Time

[Washington]

On another web site there was a discussion about the nature of time. In this discussion one of the posters said that time is dependent on change.

"If absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing except for one single object, the ongoing change in that object would be the only means by which the flow of time could be determined, or even said to exist. But should that object suddenly stop changing then time would essentially cease to be."
​

I found this rather intriguing and began to wonder if time, in of itself, is a true individual component of the universe, or simply the consequence of another measurable property, namely the change from one state to another.

Ideas?

 

[AV1611VET]

On another web site there was a discussion about the nature of time. In this discussion one of the posters said that time is dependent on change.

"If absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing except for one single object, the ongoing change in that object would be the only means by which the flow of time could be determined, or even said to exist. But should that object suddenly stop changing then time would essentially cease to be."
​

I found this rather intriguing and began to wonder if time, in of itself, is a true individual componant of the universe, or simply the consequence of another measurable property, namely the change from one state of to another.

Ideas?

Did he say how long time had stopped?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Did he say how long time had stopped?

Long enough for you to derail a thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Long enough for you to derail a thread.

Like with this: Brownian motion?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Like with this: Brownian motion?

More like this.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

On another web site there was a discussion about the nature of time. In this discussion one of the posters said that time is dependent on change.

"If absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing except for one single object, the ongoing change in that object would be the only means by which the flow of time could be determined, or even said to exist. But should that object suddenly stop changing then time would essentially cease to be."
​

I found this rather intriguing and began to wonder if time, in of itself, is a true individual component of the universe, or simply the consequence of another measurable property, namely the change from one state to another.

Ideas?

Kurt Goedel (of incompleteness theorem fame) came up with a solution to Einstein's equations from General Relativity, in which the thing measured as "time" in the theory ends up having behaviors not resembling time as we conventionally understand it (I'm being deliberately vague here, it is easy enough to look up the specifics).

He concluded that time isn't an actual property of the universe's basic structure, but merely something that emerges in a universe that kind of looks like the one we are in.

So there is no time in the fundamental structure of the universe. It is just something that crops up when the universe has certain other things going on.

 

[Washington]

Kurt Goedel (of incompleteness theorem fame) came up with a solution to Einstein's equations from General Relativity, in which the thing measured as "time" in the theory ends up having behaviors not resembling time as we conventionally understand it (I'm being deliberately vague here, it is easy enough to look up the specifics).

He concluded that time isn't an actual property of the universe's basic structure, but merely something that emerges in a universe that kind of looks like the one we are in.

So there is no time in the fundamental structure of the universe. It is just something that crops up when the universe has certain other things going on.

And that's how I always regarded it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

On another web site there was a discussion about the nature of time. In this discussion one of the posters said that time is dependent on change.

"If absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing except for one single object, the ongoing change in that object would be the only means by which the flow of time could be determined, or even said to exist. But should that object suddenly stop changing then time would essentially cease to be."
​

I found this rather intriguing and began to wonder if time, in of itself, is a true individual component of the universe, or simply the consequence of another measurable property, namely the change from one state to another.

Ideas?

I think the inability to measure the flow of time is not the same as time ceasing to flow. I may not be able to see the wind, but it's still moving. Undercurrents in the sea are invisible, but they're still there.

 

[Washington]

I think the inability to measure the flow of time is not the same as time ceasing to flow.

A good thought, but is there any reason to believe it flows if there is nothing that indicates it exists?

I may not be able to see the wind, but it's still moving. Undercurrents in the sea are invisible, but they're still there.

This would only be the inability of one function to sense it, just like sense of touch cannot discern dark.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Time is a dimension.

If everything ceased to move, there would be no forwards or backwards in time.

If you travelled at the speed of light, would everything relative to you be standing still, because nothing is fast enough to overtake you?

Therefore time stops.

Therefore the dimension of time ceases to exist. It is no longer measurable.

Why do things still get heavier?

 

[catzrfluffy]

Is gravity what holds dimensions together?

Time, space, and ______. (whatever else there is)

Break or strain one, and you'll feel the pull of gravity?

 

[shinbits]

I've said this before, but I don't think time is a physical thing. I think it's merely a man-made idea, used to keep track between events.

 

[Washington]

If everything ceased to move, there would be no forwards or backwards in time.

If you travelled at the speed of light, would everything relative to you be standing still, because nothing is fast enough to overtake you?

Therefore time stops.

Therefore the dimension of time ceases to exist. It is no longer measurable.

It would still be measurable within both frames of reference.

I've said this before, but I don't think time is a physical thing. I think it's merely a man-made idea, used to keep track between events.

Well, we certainly do use it, but so do other animals. Quite a few processes in nature use and depend on the passage of time. So while humans can conceptualize it to some extent, recognizing it (having an idea) if you will, this doesn't bring it into existence. If every human were to vanish from the universe change would still occur, and change takes time. But I do agree that time isn't a physical thing, at least not in our common definition of "physical."

 

[Maxwell511]

On another web site there was a discussion about the nature of time. In this discussion one of the posters said that time is dependent on change.

"If absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing except for one single object, the ongoing change in that object would be the only means by which the flow of time could be determined, or even said to exist. But should that object suddenly stop changing then time would essentially cease to be."
​

I found this rather intriguing and began to wonder if time, in of itself, is a true individual component of the universe, or simply the consequence of another measurable property, namely the change from one state to another.

Ideas?

In order for the universe to stop changing you would require the laws of physics to stop working. Time is dependent on our physical laws being equivalent and so would probably not exist.

Although we could imagine a universe containing solely photons, which could still agree with our physical laws, and since they don't "experience" time then time would also probably not exist. So time is not solely dependent on our laws being equivalent.

This seems slightly paradoxial so I am going to say 42 is the answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

This seems slightly paradoxial so I am going to say 42 is the answer.

Time is EMIT spelled backwards; so if all motion would come to a halt, then Absolute Zero and Absolute Time would both be the same, and nothing could move backwards in time.

 

[Gracchus]

You can observe only the past, because everything you observe is at some finite distance from you. Time is always measured by a change in distance, usually a cyclic one.

Time is really just the changing viewpoint from the conscious mind. There is no "I was" nor any "I will be", there is only "I am."

"Cogitatus sum, ergo fooey!"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A good thought, but is there any reason to believe it flows if there is nothing that indicates it exists?

Is there any reason to believe it stops flowing if there's nothing to measure it?

This would only be the inability of one function to sense it, just like sense of touch cannot discern dark.

T'was an analogy . Just because something hasn't been (or cannot be) measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why do things still get heavier?

Meh, that's a subjective approach to the problem. Does mass get heavier, or does acceleration get harder? Either one is valid, since they're both different ways of looking at the same thing.

 

[dad]

On another web site there was a discussion about the nature of time. In this discussion one of the posters said that time is dependent on change.

"If absolutely everything in the universe where to stop changing except for one single object, the ongoing change in that object would be the only means by which the flow of time could be determined, or even said to exist. But should that object suddenly stop changing then time would essentially cease to be."
​

I found this rather intriguing and began to wonder if time, in of itself, is a true individual component of the universe, or simply the consequence of another measurable property, namely the change from one state to another.

Ideas?

Change from one state to another? Hmm. Well, when we change to another state, time will be no more. Time, therefore, I would suspect is a feature of the temporal state. Kind of like lines on the highway. When we move on to the other state, the lines will be more like suggestions, than rules ?

 

[dad]

Meh, that's a subjective approach to the problem. Does mass get heavier, or does acceleration get harder? Either one is valid, since they're both different ways of looking at the same thing.

Well put. Looking at the same thing. To understand time, we may need more than the same thing.