Is time a real thing or just a meter?

[Randolpin]

I wonder how time become a mystery to those who probe it's nature.But regarding my question,is it really a real thing or just a representation or a meter of how much change a matter had undergone because we all know in the physicality of our observable reality,it change except change itself which the second law of thermodynamics applies.

 

Any more explanation of it to lighten more our understanding is very much appreciated.Thank you....

[Strange]

in physics time is a dimension like space. Hence 4D space-time.

[swansont]

It is as "real" as length. Is length a real thing?

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Is time a real thing or just a meter?

 

 

in physics time is a dimension like space. Hence 4D space-time.

Strangely, you did not answer his question, Dr. Strange! )

 

Is this 4D space-time physical, or meta-physical ?

 

If physical, what is this 4D space-time made of ?

Is it made of matter, of energy, of both,

or maybe of something else ?

 

 

Professor George F. R. Ellis, Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town, "Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime": 5.4 Issues of Ontology: The hidden issue underlying all this discussion is the question of the ontological nature of spacetime: does spacetime indeed exist as a real physical entity, or is it just a convenient way of describing relationships between physical objects, which in the end are all that really exist at a fundamental level? Is it absolute or relational? Could it after all be an emergent property of interacting fields and forces (Laughlin 2005), or from deeper quantum or pre-quantum structure (Ashtekar 2005: Chapters 11-17)? I will not pursue this contentious point here (for discussions, see e.g. Earman 1992, Hoeffer 1998, Huggett 2006). Rather I emphasize here that the discussion in this paper is about models or representations of spacetime, rather than making any ontological claims about the nature of spacetime itself. However, I do believe that the kind of proposal made here could provide a useful starting point for a fresh look at the ontological issue, and from there a renewed discussion of the degree to which our representations of the nature of spacetime are an adequate representation of its true existential nature."

 

Dr. Peter Marquardt, "In science, it is all too easy to jump to conclusions. As the development during the past century has shown, this seems particularly true of physics. Scientific modeling should and must be consistent and free of internal contradictions. This begins with the very first step: Analyze the vocabulary used in order to define the problem in question. Many a discussion is bound to remain fruitless if there is no consensus even about the basic terminology. For instance, ’relative velocity’ may have different meanings, depending on the view of velocity. The interpretation “two bodies are in relative motion if their mutual distance changes with time” does not respect the vector property of velocities. It is often easily overlooked ‘trifles’ like this that make consensus impossible. Likewise, ‘time’ and ‘space’ provide unexpected pitfalls if unspecified. ‘Time’ is not identical with ‘duration’ and ‘space’ is not ‘volume’. Time and space in their abstract general physical meaning provide the stage on which events happen. Hence they are not subject to the events themselves. Scientific language must be unique. A major difference between physics and math is that pure numbers don’t give us physics. The dimensions of physical quantities must be respected, independent of the system of units chosen. This is a necessary, not sufficient, condition to formulate physical ideas correctly. We should have consensus about the use of mathematics in physics as an assistant science. Math is a wonderful and most valuable help in physics - if used properly; it is a catastrophe if allowed to enslave physical ideas as is the case in certain (you-know-which) 20th century cult theories. These cult theories blocked the progress of physics more than anything else and we should consider it our task to tell the public why they should be abandoned in spite of their pseudo-successes (with math, it is possible to make a physically untenable theory yield numerically correct results, just think of cosmology before Kepler). [...] Twentieth century physics is burdened by unnecessary pitfalls, and owes many of its troubles to unclear or false definitions, inconsistent modeling, untenable assumptions, neglected conditions, carelessly applied mathematics, careless simplifications (gedanken experiments), misunderstood experimental results, improper philosophical implications, etc. These artificial gordian knots must be cut before we may get back to the tremendous task of finding out a bit more about Nature. If analyzed correctly, famous experimental results do not support untenable theories that claim their fame from them. Physics blossoms when provided with a solid basis that does not have to be sacrificed if a defective theory gets into difficulties."

[Sriman Dutta]

Time is the measure of the gap between two distinguishable events.

[Strange]

Is time a real thing or just a meter?

 

 

Strangely, you did not answer his question, Dr. Strange!

 

 

 

Swansont gave the perfect answer.

And you are a fine one to talk about not answering questions ...

[Tim88]

Most physics books fail to define time. However, the one that I coincidentally picked up agrees with you: it explains that "time dilation" implies that physical processes take longer (on a "moving" body, according to a "rest" system) (Alfonso&Finn).

 

One might say that the mystery is not "time", but the lack of understanding of "time".

[StringJunky]

Most physics books fail to define time. However, the one that I coincidentally picked up agrees with you: it explains that "time dilation" implies that physical processes take longer (on a "moving" body, according to a "rest" system) (Alfonso&Finn).

 

One might say that the mystery is not "time", but the lack of understanding of "time".

Time is what clocks measure and that's all physicists say, and that is sufficient. Why don't people agonise over the ontology of length?

[imatfaal]

... Why don't people agonise over the ontology of length?

 

I keep on being told size doesn't matter

[StringJunky]

 

I keep on being told size doesn't matter

Yes, indeed, it's what you do with it that matters.

[Phi for All]

I wonder how time become a mystery to those who probe it's nature.

 

I know this one! It's because you believe this to be true, so you confirm this bias every time you hear someone pondering about time, therefor you believe it's a mystery to them.

[Strange]

Yes, indeed, it's what you do with it that matters.

 

 

We are still talking physics, I assume ...

[Phi for All]

But regarding my question,is it really a real thing or just a representation or a meter of how much change a matter had undergone because we all know in the physicality of our observable reality,it change except change itself which the second law of thermodynamics applies.

 

I think your question is wrong. A meter is a real thing because a representation is a real thing, so you've created a false dilemma.

[Klaynos]

Why don't people agonise over the ontology of length?

This is what I always ponder.

[Phi for All]

!

 

Are you serious? This is an absolutely HORRIBLE posting style. Do you think you're being interesting with the unrelated pics and wild fonts and colors?! Did you notice you didn't give your own stance, just that of others? I love supporting evidence, but it should support your own stance, which you should state at some point before quoting others.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

And you are a fine one to talk about not answering questions ...

 

Is this 4D space-time physical, or meta-physical ?

If physical, what is this 4D spacetime made of ?

Is the spacetime made of matter, of energy, of both,

or maybe of something else ?

Do you know the answers, Dr. Strange?

Professor George F. R. Ellis, Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town,

"Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime":

5.4 Issues of Ontology:

The hidden issue underlying all this discussion is the question of the ontological nature of spacetime: does spacetime indeed exist as a real physical entity, or is it just a convenient way of describing relationships between physical objects, which in the end are all that really exist at a fundamental level? Is it absolute or relational? Could it after all be an emergent property of interacting fields and forces (Laughlin 2005), or from deeper quantum or pre-quantum structure (Ashtekar 2005: Chapters 11-17)? I will not pursue this contentious point here (for discussions, see e.g. Earman 1992, Hoeffer 1998, Huggett 2006). Rather I emphasize here that the discussion in this paper is about models or representations of spacetime, rather than making any ontological claims about the nature of spacetime itself. However, I do believe that the kind of proposal made here could provide a useful starting point for a fresh look at the ontological issue, and from there a renewed discussion of the degree to which our representations of the nature of spacetime are an adequate representation of its true existential nature."

Edited November 9, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[StringJunky]

 

Is this 4D space-time physical, or meta-physical ?

If physical, what is this 4D spacetime made of ?

Is the spacetime made of matter, of energy, of both,

or maybe of something else ?

What is a metre and a second made of?

Edited November 9, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

What is a metre and a second made of?

 

 

Thousands of millimetres and milliseconds?

[StringJunky]

 

 

Thousands of millimetres and milliseconds?

That's about it.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

 

Thousands of millimetres and milliseconds?

 

 

Are those millimetres and milliseconds physical, or meta-physical ?

If physical, what are those millimetres and milliseconds made of ?

Are millimetres and milliseconds made of matter, of energy, of both,

or maybe of something else ?

[Phi for All]

 

 

Are those millimetres and milliseconds physical, or meta-physical ?

If physical, what are those millimetres and milliseconds made of ?

Are millimetres and milliseconds made of matter, of energy, of both,

or maybe of something else ?

 

I see your problem. You think of energy as something a thing could be made of. Energy isn't a thing, it's a property of a thing, which is an entity of its own, the same as a dimension.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

I see your problem. You think of energy as something a thing could be made of. Energy isn't a thing, it's a property of a thing, which is an entity of its own, the same as a dimension.

 

 

Are millimetres and milliseconds made of matter ??

 

Energy isn't a thing, it's a property of a thing, which is an entity of its own, the same as a dimension.

 

 

There is an equivalence of energy and matter.

 

Energy is physical. There are subatomic "objects" made of a quanta of energy, like photon.

 

What is your dimention made of ?

 

Is your dimention physical or meta-physical?

Edited November 10, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[geordief]

 

 

There is an equivalence of energy and matter.

 

Is the equivalence not between energy and mass? Mass is not the same as matter.

[swansont]

 

5.4 Issues of Ontology:

You might take note that this is posted in physics rather than philosophy. Ontology is a discipline if the latter, not the former.

Are millimetres and milliseconds made of matter ??

 

No.

 

There is an equivalence of energy and matter.

 

Energy is physical. There are subatomic "objects" made of a quanta of energy, like photon.

 

What is your dimention made of ?

 

Is your dimention physical or meta-physical?

 

Photons are not made of energy any more than they are made of momentum, or angular momentum, which are two additional properties they possess

[Mordred]

or a table is not made of color.