Time
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
Yes, something like that - theoritically speaking.
http://www.costellospaceart.com/html/time_and_the_speed_of_light.html
http://www.costellospaceart.com/html/time_and_the_speed_of_light.html
Who says there's no universal definition of time?
Time is the separation between any two events. Time is a system of measurement. Though "time" is not constant it can still be defined.
Time itself. To study and unravel the secrets of such a complex concept takes a lot of "time". I believe that we will eventually fully comprehend "time" but maybe not in our lifetime. Study and Research on the concept may takes decades to compile.
It's foolish of man to consider traveling back in time. The human mind is capable of achieving great feats but going "back in time" is a mad man's dream.
We are constantly in the future and the present, because they coincide.
As for the stand-still of time...if there was no perception of time then there would be no time and it would therefore be at a stand-still. We wouldn't be able to differentiate between when any two events which have occurred.
Time is the separation between any two events. Time is a system of measurement. Though "time" is not constant it can still be defined.
Time itself. To study and unravel the secrets of such a complex concept takes a lot of "time". I believe that we will eventually fully comprehend "time" but maybe not in our lifetime. Study and Research on the concept may takes decades to compile.
It's foolish of man to consider traveling back in time. The human mind is capable of achieving great feats but going "back in time" is a mad man's dream.
We are constantly in the future and the present, because they coincide.
As for the stand-still of time...if there was no perception of time then there would be no time and it would therefore be at a stand-still. We wouldn't be able to differentiate between when any two events which have occurred.
Time is a curiosity to most; it appears to have a liner direction, and to be absolute, yet is relative to the observer and can theoretically be turned back. On the macro-level, nothing is Time reversible, yet on the sub-atomic level, everything appears to be. It is its one dimensional variable, but yet is one with space. These almost paradoxical statements can go on nearly for infinity, and they all serve to confuse whoever may attempt to ponder the topic of Time. So what then is time? Is it a physical force, or is it something beyond the physical? And why haven't physicists and philosophers figured this out?
To start, Time appears to be one directional insofar as human perceptions are concerned. Eggs don't fix themselves when dropped, rain does not go back into the clouds, etc. This phenomena being known as the "Arrow of Time" forms a key basis for our very existence, for we only have one chance at something, and are continually in a state that is moving towards our death. Yet science has been keen on trying got figure out whether this phenomena is indeed absolute, and for the longest time it seemed that way. While in the circles of philosophy this may have not been so, with some even going as far as to say that Time is merely the physical laws of the universe taking effect, the scientific community, up till pre-Relativistic times, thought Time to be absolute, flowing from on point to the next and never altering itself or moving in reverse. Indeed, this is the most appealing view as our sense experience of the world shows Time to be as such; impassable, ever moving, but always present. It was not until Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity that the assumptions of Newtonian physics began to be replaced by a more educated notion--one that stated that time and space existed as one, and that Time could be "changed" per se, given that proper gravitational distortion was available to curve Space-Time. Thus causing "gravitational time dilation" when Time flows through regions of differing gravitational potential. This alone shook such notions as "absolute" Time to their core, because they showed that at the very least, different regions of space have different flowing of Time at different "rates", so to speak. So to sum it up, clocks near larger (Think "larger" on the cosmic scale) will actually run slower due to the lower gravitational potentiality induced by the object, and vice versa.In fact, this very principle has been put to practice here on Earth. In an experiment, scientists took two atomic clocks, placing one at ground level and the other on a plane high in the air. The basic assumption prior to this was that since the clock on the ground is closer to a lower gravitational potentiality, it would run slower (As the saying goes, lower is slower), and they held the opposite to be true for the second clock since it was further from the low gravitational potentiality. This assumption was proven to be true, though only in the range of nanoseconds.
However gravitational time dilations is only the tip of the iceberg, and the implications of General and Special Relativity on the subject are far to arcane to spell out here. Though the last implication of the above (Among other things) is that Time is inherently relative. Not only to the observer's frame of reference but to the gravitational potentiality of the observer's frame of reference. So why then, if physicists know this much, does the "rest" elude them? To answer this, we must first make clear that what physicists have observed are merely that: observations. Nothing about the actual nature of Time has been found--save that it is relative. Whether it is ever lasting, whether it predates the big bang, etc., etc... None of these essential questions have yet to been shone a single thread of light on. But why?
To start off simply, because we can only observe the effects of Time. Time "itself" as not yet been inferred or observed and cannot be due to its apparent nature. This leaves us struggling to understand it, a reflection of which can be seen in the lack of a universal definition. A definition requires properties, something we largely lack in respects to Time. And this will likely stay the same, we can pin this on the fact that we simply don't have the means to study Time as we do, say, gravity. Likewise, the envisioning of time manipulation has been expectedly hazy, with only seemingly impossible theoretical models of how it could be done.
To start, Time appears to be one directional insofar as human perceptions are concerned. Eggs don't fix themselves when dropped, rain does not go back into the clouds, etc. This phenomena being known as the "Arrow of Time" forms a key basis for our very existence, for we only have one chance at something, and are continually in a state that is moving towards our death. Yet science has been keen on trying got figure out whether this phenomena is indeed absolute, and for the longest time it seemed that way. While in the circles of philosophy this may have not been so, with some even going as far as to say that Time is merely the physical laws of the universe taking effect, the scientific community, up till pre-Relativistic times, thought Time to be absolute, flowing from on point to the next and never altering itself or moving in reverse. Indeed, this is the most appealing view as our sense experience of the world shows Time to be as such; impassable, ever moving, but always present. It was not until Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity that the assumptions of Newtonian physics began to be replaced by a more educated notion--one that stated that time and space existed as one, and that Time could be "changed" per se, given that proper gravitational distortion was available to curve Space-Time. Thus causing "gravitational time dilation" when Time flows through regions of differing gravitational potential. This alone shook such notions as "absolute" Time to their core, because they showed that at the very least, different regions of space have different flowing of Time at different "rates", so to speak. So to sum it up, clocks near larger (Think "larger" on the cosmic scale) will actually run slower due to the lower gravitational potentiality induced by the object, and vice versa.In fact, this very principle has been put to practice here on Earth. In an experiment, scientists took two atomic clocks, placing one at ground level and the other on a plane high in the air. The basic assumption prior to this was that since the clock on the ground is closer to a lower gravitational potentiality, it would run slower (As the saying goes, lower is slower), and they held the opposite to be true for the second clock since it was further from the low gravitational potentiality. This assumption was proven to be true, though only in the range of nanoseconds.
However gravitational time dilations is only the tip of the iceberg, and the implications of General and Special Relativity on the subject are far to arcane to spell out here. Though the last implication of the above (Among other things) is that Time is inherently relative. Not only to the observer's frame of reference but to the gravitational potentiality of the observer's frame of reference. So why then, if physicists know this much, does the "rest" elude them? To answer this, we must first make clear that what physicists have observed are merely that: observations. Nothing about the actual nature of Time has been found--save that it is relative. Whether it is ever lasting, whether it predates the big bang, etc., etc... None of these essential questions have yet to been shone a single thread of light on. But why?
To start off simply, because we can only observe the effects of Time. Time "itself" as not yet been inferred or observed and cannot be due to its apparent nature. This leaves us struggling to understand it, a reflection of which can be seen in the lack of a universal definition. A definition requires properties, something we largely lack in respects to Time. And this will likely stay the same, we can pin this on the fact that we simply don't have the means to study Time as we do, say, gravity. Likewise, the envisioning of time manipulation has been expectedly hazy, with only seemingly impossible theoretical models of how it could be done.
And then there was Bloodrazor. :shrug:
Shard how much time,do you think, it would take,to get to the level,when the humans will have the means and knowledge to research and understand time?
Is time a 'real' dimension?
Could there also be a limit to the change in time? This would mean that time would advance in small discrete steps and not move continuously, in other words it would move in a similar way to watching the progress of a story on a film or video; the individual 'frames' of time may be so small that it only gives the appearance of being continuous.
Here is some things i found. It is quite interesting.
Shard how much time,do you think, it would take,to get to the level,when the humans will have the means and knowledge to research and understand time?
Is time a 'real' dimension?
Could there also be a limit to the change in time? This would mean that time would advance in small discrete steps and not move continuously, in other words it would move in a similar way to watching the progress of a story on a film or video; the individual 'frames' of time may be so small that it only gives the appearance of being continuous.
Here is some things i found. It is quite interesting.
In my opinion, I would say that it is merely semantic in nature.
Both the way on how time is expressed, to me it is able to reveal the nature of how the present is(ie, whether the future of the past exists or not).
For example:
Sentence 1: "There used to be cats in my room when I was a kid"
Sentence 2: "It was rainy while I was drinking this bottle of coke"
IMO both sentences were able to reveal the nature of how time is. Whether there is or isn't a past or a future.
The only difference is on whether how you choose to describe it(time). Whether something exists/happens in terms relative to the present or in terms relative to other events.
To demonstrate how, I would like to use Mctaggarts classic example of a poker.
It has the trait of being hot at one time and being cold at another time.
I can change the trait described in this form:
But the trait can't be changed in this form:
But if we regard those characteristics of the poker depending on conditions instead of as an intrinsic we can easily avoid the matter of semantics.
For example:
One could argue that a poker never has the characteristic of being hot nor cold, rather the poker is sometimes being heated whereas it sometimes is not.
Therefore we could alternatively say that the poker always has the trait of being hot when heat. Be it when it is cold, I can still say that it still has the potential of being hot IF heated.
See? Even there, it still seems to be a matter of semantics which can be avoided by being a bit more careful with how we describe it.
I adhere to eternalism viewpoint. In eternalism, objects in the distant past are equally real as objects in distant space are real, even though we're not there. So the past does not seize to exist as the present moves along. This means dinosaurs do exist, just none of them are located now. Similar to how distant stars do exist, even though none of those stars are located here.
Both the way on how time is expressed, to me it is able to reveal the nature of how the present is(ie, whether the future of the past exists or not).
For example:
Sentence 1: "There used to be cats in my room when I was a kid"
Sentence 2: "It was rainy while I was drinking this bottle of coke"
IMO both sentences were able to reveal the nature of how time is. Whether there is or isn't a past or a future.
The only difference is on whether how you choose to describe it(time). Whether something exists/happens in terms relative to the present or in terms relative to other events.
To demonstrate how, I would like to use Mctaggarts classic example of a poker.
It has the trait of being hot at one time and being cold at another time.
I can change the trait described in this form:
Code:
Sentence 1: "There used to be cats in my room when I was a kid"
Code:
Sentence 2: "It was rainy wile I was drinking this bottle of coke"For example:
One could argue that a poker never has the characteristic of being hot nor cold, rather the poker is sometimes being heated whereas it sometimes is not.
Therefore we could alternatively say that the poker always has the trait of being hot when heat. Be it when it is cold, I can still say that it still has the potential of being hot IF heated.
See? Even there, it still seems to be a matter of semantics which can be avoided by being a bit more careful with how we describe it.
I adhere to eternalism viewpoint. In eternalism, objects in the distant past are equally real as objects in distant space are real, even though we're not there. So the past does not seize to exist as the present moves along. This means dinosaurs do exist, just none of them are located now. Similar to how distant stars do exist, even though none of those stars are located here.
Someone says "time doesn't really exist" and explain it ( but i can't remember this person ), anyway "time" and our conception of "time" ( i mean hours, minutes... ) is definitely a human creation...
I surely don't have the good words to explain my way to see it but my image is a river, It's flowing continously in a perpetual move, so ithink "time" is a perpetual move cycled by human point of view.
I surely don't have the good words to explain my way to see it but my image is a river, It's flowing continously in a perpetual move, so ithink "time" is a perpetual move cycled by human point of view.
Se, how do we store our memories? And how do we read the data? Yes, I already know about the neural network, but how does it actually store anything? And what about our dreams? Are they stored through the same process as well? And how do we tell the difference afterwards?
By the way, what is your opinion regarding lucid dreaming?
By the way, what is your opinion regarding lucid dreaming?
memories storage is a brain capacity, im not sure we stock information with a dated information, brain stock things regardless of time. sometime you could remember something but you can't tell when it has happened...
you just remembered the things, images, feelings... the way you interpreted them. ( i know i'm not really clear, sorry , hard to explain something complex in another language )
About dreams, the only thing i've got to say on it : i've notice that, my notion of time in my dreams is not the same as my notion of time in my real daily life ( exemple : while 1 hour in my dream past, three hours in real life have past ) i've tryed this 5 times. Sleeping for a hour IRL, but have the impression to have spend plenty of time in "my dream life".
you know you can influence your dreams ??
you just remembered the things, images, feelings... the way you interpreted them. ( i know i'm not really clear, sorry , hard to explain something complex in another language )
About dreams, the only thing i've got to say on it : i've notice that, my notion of time in my dreams is not the same as my notion of time in my real daily life ( exemple : while 1 hour in my dream past, three hours in real life have past ) i've tryed this 5 times. Sleeping for a hour IRL, but have the impression to have spend plenty of time in "my dream life".
you know you can influence your dreams ??
First off all, it is four in the morning and I can barley speak much less type, so please forgive any and all typos and grammatical errors. They are of my own fault and the typo fairy shall not be brought into any such affair given this, you can rest assured.
Thanks for the questions~ they made my tired little brain ponder to the point that it hurt and it is hard that such a thing happens these days. Now, to answer your question, I must put forth mostly mere assertions and opinions. Save my forthcoming comments on Time being a "dimension", most of what follows is merely an educated guess from a barely educated kid.
Now, it is my view that within the next fifty years or so, physics, more specifically Quantum Mechanics, will advance to a point in Time (Pun not intended) in which a great deal of fresh light will be shone on the issue of Time; namely when we begin to find some way of reconciling it with the Theory of Relativity. The ability to verify these findings of QM will likely take more technology then will likely be available at the time however, as was the case with some of Einstein's predications made via his Theory of Relativity aforementioned. To how long the technological gap will remain, I can only guess.
Now, as for time as a "real dimension", my answer to that is "yes". Mathematically speaking anyway. Minkowski spacetime is examplaray of this. For within its construct, space and its three demnsions are combines with time in a mathematical fashion as being a single, interrelated demnsion... The main thing to keep in mind here is that this is a mathematical analogy of reality, and that "Spacetime" being its own dimension should be taken akin in meaning, relaity, and purpose of the "wavefunction" in QM.
...and to answer your final question.... Sure I suppose, though it would contradict a lot of educated assumptions already present about time. Plus there is the issue that if everything is a freeze frame so to speak, than nothing is "living" in the conventional sense. But if there where a way past such issues and the fact that time would actually be frozen, then it is logically possibl--at the very least--I suppose. However I advise you to take that with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the questions~ they made my tired little brain ponder to the point that it hurt and it is hard that such a thing happens these days. Now, to answer your question, I must put forth mostly mere assertions and opinions. Save my forthcoming comments on Time being a "dimension", most of what follows is merely an educated guess from a barely educated kid.
Now, it is my view that within the next fifty years or so, physics, more specifically Quantum Mechanics, will advance to a point in Time (Pun not intended) in which a great deal of fresh light will be shone on the issue of Time; namely when we begin to find some way of reconciling it with the Theory of Relativity. The ability to verify these findings of QM will likely take more technology then will likely be available at the time however, as was the case with some of Einstein's predications made via his Theory of Relativity aforementioned. To how long the technological gap will remain, I can only guess.
Now, as for time as a "real dimension", my answer to that is "yes". Mathematically speaking anyway. Minkowski spacetime is examplaray of this. For within its construct, space and its three demnsions are combines with time in a mathematical fashion as being a single, interrelated demnsion... The main thing to keep in mind here is that this is a mathematical analogy of reality, and that "Spacetime" being its own dimension should be taken akin in meaning, relaity, and purpose of the "wavefunction" in QM.
...and to answer your final question.... Sure I suppose, though it would contradict a lot of educated assumptions already present about time. Plus there is the issue that if everything is a freeze frame so to speak, than nothing is "living" in the conventional sense. But if there where a way past such issues and the fact that time would actually be frozen, then it is logically possibl--at the very least--I suppose. However I advise you to take that with a grain of salt.
I wish you a good morning. Don't worry about the typo's since i am the typo queen and the fairy visits me often. (And really,there isn't any in your post.Or at least i can't see it.) =)
Thnx you for answering my questions.
I do have some more. <.<
What about the Fractal Quantum Mechanics ? Can it help in the understanding of the time? Right now?
They see time as a force that is consistent with Einstein's work but does contradict Conventional Quantum Mechanics.
The Minkowski spacetime is proven by a Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction ? Right? I know this is a silly question. But bear with me. XD
And aye,on your last answer i will take it with a "grain of salt",but still it is interesting i really do wonder about it.
Just wondering, how can one mathematically prove that the "classical time" (which means no QFT or relativity involved), unlike its close relative "position", without a Hermitian operator?
Thnx you for answering my questions.
I do have some more. <.<
What about the Fractal Quantum Mechanics ? Can it help in the understanding of the time? Right now?
They see time as a force that is consistent with Einstein's work but does contradict Conventional Quantum Mechanics.
The Minkowski spacetime is proven by a Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction ? Right? I know this is a silly question. But bear with me. XD
And aye,on your last answer i will take it with a "grain of salt",but still it is interesting i really do wonder about it.
Just wondering, how can one mathematically prove that the "classical time" (which means no QFT or relativity involved), unlike its close relative "position", without a Hermitian operator?