What is Time?

[RCVisions]

Time is simply a construct that is used to represent events. Just as numbers are a construct used to represent objects.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion on units has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114414-units-split-from-what-is-time/

 

 

[jajrussel]

I have probably spent too much time thinking what is time. Time is movement, time is change, etc. It can move into metaphysics. Generally there are enough purist who will put you back in the keep it real track for good reason.

With the understanding of space time, and a few years of thought I have come to think of time as a portion of space. I could present a clock face with a ticking second hand, and point out that each second can represent one sector of a sixty sector circle in an attempt to show what I mean by saying I see time as a portion of space. I could then suggest that we take the area of each sector and use the area as a number of divisions between 0 and 1, until we get all the way around the circle. Then point out once again how each new sector is again a portion of the whole we call spacetime, but that might be way over complicating.

Time is real, and is more than just the concept that I had thought it was. Philosophy, just complicates the thought, by giving us something to argue about that isn't math.

I've remembered something else. The meter has been associated with time by being said to be equal to 1 over c. So, in a sense, maybe s/s, or s^2 does seem to fit nicely within the like units frame. Though maybe not by SI definition.

Since in the future the value of c might change it might be better to be more specific with 1/299792458 but it would probably be better to just go ahead and redefine the meter to match the change.

It's been shown that space and time as a joint venture works pretty well. I actually probably understood it at one-time, but I have gotten to the point where I have to write myself a note before moving from one room to another, or chance winding up in the other room completely at a loss.

So, this is what I think time is for now. I see that Swansont has replied. It's time to go see if I messed up my explanation of the free fall equation.

Edited April 18, 2018 by jajrussel

[swansont]

4 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I have probably spent too much time thinking what is time. Time is movement, time is change, etc. It can move into metaphysics.  

Once you ask "what is time?" you are already into metaphysics. And time is movement, time is change runs into problems, which have been discussed ad nauseam in multiple threads.

[koti]

Considering that time is a temporal dimension which is inseparable from spacial dimensions I think it doesn’t make much sense asking what it is without context. If put to the wall I would answer that space which is volume and not some „real thing” has 3 spacial dimensions which describe it and Time has its arrow which describes it so its not some „real thing” as well - we would have an equally hard time describing what width, height or lenght is. Acording to relativity, both the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension play predictible game with matter/energy so it would make sense to me to treat time on equall terms with the other dimensions...at least then, it becomes clearer what time is. 

[StringJunky]

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

Once you ask "what is time?" you are already into metaphysics. And time is movement, time is change runs into problems, which have been discussed ad nauseam in multiple threads.

QFT

29 minutes ago, koti said:

Considering that time is a temporal dimension which is inseparable from spacial dimensions I think it doesn’t make much sense asking what it is without context. If put to the wall I would answer that space which is volume and not some „real thing” has 3 spacial dimensions which describe it and Time has its arrow which describes it so its not some „real thing” as well - we would have an equally hard time describing what width, height or lenght is. Acording to relativity, both the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension play predictible game with matter/energy so it would make sense to me to treat time on equall terms with the other dimensions...at least then, it becomes clearer what time is. 

Time is seconds and length is metres. It doesn't need to be be overthunk; it's like analysing the fullstop at the end of this sentence.

Edited April 18, 2018 by StringJunky

[koti]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

QFT

Time is seconds and length is metres. It doesn't need to be be overthunk; it's like analysing the fullstop at the end of this sentence.

Sure. I’m just thinking that comparing time to lenght, width and height would not be accurate. Treat time and space as volumes and treat the arrow of time and the spacial dimensions as descriptions of those volumes. If that makes any sense.

Edited April 18, 2018 by koti

[jajrussel]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Once you ask "what is time?" you are already into metaphysics. And time is movement, time is change runs into problems, which have been discussed ad nauseam in multiple threads.

Where is the wizards hat emoji when you need it? There is something about the phrase (ad nauseum) that causes me to want to point and wiggle my finger at something that is annoying me while forcefully saying "Ad Nauseum!" Maybe I saw it in a Harry Potter movie? I don't know? But, it is hard to take the phrase seriously when I read it now that that mental picture has come to mind. But I swear if anyone I've shared a thread with starts to feel slightly sick to their stomach. It's not me...

For those reading this who's imagination is not as innocent as mine... That would be my pointing finger. The one located next to my thumb...

[jajrussel]

On 3/15/2018 at 12:41 PM, Astrophysicist Shubham said:

Time being the most experienced thing in this universe but can we really describe what time is? Are we in a state of describing time? 

Ask this question to yourself and then say that can we scientifically define what time is?

The motive of this discussion must be to scientifically define that what time is?

And ill tell my own theory to describe what time is?

What you are asking for here has pretty much been done in Wikipedia enter "time" in Wikipedia's search box to find the article. My favorite is the operational definition. Though I also like Leibniz, and Kants view. If you want to read older threads about time on this forum you could try a search there are nearly 5000 references to the word time. Using the relevancy filter might help. There was a rather lengthy conversation quite a while back about time which was pretty much genius. If you have a theory and you really want a challenging discussion. It would probably be best to state your theory in the speculation section. Pretty much all you have done here is dangle bait. My opinion is that you might want to read a few conversations where the conversation was started with bait in order to get a feel for how the conversation will likely go. I like conversations about time and look forward to reading your theory, but as it has been pointed out it's not like this particular subject hasn't been done ad nauseam, so most might prefer for you to just say what your theory is so that they can see that you seriously want to present a theory. I know enough about time to ask questions and give an opinion so I'll pretty much just be reading, and hoping to learn. Wish you luck.

 

[michel123456]

On 4/18/2018 at 6:47 PM, StringJunky said:

QFT

Time is seconds and length is metres.

Well I believe that is the mistake. IMHO time is already hidden in the metre. That is the reason why you don't see time around you:   what you see is distance (metres) and then you must make the statement that to transfer through this distance you need time (aka the finite Speed of light). Which means that time and distance are unsplitable: when you have the one, you have the other (aka Spacetime). So to me, the only logical conclusion is that time is hidden inside distance. And when you look around you in fact what you see is distance & time alltogether (aka when you look at the stars you are looking at the past of these stars). And everything fits in place.

Edited April 21, 2018 by michel123456

[SOHAN LAL YADAV]

Time is nothing it only measure of interval of changes in universe. It relates the velocity of changing and positions of a particular point in space . This is a measure of very little changes in continuously. In the universe there are difference in the  changing velocity in different parts thus in univers time changing may be different in that places.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, SOHAN LAL YADAV said:

Time is nothing it only measure of interval of changes in universe. It relates the velocity of changing and positions of a particular point in space . This is a measure of very little changes in continuously. In the universe there are difference in the  changing velocity in different parts thus in univers time changing may be different in that places.

Except no, time passes for stationary objects and for systems that are not changing.

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Well I believe that is the mistake. IMHO time is already hidden in the metre. That is the reason why you don't see time around you:   what you see is distance (metres) and then you must make the statement that to transfer through this distance you need time (aka the finite Speed of light). Which means that time and distance are unsplitable: when you have the one, you have the other (aka Spacetime). So to me, the only logical conclusion is that time is hidden inside distance. And when you look around you in fact what you see is distance & time alltogether (aka when you look at the stars you are looking at the past of these stars). And everything fits in place.

Or the meter is already a part of time. 

But this just kicks the can down the road, because it's just parameterization. All you've done is replace t with w/c, where w is some length. You haven't reduced the number of variables.