About time

[URAIN]

I would like to know answers from science, to these following questions. Please answer

 

What is the time?

 

Which observe the time passing?

 

Who experience the time passing?

[Tres Juicy]

14:43

 

I do

 

I do again

[CaptainPanic]

The question "what is time" is something which will ultimately descend to very existential questions and debates. People start doubting about everything, and before long someone will ask you what is your "consciousness"... and frankly, nobody really knows.

 

By the way, we are not "science". You cannot "ask a question to science". Science never has any answers. Only observations and theories. But the funny thing is, science always doubts about itself.

Edited December 8, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[swansont]

A common physics answer is that time is what is measured by a clock. The question of the nature of time is one of metaphysics/ontology, not science.

[URAIN]

Assume two things (consider it vehicle) moving in same direction with same speed.

 

(If we consider only these two things) Persons in that vehicles, will not experience either self is moving or other vehicle is moving.

 

Time is like vehicle, which is moving. Other side we are also in other vehicle. who are moving, but we experience the movement of our near vehicle (time).

 

Which is this experience the movement of time? What is this self ?

 

Religious people may say soul. What is the answer for this question from scientific peoples?

Edited December 11, 2011 by URAIN

[dimreepr]

I would like to know answers from science, to these following questions. Please answer

 

What is the time?

 

Which observe the time passing?

 

Who experience the time passing?

 

 

Time is part of the process that is our universe and as you and I are part of the universe we both observe and experience this process.

[URAIN]

Time is part of the process that is our universe and as you and I are part of the universe we both observe and experience this process.

 

Do you not think we are also in the process?

[CaptainPanic]

URAIN, although it is not really on topic, I think you should watch

. A famous scientist (Feynman) explains why things cannot always be explained.

[URAIN]

URAIN, although it is not really on topic, I think you should watch

. A famous scientist (Feynman) explains why things cannot always be explained.

 

Captainpanic, Do you want, I have to stop finding the answer for above question?

 

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

Captainpanic, Do you want, I have to stop finding the answer for above question?

No, of course you should search for an answer!

 

I am only saying why you may not find it

[edit] Actually, it's Feynman who is saying it, not me...

Edited December 13, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[DrRocket]

The question of the nature of time is one of metaphysics/ontology, not science.

 

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

 

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

 

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

 

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

[Tres Juicy]

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

 

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

 

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

 

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

 

"If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm."

 

Post it in speculations first though

[URAIN]

No, of course you should search for an answer!

 

I am only saying why you may not find it

[edit] Actually, it's Feynman who is saying it, not me...

 

If your well wishes are with me, I will definitely find. Thanks

 

 

 

[URAIN]

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

 

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

 

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

 

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

 

Time dilationpostulate says faster an object is moving, the slower time progresses for thatobject in relation to a stationary observer.

 

 

 

Assume a person travelingat the speed of light.

 

Then does it say there is no time?

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

Assume a person travelingat the speed of light.

Does this person have zero rest mass? If so, then it's not within the realm of reality, and we may as well assume the person is flying around on a unicorn.

 

 

Then does it say there is no time?

There is no valid answer given our current understanding. You're posing a question that breaks the laws of physics as we know them, and so you cannot determine what the laws of physics dictate will happen in this situation since you've dismissed them with the question itself.

 

Light lacks a valid frame of reference because it doesn't slow, it doesn't accelerate, and it is never at rest. Light moves at light-speed by definition. To have a valid frame of reference, you must be able to "be at rest" relative to something else, and light can never do that. This renders the question itself rather meaningless and moot.

 

However, as you approach the speed of light, time will pass more slowly for relative to others not moving at the same speed. They will seem to age more quickly than you, and it will be like you hit the fast forward button for everyone else while your watch appears to tick forward at a perfectly normal rate when you look at it.

[URAIN]

However, as you approach the speed of light, time will pass more slowly for relative to others not moving at the same speed.

 

It indicates that, If we not relate the persons who are moving with different speeds, then time is same for both.

( i.e 60 sec/min)

Edited December 21, 2011 by URAIN

[imatfaal]

It indicates that, If we not relate the persons who are moving with different speeds, then time is same for both.

( i.e 60 sec/min)

 

That does not really make sense - unless you are stating that any observer always measures time to be the same within his own local frame

[DrRocket]

That does not really make sense - unless you are stating that any observer always measures time to be the same within his own local frame

 

That itself does not make sense.

 

"measures time to be the same" as what "within his own local reference frame" ?

 

Within a given reference frame there is one and only one notion of time. It is always the same as itself.

[Tres Juicy]

That itself does not make sense.

 

"measures time to be the same" as what "within his own local reference frame" ?

 

Within a given reference frame there is one and only one notion of time. It is always the same as itself.

 

 

I think what he means is that it is impossible for the observer to notice any difference in time within his local frame

[URAIN]

I think what he means is that it is impossible for the observer to notice any difference in time within his local frame

Yes.

[TheOnlyMaster]

I think what he means is that it is impossible for the observer to notice any difference in time within his local frame

 

Makes sense. The time will never change for the observer within his local frame but only against a reference point based on the speed at which the subject travels.

 

The "Twin Paradox" resultant from Einstein's special relativity theory answers these questions rather well.

 

Time dilationpostulate says faster an object is moving, the slower time progresses for thatobject in relation to a stationary observer.

 

 

 

Assume a person travelingat the speed of light.

 

Then does it say there is no time?

 

 

 

 

 

Time would still exist for the person as the subject travelling does not notice the effects of time dilation, these are only noticeable when compared to a stationary reference point. Although in reality for someone to travel at the speed of light would break many laws of physics as we know them.

 

As for the validity of time dilation, to put it quite simply, if time dilation was not taken into account; the current GPS systems would never work because due to the satellite's speed time is "slower" for the satellite.

[The north face]

I would like to know answers from science, to these following questions. Please answer

 

What is the time?

 

Which observe the time passing?

 

Who experience the time passing?

[NotanOriginalName]

Time is a dimension which is marked by change in entropy.

Which is exactly what the frontal cortex measures.it measures changes or "spikes" so to say in the environment.

[URAIN]

Time is a dimension which is marked by change in entropy.

Which is exactly what the frontal cortex measures.it measures changes or "spikes" so to say in the environment.

 

For fourth dimension, use the word 'spacetime' but you are using the word time.

 

Is it ok?

[URAIN]

Google is your friend. go to Google write your question and it gives you the best solution.

 

Use of this forum (? )