I am convinced, but I have to constantly convince myself as if I don’t, doubts creep in!

No. This idea seems to me to be like religion in some respects. There is no way to prove or disprove it.

I don’t think that the future has a “real” existence now if by “real” we mean what we are familiar with in our reality. However, the future might exist in a very different form that can be envisioned only at speeds close to the speed of light. Put differently, the future might exist in a different “dimension” or a set of dimensions of reality that is not accessible to us. These dimensions might exist but, if they do, they are not “real” in the ordinary sense of the word.

They have proven it by taking an atomic clock that was synchronised with another atomic clock, one was put on a aeroplane while the other left on the ground. The clock on the aeroplane was flown around the world, upon return checked against the clock left on the ground and found to have lost time compared to the one left on the ground. Religion on the other hand requires faith. ( Faith is belief in the absence of evidence ).

Its always the other guy’s clock that is going slow relative to my inertial frame. So if something happens in the other guy’s frame at say 1PM it will happen at 1:01PM according to my clock. But does this mean it happens in MY past? It hasn’t happened before 1:01Pm according to me so it hasn’t happened in my past. And nothing seems to happen in my future either. So obviously my PAST is real (having experienced it) but not the other guy’s, and not my FUTURE.

I will try with my no so good english to explain something. You say the clock goes slowly when moving. The light does not change its direction and speed due to the movement of the box. The light always reach the top of the box because teh speed of the box can not be more than the speed of light. But the light only reach the top of the box later according to the fix reference system since the box is moving and from that external system the lengh is not just the verticl but the diagonal. So the light only have a longuer trajectory seem from outside, but it has the vertical trajectory in the box from inside. So you can not say the clock is slowler when moving you can only say the clock is moving slowly from the point of view of an external observer. It is a very different affirmation. Measurement of time is relative to the observer, clear, but it does not mean the clock is slower or faster itself when moving. It is faster or slower from each observer. If we deny the absolute time, we can only say tieme is slower for us when clock moving.But not that the clock is slower.
Please comment about this understanding.

We shal be precise when talking about real or existing. If we supose something is somwhere, it is an object, and that object is an actual object, today we say it is real. Not before the XVI century the word real was almost not used. The object have realitas, which are , let say, it charasteristics for the observer, but as well it is real for the observer, but this realitas for the observer ara not the object itself. The science tries to prove tht the object has an entity and its realitas, which very often is something very diferent tht the what is real for a common observer. Then to enter in discussion about the existence of past present and future, must make the distinction form what past present and future is for a observer and what it is for the science.

The clock is Really ticking slower in the moving clock, the person moving with the clock doesn’t detect the slowing down of time due to the small amount of variation. But if the person with the moving clock was travelling close to the speed of light, let’s say 86% that person time would slow by approximately 50% then he would feel the slowing of time. Hope this helps you understand.

“The clock is Really ticking slower in the moving clock” : that is for the observer in rest, NOT for the “the person moving with the clock”. So even “if the person with the moving clock was travelling close to the speed of light” he wouldnot notice any slowing of his clock. If this person would be able to see the clock in rest then he would notice this clock running slower then his own clock.

I believe that if we were able to ride on a photon in its velocity c, we could take time completely out of the equation, then we would see the universe is not moving att all. We would be able too see all the past and all the future instantly!

I think that the reasoning implicitly uses more than two clocks, namely: the moving clock and (at least) two clocks in the rest frame, – at different places (!) -, which are synchronized with each other, registering respectively the departure and the arrival of the photon in the moving clock, on their respective positions in the rest frame.
Why I think this is essential? Because if there are only two clocks then one can reverse the argumentation and consider the moving clock as being at rest in his frame and the other clock as in fact moving, and then one gets lost (in my opinion). But in the reversed story “the additional clock” is in fact an other one.

Perhaps the notion of events in an abstract space-time which can be coordinated in different ways is therefore such a brilliant idea of Minkowsky.

Yes, I am conviced they do.

Well, I’m convinced that past and present are, but future could be in state of yet to come.

I am convinced that the past and future do exist.

Of course they exist. Three notions: 1 are past present and future dependent on relative motion?: Yes as proven in this course. 2 Do past present and future make sense mathematically?: Almost – the algebra works, yet the forward motion of time is not defined by math. Math works as well “in reverse”. Still I find that math does a good job to make time defined. 3. Can we observe and even measure past present and future?: Yes, most notably by the stars. The stars show us the past. Yet our present observation must be in the starlight’s future.

I understand the point made, but I’m conflicted with the clock example. We make the assumption that the clock measures time, but this only stands true as long as time and the action the clock repeats to measure it remains “in sync”.

Imagine you set two sand clocks and you let one fall vertically from a tall building roof. If you compare the two clocks after the fall, the one on the roof will be ahead of the one you throw. Looking at this, someone might wrongly conclude that the fall slowed the passage of time when, in reality, it was just that the device used to measure was no longer able to be representative of time passage.

I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I’m sure there is plenty of fundaments to not doubt the premise that speed slows time, I’m just trying to wrap my head around whether the light clock example talks about time slowing down or our inability to measure it.

I am convinced

Yes, I am conviced they do

please teach about minkowski 4d

Yeah, think so.

From relativity it is just a perspective there is nothing like past, present or future. A present of some one can be past for other one and future for some other depending on situations

I am still trying to get my head around the concept.

Yes, it’s indisputable because it can be proven.

My past can be the future of somebody in the Universe…

can we say that the photon doesn’t miss the top part of the light clock due to the initial horizontal velocity given to in when it started to move

the future of what you see is light coming to your location. your past is light going away from you to others at a different location.

What is the definition of present, past, and future? If present is defined as the instance a photon is emitted from observer A, then regardless of how far away an observer B is or observer B’s velocity relative to observer A, observer B will always see observer A’s past since the photon must travel from A to B regardless of time dilation. For either observer to see the other’s future would require the photon to reach say observer B before it was emitted by observer A. In the train examples, there was never a situation from either the onboard observers or the station platform observers where any one signed before the light turned on. Whether president forward signed first or both presidents signed together, the events were always in the past to any observer.

Yes, they are. It’s only the time flow scale that is changing, going up or down. The “fabric” of time stretches or shrinks—and these past, present and future always remain bound by causality.

Time is sticky 😊

If we observe an event then clearly it has occurred and so the event must be in the past. However it is not asymmetrical: if we have not yet observed the event it may be because it has not het happened (and so is in the future) or it has happened but signalling of the event has not yet reached us. We need to define the terms past, future and real. I define past to refer to the collection of events that have occurred. The future to be the collection of events that will occur.

not yet

It all happens in the same moment.

There is no distance that is not the same.

Zen koans and Satori find paradoxes. The mulidimentionality of the one moment perplexes people, as too does the passage of time determined by a liquid diet.

It all happens in the same moment.

There is no distance that is not the same.

The question to be answer require precision about the term Real
The word Real did not was utilized with its present meaning until XVI century
Today we understand by real some thing that exist out of our mind , some thing that can be search by science and as well philosophically.
But what it is reality for a human being it is what iit is received by our mind through the sens , and process by our mind and body.
So yes Time it is a Reality , present, past and no so clear future. But it does not mean it is Real at all. What it is Real is the measurement of time which it is a comparaison of movements.
But since what we do is just compare changes in the space and we call it time. And as well since instead of time we can express in different units those changes in units of space, scientifically time and space are two ways to express in different units the same physical fact.
So time as Reality for human being shall not be confused with the measurements of changes in the physical world which can be given in units of time or space. What it is Real (not Reality) is the constant change of the physical world.
We easily can suppress the word time in our conversations and nothing happens. For example instead of years : turns around Sun. Instead of seconds fractions of the movement of the clock.Etc
Real is the constant change not a physical unit we define to measure it.
Talking about Reality, what it is named time for humans beens it is a philosophical discussion.

My vision of the Universe says that it all exists all space and all time, past, present and future. It is our view that is limited to our present.

It is an error to think that time which is only a measure of change of the real measure done by comparaison of two movements that measure can be considered as some thing existing out of our mind and scientific calculations
Some scientific explain that time and space are the same measured with different units. The conversion of units of time to units of space is the speed of light “c”
World changes continuously and we measure that changes in units of time comp airing different changes

I think that if we think about what it is time we can say if it it is some thing Resl, real as a phisical fact out of our mind
Time is always just a measure made by comparaison of two changes We can convert time in space using speed of light, so time is a way of expressing space measurements in a different unit
Can the measure of anything be call something real existing out of our minds?

yes

Yes, I am convinced by the relativistic reasonings that the past and future are real and truly exist, just like the present. This perspective aligns with the understanding of time in modern physics, particularly in the framework of relativity theory.
According to relativity, the concept of “now” is not absolute but depends on an observer’s frame of reference and their relative motion. Different observers moving at different velocities will have different perceptions of simultaneity. It implies that what is considered the “present” for one observer may be in the past or future for another observer.
Additionally, the theory of relativity suggests that time is not a fixed and universal quantity but is instead malleable and influenced by factors such as gravity and velocity. This notion is supported by empirical evidence, including experiments with atomic clocks on spacecraft and observations of time dilation around massive objects.
Considering these aspects, it becomes apparent that the past, present, and future are not static, isolated entities but interconnected aspects of a broader space-time framework. Each event or moment in time has its own existence within this framework, and the distinction between past, present, and future is relative to the observer’s reference frame.
Therefore, based on the scientific understanding of relativity theory and the evidence supporting it, I am convinced that the past and future are real and have an existence on par with the present.

Hi
I agree about what you say but not about your conclusion
First it shall be agreed what we understand for “real”. Let asume “real” is anything that exist and can be accessed by us, either out or in of our bodies.
Time is the measurement of change in the universe. That measure is relative to each observer and it is affected by gravity, speed and so on.
But independently of what it is observed by one individual, and a given universe configuration is now present for me and future for somebody else , it does not mean that a given universe configuration exist after its change. When it changes that configuration disapear. That is independent of when that configuration os perceived by one observer or another.
If we consider that “reality” is the perception for each individual of the “real” , yes my past reality exist for an observer receiving it after that concrete universe configuration have change and dissapear for me. My reality exist for others in my past.
But can we say that the given configuration of the universe still exist?, or just only that, a given configuration of the universe is perceived differently according to the observer position in that universe?
This point of view I try to explain, does it implies an absolute time? I do not think so. If we accept that entropy increases we are accepting with the arrow of time ( not absolute time) we are accepting that a given configuration of the universe dissapear after another. Time is the measurement of change of universe configuration.
If we do not upfront accept time as some thing real, since what we perceive as observer is only the change of the universe, then we can not say future, past are real.
Another discussion is reality of time inside the humans or intersubjective tiem perception and as as such it could or not be considered as real, although it is a reality, understanding “reality” for what is perceived by the human.

They do not have existence on their own but relative to one another.

Yes, otherwise where do our memories come from and how do predictions come true.

From the relativistic reasoning, and after listening and checking every single calculation and interpretation of the topics explained by Mr. Greene so far, there is no doubt that past, present and future coexist.

Ok.What I believe on my perspective is that “Past exist as we experienced it.But we don’t know whether future exist or not.Because we didn’t see what the future will be like.”Umm…..this is also a relative fact 🙂

It seems nonsense from anyone’s perspective. Because from my prespective you are also in present as the events is happening in my inertial frame. Similar to the other guy. So, taking about from each other prespective everything is in prresent.