Silly question?

[danielj]

Hi everyone, I wonder if you could try and give me an answer to this question please?

If everything that formed this universe is derived from various forms of energy/mass, how is time accounted for? Is it a result of interactions and if so how is it accounted for in physics/maths. I mean accounted for in the literal term (for example, is it given a value that can be transformed to energy or mass units)

Question is from the viewpoint of someone with only  a very basic understanding of scientific methods and a reader of pop science books. 

Thank you

Dan

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, danielj said:

Hi everyone, I wonder if you could try and give me an answer to this question please?

If everything that formed this universe is derived from various forms of energy/mass, how is time accounted for? Is it a result of interactions and if so how is it accounted for in physics/maths. I mean accounted for in the literal term (for example, is it given a value that can be transformed to energy or mass units)

Question is from the viewpoint of someone with only  a very basic understanding of scientific methods and a reader of pop science books. 

Thank you

Dan

Why view time as a comparison with energy and mass? Time is coupled with space, so you might account for time in the same way you account for length. We see that we need three spatial and one temporal dimension to describe a lot of the behavior we observe.

Time does not transform into energy. Neither does length.

[danielj]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why view time as a comparison with energy and mass? Time is coupled with space, so you might account for time in the same way you account for length. We see that we need three spatial and one temporal dimension to describe a lot of the behavior we observe.

Time does not transform into energy. Neither does length.

Thank you. I am thinking of time from this viewpoint, at the beginning of the universe, either time already existed, or it was created from the constituents of that process. If we say that it was a beginning, then did it take an amount of the energy from the early universe to propel time in the direction it takes, then that amount of energy should be accounted for somewhere? Does that make any sense?
I know that I probably have a fundamental misunderstanding here somewhere, I’m just trying to understand. 
thanks again for your reply

 

[Sensei]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why view time as a comparison with energy and mass?

Maybe because of the units...

Joule is kg * m^2 / s^2 so it has all three - mass unit, length unit and time unit..

 

[studiot]

Just now, danielj said:

Hi everyone, I wonder if you could try and give me an answer to this question please?

If everything that formed this universe is derived from various forms of energy/mass, how is time accounted for? Is it a result of interactions and if so how is it accounted for in physics/maths. I mean accounted for in the literal term (for example, is it given a value that can be transformed to energy or mass units)

Question is from the viewpoint of someone with only  a very basic understanding of scientific methods and a reader of pop science books. 

Thank you

Dan

I suggest a better way to think of the maths/physics of these matters is to understand that we recognise three basic quantities, which we call dimensions, that can be combined to explain, describe and work with what we observe in the universe today.

These are Mass, Length and Time , given symbols M, L and T.

Very simple combinations are length squared, (written L²) which gives us area.

 

 and Length cubed (written L³), which gives us volume.

 

Energy can be described in this way  (written ML²T^-2)

Notes

There are a couple of other basic 'dimensions', which I won't introduce at this point.

The use of the word dimension in this way is perhaps unfortunate as it is quite diferent from common perceptions of dimension but it is well embedded in Science.

 

[danielj]

So ML²T^-2 would be a way to describe an amount of energy in a given area and time frame? Why the need for T^-2?? What part does it play in the equation?

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, danielj said:

Thank you. I am thinking of time from this viewpoint, at the beginning of the universe, either time already existed, or it was created from the constituents of that process. If we say that it was a beginning, then did it take an amount of the energy from the early universe to propel time in the direction it takes, then that amount of energy should be accounted for somewhere? Does that make any sense?
I know that I probably have a fundamental misunderstanding here somewhere, I’m just trying to understand. 
thanks again for your reply

Ask your question, but with “length” instead of “time”

Why would it take energy to create length? It’s not a substance. It has no properties we associate with matter. Same thing with time.

[danielj]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ask your question, but with “length” instead of “time”

Why would it take energy to create length? It’s not a substance. It has no properties we associate with matter. Same thing with time.

does that mean that time and length are not fundamental, but that they are properties of mass and energy?

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, danielj said:

does that mean that time and length are not fundamental, but that they are properties of mass and energy?

You have time and length in empty (i.e. no matter) space

[studiot]

Energy is not fundamental nor

Just now, danielj said:

So ML²T^-2 would be a way to describe an amount of energy in a given area and time frame? Why the need for T^-2?? What part does it play in the equation?

is it an entity or substance.

Mass, length and time are fundamental properties of what we see today.

 

Firstly I did not supply an equation.

Combinations of M, L and T are special and complete in themselves.

for example force is MLT-²  that is it is not energy.

Acceleration has no mass term  LT^-2

 

I take it you are comfortable with the square cubes tc notation and the negative indices ?

In answer to your first question.

We simply don't know what was there or fundamental at the 'big bang', or even if there was a bang.

It is really pointless trying to describe those conditions in terms of what we see today.

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:49 PM by studiot

[danielj]

 I can see that my understanding is not good enough to understand this. Where did you start when you were learning about these concepts? Can you recommend any books  that might help me move forward a little? 
thanks again to you both

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, danielj said:

 I can see that my understanding is not good enough to understand this.

But your intelligence is. Intelligence and a good explanation will lead to more understanding.

The geometry of space as three dimensions. We use those dimensions on Earth as longitude, latitude, and altitude, just like length, width, and height. Time is also a dimension we use, so we can accurately gauge how long something takes, or to mark when something happened. On our sphere, we use these dimensions so we can meet for lunch at noon on the second floor of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, for instance (latitude 48.858093, longitude 2.294694, altitude 507 feet, 12:00 pm CET/UTC+1).

Spacetime is especially important off-planet, since everything is constantly moving in orbit around something. We need an x coordinate, along with y and z, to fix a place in space, and we also need the t coordinate to tell us when we're talking about. If we send a rocket off to an asteroid to land and take samples, time is critical, since the asteroid is moving and won't be at the same x, y, z place if you launch at the wrong time.

It's all geometry, has nothing to do with energy or mass. As far as the Big Bang goes, we observe that the universe gets denser and hotter the further we go back in time, and we typically refer to t=0, but our understanding stops just short of that point, and we really don't know if that was the beginning of time and space or not. 

[studiot]

Just now, danielj said:

 I can see that my understanding is not good enough to understand this. Where did you start when you were learning about these concepts? Can you recommend any books  that might help me move forward a little? 
thanks again to you both

 

1 minute ago, danielj said:

Question is from the viewpoint of someone with only  a very basic understanding of scientific methods and a reader of pop science books. 

 

Well you have already taken the first two steps so +1

You have understood your current limitations and are looking in the right direction to overcome them.

But take heart.

We can provides some basic explanations here at SF.

Your idea of a book is a good one because once found you can always refer back to it again and again.

However first please give us some idea of your education since you cannot get far without some maths.

Much of the requirement is or was on the school syllabus for instance have you done any algebra (secondary school) ?

I deliberately introduced MLT to investigate your reaction to some very simple algebra of indices or powers, roots and reciprocals.

You will come across this again and again so if you don't understand something -  copy and post the part you need help with.

Never bre afraid to ask in the manner you have.

These questions are not silly at all.

[zapatos]

On 2/9/2025 at 1:59 PM, danielj said:

 I can see that my understanding is not good enough to understand this. Where did you start when you were learning about these concepts? Can you recommend any books  that might help me move forward a little? 
thanks again to you both

I find that people often get confused about time because they think time is some deep, complex, mystical thing. It's not. It's a measurement.

When we look around we feel the need to measure things. How big is that flatscreen tv and will it fit in my living room? How bright should the lightbulb be that I put in my bedroom? How long does it take to drive to the grocery store? How hot is it outside today? What current do I need to install so that I can run my new electric stove?

They are just measurements we use to describe our world. As @swansont pointed out, time is simply another measurement, just like length is a measurement. Try not to make it more complex than it needs to be. If you are not confused by temperature, you shouldn't be confused by time either.

Edited 20 hours ago by zapatos

[studiot]

You asked for a book.

Try this one, it can be obtained very cheaply second hand.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1259850

 

Ferris is the editor , but the authors are all solid solid scientists saying their piece.

The World Treasury Of Physics, Astronomy And Mathematics (paperback)

£2.99

 

[danielj]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

However first please give us some idea of your education since you cannot get far without some maths.

Thanks all, very helpful. 
My level of education is poor, caused by an immature attitude as a teenager. I left school at 16 with next to nothing to show for it. So just basic maths.
 

Zapatos, you are correct, I do view time as mystical. Having had a think about that, I guess that even if time itself is a fundamental property of nature(?), that our way of measuring it is arbitrary and a consequence of our local star and our motion around it. I think?

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

You asked for a book.

 

Thank you, I’ll give it a go.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, danielj said:

our way of measuring [time] is arbitrary and a consequence of our local star and our motion around it. I think?

"Time is defined so that motion looks simple."

Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip S.; Wheeler, John Archibald. Gravitation (p. 23). Princeton University Press.

[studiot]

To further your studies, have a look at this pdf and see wht you make of it.

http://www.benjamin-mills.com/maths/Year11/dimensional-analysis.pdf

Then look here at the other pdfs in this range

(they are all free)

 

https://www.benjamin-mills.com/maths/Year11/

 

In fact this little experiment is successful, there are lots of free pdfs for Physics  -  we can help you find some good ones.

 

One good online resource resides at

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

But you may need to imbrush up your maths a bit.

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

find that people often get confused about time because they think time is some deep, complex, mystical thing. It's not. It's a measurement.

And it's measuring a rate of change using some other rate of change.  So it's really just about change as it concretely manifests to us.  I guess part of what made it seem mystical is that we can't stop that rate of change the way we can (superficially) stop motion.  We can put the cheese under a belljar, so the cat or mouse can't move it, but it will persist in changing and turn moldy.  As Steve Perry put it, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning.

[Genady]

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

And it's measuring a rate of change using some other rate of change.  So it's really just about change as it concretely manifests to us.  I guess part of what made it seem mystical is that we can't stop that rate of change the way we can (superficially) stop motion.  We can put the cheese under a belljar, so the cat or mouse can't move it, but it will persist in changing and turn moldy.  As Steve Perry put it, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning.

Why to compare it to stopping motion? Time is rather comparable to space. We can't stop space either.

[danielj]

10 hours ago, studiot said:

To further your studies, have a look at this pdf and see wht you make of it.

http://www.benjamin-mills.com/maths/Year11/dimensional-analysis.pdf

Then look here at the other pdfs in this range

(they are all free)

 

https://www.benjamin-mills.com/maths/Year11/

 

In fact this little experiment is successful, there are lots of free pdfs for Physics  -  we can help you find some good ones.

 

One good online resource resides at

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

But you may need to imbrush up your maths a bit.

Thank you so much for your advice, have ordered the book and started looking at the free resources. Just need to find some quiet time.

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, Genady said:

Why to compare it to stopping motion? Time is rather comparable to space. We can't stop space either.

True.  I was trying to access how old ideas about time came along.  People wondered, if all motion ceased would time stop.  Before modern era, before knowing of oscillation of quarks or atomic motion above 0 K. or cosmic inflation, people might have imagined that all motion could stop (as a thought experiment).  This was an idea I was toying with, in trying to understand the mystical thinking of the past.  Probably bollocks.