Why is it so hard to explain time? (What is time?)

[chron44]

 

Hi, new here, though most interested in physics and its elementary subjects.

Have stayed around in physics sites at the internet since late 1990's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And still the "universal" concept of "time" has never, to my knowledge, been satisfyingly explained in a physical and scientific manner.

This may be caused by:

1. Time is a most enigmatic function/ behavior/ dimension in science.

2. People have cognitive difficulties in general which the concept of "time" is revealing.

3. Science and physics is generally a "young" human discipline.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To my layman understaning one have measured time historically by three main technologies.

1. Pendulum, hourglass, sun-orbits, and so on.

2. Chronographs, (clocks - electrical, mechanical, atomic, crystal).

3. Radioactive steady decay technology.

So, there are many ways in which time has been measured, still the origin of time is eluding our cognitive ability.

/chron44

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, chron44 said:

cognitive ability

Cognitive abilities are not a topic in physics. This post belongs to another forum.

[swansont]

Things people object to with regard to time often apply to length as well, but nobody seems to complain about that; probably because different sensing is used (per your point 2)

But the nature of time is metaphysics, not physics

[chron44]

 

"Cognitive abilities are not a topic in physics. This post belongs to another forum." -- Genady

 

Well, refining my post a bit:

I assume the halved "time" concept, for example, in the well established spacetime (GR/ SR) concept, is a physics issue.

If we only discuss "time" used in science: What is time in physics?

.. If persisting in my view of time being a physical issue, and not only a metaphysical subject.

How can science at all deal with universal physical issues such as Newtonian and GR/ SR/ QM physics without the true scientifical "formula" for time?

-How is time connected to these physics disciplines mentioned (Classical, GR/ SR/ QM)?

-How can physicist truly understand these disciplines without an adequate time formula? -Like the famous E=mc^2.

If people here at physics forum have another view on the issue of the time concept, I'll swap forum.

This issue is raised here in a true physical aspect, however.

(And I understand that length/ space also is not fairly explained in physics.)

[Genady]

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

How can science at all deal with universal physical issues such as Newtonian and GR/ SR/ QM physics without the true scientifical "formula" for time?

There are many scientific formulas for time. For example, \(t= \frac d v\), \(t'=\gamma(t- \frac {vx}{c^2})\), \(d \tau^2=dt^2-ds^2\), etc.

Edited January 7 by Genady

[swansont]

One definition is that time is what is measured by a clock.

From a measurement standpoint, time is the phase of an oscillation. The time derivative of the phase gives you the frequency (w = dp/dt) thus you can get the phase by integrating the frequency. i.e. you count the oscillations.

 

[chron44]

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

To my layman understaning one have measured time historically by three main technologies.

1. Pendulum, hourglass, sun-orbits, and so on.

2. Chronographs, (clocks - electrical, mechanical, atomic, crystal).

3. Radioactive steady decay technology.

So, there are many ways in which time has been measured, still the origin of time is eluding our cognitive ability.

 

For to widen this thread one can notice how these three main tech's gives different outcomes if we compare these when placing each # 1, 2, and 3 first on earth and secondly on the moon. -How different "time" may "behave".

1. The hourglass or the pendulum acts slower on the moon than on earth.

2. The atomic clock, for example, goes faster on the moon.

3. The radioactive decay "clock" goes at the same phase on earth as on the moon.

~~~~~~~~~~

If these changes not actually behave as mentioned here, at least "time" is very different on earth than on the moon. -Relative these three tech's.

How come?

~~~~~~~~~~

Time therefore should be scientifically defined (some type of formula) to be universal uniform or on the contrary not universal uniform.

And we know according classical physics and GR/ SR/ QM- math, time also behave universal differently

So, what is time in physics?

This is a fair physics issue presented through these behavior examples.

 

[Genady]

Here is the explanation of how time is defined, from the Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler: 

 

 

Edited January 7 by Genady

[chron44]

 

Fair enough, c, the speed of light in vacuum, is a well established physical constant. It's universal and measured with good precision.

One centimeter of c gives a persistent time frame. And this time frame gives 1 centimeter.

And you imply that the scientific community have united in this, or are working on this definition?

It's okay, this way of defining time, c, is a most accurate and stable form of a clock. Space and time sort of united.

It still doesn't answer the issue completely, though giving the physical dimension of time.

Thanks for the excerpt of this definition.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

2. The atomic clock, for example, goes faster on the moon.

Probably. A clock going faster on the moon would depend on the gravitational and kinematic time dilation involved. Clocks in some orbits run slower (e.g. on the ISS), and some run faster (e.g. GPS satellites). One would have to run through the calculations.

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

3. The radioactive decay "clock" goes at the same phase on earth as on the moon.

No. Decay would be subject to the same time dilation as any other clock. If clocks on the moon run fast, decays run fast by the same factor.

Quote

 

If these changes not actually behave as mentioned here, at least "time" is very different on earth than on the moon. -Relative these three tech's.

How come?

 

The rate of time passage differs. The concept of time is no different; one has already acknowledged that time is relative to one’s frame of reference and gravitational potential 

[chron44]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. Decay would be subject to the same time dilation as any other clock. If clocks on the moon run fast, decays run fast by the same factor.

 

Probably, my mistake. Do you know about any "clock" which goes at (almost) the same rate, pace, on earth as on the moon? (Maybe the "jiffy" clock proposed by the excerpt from Genady?) (The c speed clock?)

Still, these calculations here surely are most tricky. I understand that decay "clocks" in some vey slight manner are under the effect of gravity. -Which varies depending on moon, earth, sun, galaxy, black holes. Surely the difference with the decay "clock" for earth relatively moon is very small. E.g. compared with a mechanical chronograph.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

 

Probably, my mistake. Do you know about any "clock" which goes at (almost) the same rate, pace, on earth as on the moon? (Maybe the "jiffy" clock proposed by the excerpt from Genady?) (The c speed clock?)

Still, these calculations here surely are most tricky. I understand that decay "clocks" in some vey slight manner are under the effect of gravity. -Which varies depending on moon, earth, sun, galaxy, black holes. Surely the difference with the decay "clock" for earth relatively moon is very small. E.g. compared with a mechanical chronograph.

 

Relativity affects time; it’s not an effect on any mechanism of a clock, which would be accounted for separately. e.g. a pendulum clock ticks at a different rate if you change g, but that is not an effect of relativity. You would have to properly calibrate the clock.

[MigL]

What people have been trying to tell you in this thread, is that science is not in the business of determining what something is, rather, we are interested in how it works.
We know exactly how time works.
Everyone's own proper time advances at one second per second, and that second is defined as the time light takes to travel the distance ct when t=1 .

That's good enough.

[chron44]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

One definition is that time is what is measured by a clock.

 

First I have to "declare" that my quest here in this thread is the issue of what time is. -Not how we count it or how it works. This quest is on the agenda of modern physics (as well as the issue of what space is). Therefore I'm continuing in this modern approach of physics.

If ppl not want to deal with this, one doesn't have to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do we have another way of measuring/ counting time? -No we don't..!! (And writing "counting" time points on this only manner.)

So, there are discrepancies in the Newtonian and the GR/ SR/ QM ways of describing time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One proof of what I am implying is if we ask ChatGPT, for example: What is time in reality?

And ChatGPT will answer that science are figuring on this enigma, and there are ongoing projects/ studies of what time in reality is.

Excerpt from ChatGPT:

Q: Does science know or understand what time is in reality?

A: The nature of time is a profound and complex question in both philosophy and physics. While our scientific understanding of time has evolved significantly, there are still aspects that remain open to interpretation and investigation. Despite the progress made in understanding time, there are unresolved questions, particularly at the intersection of quantum mechanics and gravity. The quest for a unified theory of physics, such as a theory of quantum gravity, aims to provide a more complete understanding of the nature of time and its relationship with other fundamental aspects of the universe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bufofrog]

30 minutes ago, chron44 said:

One proof of what I am implying is if we ask ChatGPT

Asking a chat bot a scientific question is a waste of time, it is just a chat bot.

32 minutes ago, chron44 said:

First I have to "declare" that my quest here in this thread is the issue of what time is.

That is philosophy not science.  What is length?  I can measure or count using some arbitrary scale but fundamentally what is length?

[Genady]

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

This quest is on the agenda of modern physics

Do you have a reference to this?

[chron44]

22 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Asking a chat bot a scientific question is a waste of time, it is just a chat bot.

I believe (know) that ChatGPT 3.5 is giant scientific encyclopedia, not having own true cognitive ability. So, then the answer given here represents the "input" who scientists have made at the point of its latest update, about in September 2021. (3.5 not giving the latest scientifical view on any issues.)

 

25 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

That is philosophy not science.  What is length?  I can measure or count using some arbitrary scale but fundamentally what is length?

The scientific data base at this chat bot probably is right when it gives the output of that my declared issue - both - is philosophy and physics. And at present date being even more central and important to understand. Especially if we want to "really" unite GR and QM. -Physics has without doubt to know "what time is" in its profound manner. (So goes for length.) -Without these physical understandings, physics will stall. And it has stalled, which most physicists probably will slightly nod at. Physics today, mostly, fumbles with the mathematics involved, almost desperately there trying to find a continuing path ahead. At this I say: Straighten the length and notice the time flow.

So, time is both philosophy and physics. And I am interested in its true physical aspect.

"Notice the time flow."

[KJW]

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

On 1/8/2024 at 6:39 AM, swansont said:

One definition is that time is what is measured by a clock.

First I have to "declare" that my quest here in this thread is the issue of what time is. -Not how we count it or how it works. This quest is on the agenda of modern physics (as well as the issue of what space is). Therefore I'm continuing in this modern approach of physics.

I don't think you grasp the significance of what swansont said. Although it may not be philosophically satisfying, the statement that time is what is measured by clocks is in fact a genuine statement of what time is. Note that one can define a clock by instructions on how to build it. What you seek is ultimately not an explanation of what time actually is. The same can be said about other physical quantities... they are what is measured by their respective measuring instruments, given that those measuring instruments are defined by the instructions to build them. Unless the explanation actually connects to the physical realm, then you don't have an actual explanation of the physical quantity.

 

Edited January 8 by KJW

[chron44]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Do you have a reference to this?

 

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Excerpt from ChatGPT:

Q: Does science know or understand what time is in reality?

A: The nature of time is a profound and complex question in both philosophy and physics. While our scientific understanding of time has evolved significantly, there are still aspects that remain open to interpretation and investigation. Despite the progress made in understanding time, there are unresolved questions, particularly at the intersection of quantum mechanics and gravity. The quest for a unified theory of physics, such as a theory of quantum gravity, aims to provide a more complete understanding of the nature of time and its relationship with other fundamental aspects of the universe.

ChatGPT maybe not is a all true considered reference, but I consider this being a fair reference.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, chron44 said:

 

ChatGPT maybe not is a all true considered reference, but I consider this being a fair reference.

Science does not consider it a legitimate reference. Your "quest" is not a science, your "reference" is not a scientific reference. Take your thread and go elsewhere. Stop spamming the science forum.

Edited January 8 by Genady

[chron44]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Science does not consider it a legitimate reference. Your "quest" is not a science, your "reference" is not a scientific reference. Take your thread and go elsewhere. Stop spamming the science forum

 

12 minutes ago, chron44 said:

The scientific data base at this chat bot probably is right when it gives the output of that my declared issue - both - is philosophy and physics. And at present date being even more central and important to understand. Especially if we want to "really" unite GR and QM. -Physics has without doubt to know "what time is" in its profound manner. (So goes for length.) -Without these physical understandings, physics will stall. And it has stalled, which most physicists probably will slightly nod at. Physics today, mostly, fumbles with the mathematics involved, almost desperately there trying to find a continuing path ahead. At this I say: Straighten the length and notice the time flow.

So, time is both philosophy and physics. And I am interested in its true physical aspect.

ChatGPT is a fair reference, maybe not legitimate in a true physical academic manner. Still being fair enough. Physics of today is different of physics tomorrow. And physic of today is stalled. This most enlighten and serious physicists agree on. -I am not spamming, I'm researching.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

First I have to "declare" that my quest here in this thread is the issue of what time is. -Not how we count it or how it works. 

Then you should post in philosophy. Metaphysics is, only too obviously, not the concern of physics. The root "meta" gives us an unmistakable clue.

The thing, either contingent or "in itself", what "is"... But is it? What's the essence? Is it one thing, two perhaps?

Metaphysics, you know. That pesky thing that Kant disposed of.

Physics is mathematically precise models, connection to measurements (operationalism). IOW: Concepts, maths, and the pursuit of measureness.

[AIkonoklazt]

[Genady]

1 minute ago, chron44 said:

not legitimate in a true physical academic manner

This is what defines if it belongs to this forum. So, your stuff can be "research" somewhere else, but it is spam here.

[AIkonoklazt]