gravity) *are* changing more slowly, then we may be wrong to conclude there are any "past" and/or "future" moments... instead all the matter in the universe may just be as it appears to be, existing, moving, changing, and interacting, at various rates, in all directions..."timelessly".

I could comment on pretty much every other sections of the book, but I think I've made my possible interpretation ( and possible solution to all the "paradoxes" suggested) clear.

Basically, I think the articles in this book "A Question of Time The Ultimate Paradox", may be flawed because they jump to the conclusion "time exists", assume "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" proves more than just that moving things are changing more slowly, and don't consider that perhaps we are wrong to assume our "memories" prove "the past" may exist, while they may only prove, just ,that matter exists, moves and interacts in spatial directions.

Ultimately, imo, the theory of time may be "the elephant in the room wearing the emperor's new robe", because so many people seem to accept the theory without even having a clear definition of what is hypothesized, and ignoring the complete lack of experiments as per the scientific method (to show for example "the past" is a valid term), and the reliance of the theory on all observing only "matter existing and moving", but accepting a conjectured, but unobservable "past", unobservable "future", and unobservable "flow of time".

Matthew Marsden
(author "A Brief History of Timelessness" Amazon kindle)

For anyone interested, here's a couple of videos that I think may explain the more complex issues of "time travel" discussed in "A Question of Time The Ultimate Paradox" Scientific American, while still incorporating all our valid observations, and the essence of Relativity)

Considering 'time travel'
Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Cox's Science of Dr Who:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii3gxxn2reA

more general aspects of 'time'
Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSJ8A-w78xM

Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5cRGOGIEU
11 Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Customers also viewed these items

£3.21
£3.21

Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)