Basic understanding of time

[Sin Jeong-hun]

Hello.

This is my first post. I am nobody with an average intelligence. I have a very basic understating of time. I want to know if this makes sense.

I think time is the movement of things. I am not an expert in physics so by 'things' I mean any fundamental particles. On neutron stars, the gravity is very high. This strong gravity pulls things down, so things move slowly than, say, on the Earth. Thus, time on neutron stars becomes slow. Time on an Earth-orbiting space station goes a little bit faster, because the gravity is a little bit lower than on the surface of the Earth.

Time before the Big Bang did not exist, because there were no things before the Big Bang. When there are no things, there is no way to measure the passage of time. Nobody is there, and of course no clock is there. This is indistinguishable from time being stopped.

Theoretically I could stop time, if I could stop the movements of everything (all particles). If everything stops, this is indistinguishable from time being stopped.

[ajb]

We don't usually think of time as the movement of things. Time still passes for stationary objects. However, as you note things moving, say a pendulum, are good ways of measuring durations. But they do not define time.

 

The best understanding of time we have comes from general relativity, which you hint at as you state that time and gravity are related. They are indeed.

 

I suggest you have a read of what you can on special and general relativity. Pay close attention to the difference between coordinate time and proper time. This seems to be a big source of confusion.

[Didymus]

You're on the right path to question time. Keep it up. Just remember, the definition of time has been debated for thousands of years, and people still don't really agree on it's definition. Many believe that time and space don't even exist, but are abstract ways to define what matter is doing. Others believe that time is part of space... A physical, alterable fabric, through which we could travel back and forth. Both have very interesting philosophical implications. A lot of people fall somewhere between those two extremes.

 

As for your intellect... Just recognize that you're smart enough to ask! Anyone can memorize some books and regurgitate the answers their instructor wants to pass a test. Few people are smart enough to ask for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge. Feed your curiosity. Then you'll recognize your potential.

 

And keep in mind that all men are fallible. Confirm things for yourself. Question everything. Just because it's published in a book, doesn't mean opposing viewpoints can't be better.

[Dekan]

 

Hello.

This is my first post. I am nobody with an average intelligence. I have a very basic understating of time. I want to know if this makes sense.

I think time is the movement of things. I am not an expert in physics so by 'things' I mean any fundamental particles. On neutron stars, the gravity is very high. This strong gravity pulls things down, so things move slowly than, say, on the Earth. Thus, time on neutron stars becomes slow. Time on an Earth-orbiting space station goes a little bit faster, because the gravity is a little bit lower than on the surface of the Earth.

Time before the Big Bang did not exist, because there were no things before the Big Bang. When there are no things, there is no way to measure the passage of time. Nobody is there, and of course no clock is there. This is indistinguishable from time being stopped.

Theoretically I could stop time, if I could stop the movements of everything (all particles). If everything stops, this is indistinguishable from time being stopped.

I think you're right. "Time" is really only another word for "change".

 

And "change" comes down to "movement", because things have to move in order to change.

 

Suppose a thing didn't move. It just stayed in the same place, unchanged, forever. Then "time" would have no meaning for it.

Like a diamond, buried in the earth, say 1,500 years ago, at the time of the fall of the western Roman Empire.

 

The passage of time since the Empire fell has been immense in human terms. 1,500 years of dramatic change - migrations, wars, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, flying machines, atomic energy, spaceships.

 

But the diamond doesn't know of external events like that. If it were dug up today, its crystallised carbon structure would be the same.

So from the diamond's internal viewpoint, could we say that there's been no change, hence no passage of time?

 

[I-try]

It is my belief that Sin Jeong-hun has provided the first part of the fundamental base for the human concept Time by his reference to movement. Deacon has supplied the second essential part by referring to change. I find that relative to the fundamental dynamic level or reality extant in the universe, oscillating motion involving reversing change of direction which encompasses all parameters involved with acceleration, and that therefore demanding the presence of energy. Apart from the above the universe is timeless. The human ability to remember and investigate past happenings, to be aware of the instant by instant changing of the present and anticipate a more distant future provides us with our concept Time.

[studiot]

 

Apart from the above the universe is timeless.

 

 

Dogs know when it is dinner time.

 

I seem to remember Chad Orzel had a section on this in his excellent book

 

Teach Quantum Mechanics to your Dog.

[I-try]

Studiot.

Chimpanzees’ have been taught to do simple typing but I would suggest that you don’t hold your breath whilst waiting for a dog to contribute a philosophical posting on the subject TIME, despite the cravings of their stomach.

 

To return to the subject regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of time, then as Sin Jeong-hun and Decan appear to have realised, motion implies the existence of a reality compelled to undergo displacement from a point to immediate adjacent point at a velocity involving speed and direction. In that regard, their reasoning and logic leads them in the correct direction. Also, motion comes complete with intrinsic energy, the C2 amassing of which we refer to as the mass of matter. And so on and on regarding the human concept time.

With regards to the Universe being TIME-less, then surely you don’t imagine that there are super beings complete with stop watches counting the beats of the watch that conform to the displacement from point to point for every motion in the Universe. The magnitude of the parameters involved with an ability to move compels speed and direction. The human concept TIME becomes a part of that we refer to as reality, as also does a television transmitter or receiver.

[michel123456]

Time is part of larger phenomena.

We already know that time is inseparable from space.

I believe that time is also inseparable from gravity.

[petrushka.googol]

Depends how you see it...Time was not there initially but then nor was space....Time continues to be created as space is created by the expansion of universe...Time unfolds as space unfolds.

 

Where did it all begin...At a singularity

 

Where will it end...not sure.

 

Is time infinite? Since matter of the Universe is not infinite, and since time is just another co-related aspect of space, time is still finite.

 

Time is not absolute. It also exists but only in relation to space. No space -> No time.

 

Condense space to an infinitesimal..Time can still record it.

[studiot]

 

Chimpanzees’ have been taught to do simple typing but I would suggest that you don’t hold your breath whilst waiting for a dog to contribute a philosophical posting on the subject TIME, despite the cravings of their stomach.

 

Have you read any part of the book I recommended?

[I-try]

Studiot.

No, I haven't read that book and the title would not attract my attention. Perhaps you may care to state more clearly the subtleties implied by your reference to that book; as I will do regarding my statement “The human concept time becomes a part of that we refer to as reality, as also does a television transmitter or receiver”. That statement simply means that because we are an evolving product of the Universe, our intelligence, inventive abilities and concepts such as Time become a small intrinsic portion of that we refer to as the Universe. In that regard, concepts such as fast, slow, velocity, acceleration, distance, space, time and so on and on to eventually become the concept we call reality. Then and only because of human ability to take and keep account does the human concept Time become a property of the physical portion of the Universe. The reality is there in the form of the precursors and magnitude of local parameters; being limited only by our ability to perceive and understand.

[Didymus]

I think people here are getting a bit carried away with the correlation between time and space. Yes, matter is moving outward through space... But to state that time is expanding as space expands... Seems to suggest that the direction of space affects the direction of time. I.e. if, by any means, the universe were to begin retracting back in on itself, time would stop moving forward.

 

 

Of course, I doubt that's your intention... But it's an implication of that statement.

 

 

Note, or we're to accept the idea that time is a perpendicular dimension of spacetime, as one point in space experiences a sequence of moments in time, likewise, the result would be each moment would be defined by a universal coordinant in time.

[Implicate Order]

It’s great to be questioning time and what it means yet is is such a difficult thing to pin down. We experience a notion of time as a means to describe how a system progressively changes from an initial to a subsequent state but we have extreme trouble trying to define it. Is it an 'illusion' or is this pasage of time 'real'.

 

The old notion of 'eternal' time of Newtons day where an observer adopted an external view of the system under investigation has been replaced today with a new notion of time that is very dependent on the perspective of an observer embedded in the system of examination.

 

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have lot's of interesting things to say about how we as 'change observers' use time as a measure of this change but they are mute in providing a reason for 'why' systems change (eg. causative factors). For example we have relativistic equations and schrodinger wave functions to describe the change, but nothing in these theories to answer 'what causes the change'. The reason for this is that these theories treat time as an illusion based on the frame of reference of a passive or participatory observer.

 

Thermodynamics on the other hand (eg. observing constraints applied to dissipative systems) at least provide a clue to 'why' systems evolve in a particular way. This provides some hope to those who who are looking to initial first causes as opposed to symmetries. In addressing what is time therefore, I tend to listen more closely to those theories that fully embrace these principles. Thermodynamics seems to me to be bypassed in our search for quantum gravity as opposed to being more thoroughly integrated and addressed. Unfortunately the mathematics of relativity and QM when dealing with complex systems is not currently up to the task given the complexity of thermodynamic systems and this may be the very reason it is not being given the necessary lip-service. The problem of course is how do we embed an observers participatory viewpoint in the thermodynamic system under investigation. Some runs on the board appear to have been made in his direction with the Unruh effect for example, but there may be a long way to go.

 

What time is and whether it is real or not is still actively queried in physics and is taking central stage now in Quantum Gravity research. In summary there seem to be at least 3 different paths being taken at the moment with respect to time:

1. From the relativists camp - the passage of time is an illusion and merely reflects the different incremental paths of passive observers moving through a pre-defined static classical system. Add all these relativistic observer viewpoints up and you have a gods eye view of the system (eg. block universe deterministic concept of relativity);
2. From the quantum camp - the passage of time is a classical illusion and reflects the different participatory paths of classical observers moving through a pre-defined static and deterministic quantum system. Add all these probabilistic and relativistic viewpoints up and you arrive at the static deterministic quantum wavefuntion; or
3. From the minority complexity theory camp - the passage of time is fundamental where an observer is travelling upon a ‘moving now’ into the future as the system progressively evolves as suggested by thermodynamics with times arrow and entropic direction. Add all these stochastic relativistic viewpoints up and you have an indeterminate evolving system.

Contemporary mainstream view is tending towards options 1 & 2 but there is a glimmer of hope with option 3 given the difficulties currently being faced in further unifications of physics.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Implicate Order

[michel123456]

For understanding time, you can try the null situation: what would be a world without time.

 

Would there be a force? No, because the action of a force is related to time.

 

So a world without time would a world without any of the 4 known interactions. No strong nuclear force, no weak force, no electromagnetic force, no gravity.

 

So, no time and ...Puff, the world disappears.

[petrushka.googol]

Contemporary mainstream view is tending towards options 1 & 2 but there is a glimmer of hope with option 3 given the difficulties currently being faced in further unifications of physics.

 

My own rather myopic view (given my modest knowledge of the subject) is :

1) At least 4 dimensions are relevant in any physical measurement.

2) Altough dimensionally (in classical physics) time is measured independantly I prefer to consider it a translation of an object, maintaining its state over finite time. (for inertial objects) : (x₀y₀z₀T₀) -> (x₀y₀z₀T1​). This describes a history in the space time continuum.

3) For a non inertial object there is displacement across all 4 dimensions : (x₀y₀z₀T₀) -> (x₁y₁z₁T1​).

This is adequate as per relativistic measurements.

However as per string theory there are at least 11 dimensions of space (where dimensions > 4 are curled up very densely and not relevant for all practical observations.)

So in a nutshell my standpoint is that actually time is just one facet of a multi-faceted tetrahedron that we look at (erroneously?) in isolation.

[Implicate Order]

 

So in a nutshell my standpoint is that actually time is just one facet of a multi-faceted tetrahedron that we look at (erroneously?) in isolation.

 

 

It looks like you and I have similar sleepless nights pondering such matters. I wish these physicists would hurry up and work it out so we can get some sleep at least.

[michel123456]

 

My own rather myopic view (given my modest knowledge of the subject) is :

1) At least 4 dimensions are relevant in any physical measurement.

2) Altough dimensionally (in classical physics) time is measured independantly I prefer to consider it a translation of an object, maintaining its state over finite time. (for inertial objects) : (x₀y₀z₀T₀) -> (x₀y₀z₀T1​). This describes a history in the space time continuum.

3) For a non inertial object there is displacement across all 4 dimensions : (x₀y₀z₀T₀) -> (x₁y₁z₁T1​).

This is adequate as per relativistic measurements.

However as per string theory there are at least 11 dimensions of space (where dimensions > 4 are curled up very densely and not relevant for all practical observations.)

So in a nutshell my standpoint is that actually time is just one facet of a multi-faceted tetrahedron that we look at (erroneously?) in isolation.

 

i am glad that you talk about displacement.

Are you aware that it is not the standard point of vue?

It is generally considered that objects somehow "extend" in time, that an object in a spacetime diagram is represented as a line. which is different from a "translation" or "displacement" as you stated and to which I agree with.

Edited February 8, 2014 by michel123456

[Implicate Order]

This thread is getting very interesting. In our discussions however it naturally extends into metaphysics or philosophy as a mainstream consensus of what time is is still undecided.

 

What has hit me like a brick lately is a thought bubble arising from immersing an observer into our universe and the measurements that each observer would take to conclude the invariance in physics dependent on the perspective of each observer.

 

I am thinking that there is a very good reason for the invariance of c. From the perspective of any observer it allows a hubble volume to be extended around them that provides an invariant scope to undertake their measurements. Each observers laboratory to conduct experiments in will therefore be standardised. If the physics in each laboratory is the same, we can conclude that the box that we have done physics in can be extended for all observers. While each observer may conclude different measurements inside their hubble volume based on the observers relative location and movement with respect to other observers and their measurements taken, the sum total of their conclusions in their box from observing a standard symmetry associated with the contents of their hubble volume will all agree. Add all these discreet hubble volumes up from all observers and you have a 'god's eye view' of this universe.This perspective concords with a relativistic viewpoint so what would quantum mechanics have to say about this.

 

On the one hand under a relativistic viewpoint in a single grand universe each seperate history effectively transposes to on the other hand a multi-verse interpretation from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics. I am seeing a direct equivalence here.

 

If I look at the boundary of each observers hubble volume I would conclude that he information contained on the boundary was equivalent to the information contained in the state of the boundaries contents. This comes from the notion that a metric of that closed boundary is directly equivalent to the contents within that boundary. There is a Wheeler expression that comes from General Relativity which states that the boundary of a boundary is zero. Thanks to Amanda Geftner I think she offers insight to Wheeler's thought bubble. Consider the equivalence in the Einstein equation between the geometry of the manifold and the mass-energy contents of that manifold. If the manifold is closed (like our hypothetical hubble volume surrounding each observer), then the boundary geometry possesses the information associated with the contents. Beckenstein also saw this relationship between the information contents of a black hole and the area of the boundary.

 

So each observer has their own hubble volume to contend with. The information state of that hubble volume can either be determined through the boundary or the state of its contents. In comparing the information state between hubble volumes however we have to superimpose the information of these hubble volumes which therefore necessitates a relativistic comparison of the information state of each observers wavefunction associated with each hubble volume. From the perspective of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction that describes this hubble volume state will exclude the observer in this description. If we try to include the observer, they will collapse this wavefunction. Now from gauge theory in QM we understand that a comparison of out of phase wave-functions gives rise to the notion of force (or more importantly directionality arising from the difference in phase). It is the information difference contained in each wavefunction that leads to this wavefunction phase variance. You can see that as each observer has a different viewpoint on their hubble volume by virtue of their location or motion, each wavefunction will represent their personal viewpoints. Only when we include the observer in this viewpoint as a participant will be obtain an equivalence. So as we collect more out of phase wavefunctions to supimpose on each other to compare more observers points of view in our universal description we merge superpositions and their respective information contents that reflect differences attributed to the state of each observer in the context.

 

If I take the viewpoint that a collapse of the wavefunction does not in reality occur, I am therefore left with the view that decoherence from the superposition of competing wavefunctions of alternate wavefunctions gives the notion of classical collapse. I am getting quite comfortable with the notion that our classical universe is simply the 'apparrent' decoherence collapse of a superposition of entire wavefunctions that describe each observers hubble volume. As a result, each observer concludes the reality of the resultant collapse and see the same 'things' arising from the collapse.

 

Here is another interpretation that looks at this from a different perspective. An observer as a collector of information about his universe receives that information from light. Commencing from the farthest point in the observable universe, binary information in the form of 1' and 0's are progressively collected to create causal strucure until it reaches his retina where the information content describes his entire hubble volume. This information can be described in terms of his personal wavefunction. Other observers also collect information relaed to their universe in the same way. It is when the wavefunctions of these different histories are then merged in an environment containing multiple observers that it collapses the superimposed wavefunction to provide a classical description that all observers can agree on.

 

From decoherence arising from the superposition of wavefunctions of entire causal histories I am seeng notions of classicalism emerge and also directional trends associated with the progressive accumulation of information by each observer........

 

What's this got to do with time? Well in this interpretation I am therefore left with a classical interpretation of time as superimposed histories of causality that is agreed on by all observers provided that each observers hubble volume is connected to anoher observers hubble volume (intersecting sets of information captured by the light cone of c that reaches each observer). I can through fourier transforms project the information collected by the mind of each observer and then superimpose these projections to create a classical reality that when viewed again by each observer includes a description from their frame of reference. In this viewpoint I could alternatively state that the single history of the observer can be described by the information content of a planck unit of spacetime given that this history can also be represented by a geometry on the boundary of a universe comprising all its observers. Remember however that the information content of this planck unit of spacetime includes the observer in this description. As a result, the information content of each unit is invariant. I am seeing a tasty correlation with the vacuum in this thought process being the information content of the quanta (the information contained in each planck unit) which is also expressed invariantly as a finite minimum amount of energy and time.

 

Alternatively I can sum total the information contained in the hubble volume including the observer themselves or collect the information contained in the total universal boundary of this collective and treat this as an invariant agreed upon by all observers....In this giant summation of the boundary or its contents (including the observer)...I can come to the conclusion that our universe nets out to a big fat zero...

 

This is not saying that the universe commenced from nothing however. It is suggesting that nothing in this context is actually something, namely the universal quantum wavefunction.

 

....anyway, I will leave it there before I ramble too far in speculation and handwaving. Time for my medication and pills and back to the padded cell.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Implicate Order

[petrushka.googol]

 

It looks like you and I have similar sleepless nights pondering such matters. I wish these physicists would hurry up and work it out so we can get some sleep at least.

 

I think you miss the point here slightly...the HIggs Boson was verified only recently..hmm..

[Implicate Order]

 

I think you miss the point here slightly...the HIggs Boson was verified only recently..hmm..

 

I must have missed the point for my interpretation requires the higgs field for an observer-dependent viewpoint.

 

The Higgs Boson in my opinion is a necessary ingredient for standard particle physics but not in the same way that the interpretation discussed below requires it. When however dealing with quantum mechanics and relativity, our notion of calling particles things and describing their properties to give them form becomes problematic. So dependent on which camp you are in is going to have its problems when searching for unifications that seek to merge notions of both things and the background they move through. I therefore choose an observer-dependent viewpoint that merges the two notions in my thought processes when trying to work on what quantum gravity is all about. For example quantum mechanics deals with non-local entangled states and quantum statistics and relativity deals with spacetime points in a metric field. Standard particle physics seems to conveniently side-steps these issues.

 

The following has been derived from a summary of information taken from Amanda Gefter's recent book which is a mind blower.

 

When an observer describes the properties of a thing referred to as a particle (eg. an electron), the observer uses a wavefunction to note it's phase. Phase differences matter in interference experiments which is crucial to understanding in quantum terms, the nature of particles. The phase describes a reference frame from the point of view of an observer. For example an electrons wavefunction is spread throughout space with an amplitude peaked around a specific location and when as an observer interacts with it's wavefunction (which extends as far as the observers light cone) the result is a phase shift in the portion of the electrons wavefunction (but not across the entire wavefunction of the electron). So in a local portion the observer has shifted the phase of the electron and there is a mismatch created by the phase shift which can only be restored through a diffeomorphic transformation. What I am actually doing here is describing gauge symmetry. Gauge symmetry demands that all gauges are invariant but local gauge shifts require a local gauge force to restore this symmetry. In other words the out of phase wavefunctions from the perspective of an observer creates 'fictitious' forces. Now all the known four forces are all gauge forces.

 

In this interpretation we have therefore already debunked the four forces as mythical all by taking a measurement from the point of view of an observer. The point is that gauge forces aren't invariant in themselves and you can transform them away with a different observers point of view. Now if gauge symmetry can do this to the forces, isn't it a logical step to view what gauge symmetry has to say about particles. Interestingly a Higgs field is required to preserve gauge symmetry so I am not disputing the discovery of the Higgs particle in this interpretation. We actually require it.

 

In CPT symmetry we need to deal with a particles property referred to as spin. All particles have this intrinsic rotation but it is either left handed or right handed in relation to how it moves through space. Once again the handedness in this interpretation will depend on the frame of reference of the observer. But this is a problem with the weak nuclear force as we need this property to be invariant to agree with experiments in the lab.

 

So let's assume that the property defined as spin is not associated with the mass of a particle and treat these properties seperately. I therefore assume that particles that are massless with spin must travel at c which will save my interpretation as there will be no frame of reference that can outrun c to have an altered view of the handedness. But we are caught here as we know that particles with mass can't travel at c. If the particles move slower than c, there is no way to explain the weak force's preference for left-handed particles without violating gauge symmetry. All is not lost however if in this inerpretation you have a Higgs field. The Higgs field in this interpretation operates in the background swapping left and right. In reality the weak force is really acting on left and right handed particles equally but thanks to the Higgs field particles can have mass without violating gauge symmetry. The Higgs field patches up the difference between different observers reference frames.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Implicate Order

[michel123456]

 

 

I must have missed the point for my interpretation (....) (...) (...) frames.

That gives me no insight about the basic understanding of time.

 

Hello.

This is my first post. I am nobody with an average intelligence. I have a very basic understating of time. I want to know if this makes sense.

I think time is the movement of things. I am not an expert in physics so by 'things' I mean any fundamental particles. On neutron stars, the gravity is very high. This strong gravity pulls things down, so things move slowly than, say, on the Earth. Thus, time on neutron stars becomes slow. Time on an Earth-orbiting space station goes a little bit faster, because the gravity is a little bit lower than on the surface of the Earth.

Time before the Big Bang did not exist, because there were no things before the Big Bang. When there are no things, there is no way to measure the passage of time. Nobody is there, and of course no clock is there. This is indistinguishable from time being stopped.

Theoretically I could stop time, if I could stop the movements of everything (all particles). If everything stops, this is indistinguishable from time being stopped.

Hey, where are you Sin ?

Edited February 9, 2014 by michel123456

[Implicate Order]

That gives me no insight about the basic understanding of time.

Hey, where are you Sin ?

 

Sorry about that michel123456. It is quite a difficult subject. Most physicists trying to describe time to the lay audience need complete books to do so. It involves looking at the different viewpoints relaing to time including:

1. The standardised ticking of clocks that measured system mechanics and behaviour in Newton's day. This is perhaps how most of us think about time;

2. To the recognition in relativity that the progression of time or the ticking of clocks is relative to the observer. In Special Relativity we deal with different inertial frames of reference in flat spacetime (Euclidean Space). The difference in ticking clocks in SR is based on relative motion and can be deduced by Lorentz transformations and is reciprocal. In General relativity we deal with motion in a gravitational field and we need to deal with gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal.

3. To the understanding in Quantum Mechanics that due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle there is a finite interval of time at the planck scale below which time is indeterminate and what constitutes a 'instant in time' cannot be determined.

 

The three views above are suggestive that time itself is an ilusion. I wanted to point this out in my preceding posts on discussing what time is which clearly is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer and the scale of observation itself. These viewpoints above give a counterintuitive understanding of time. What I also wanted to point out is that there is no counter-intuitivity in our classical world. There is a very good reason in thermodynamics why time marches in one direction. This is attributed to classical systems and entropy.

 

The prior post was a crack in a detailed paragraph without going into a book about it, what seems to be going on with time.

 

If you want a 'basic undersanding of time' then as simply as I can put it, it is just what classical observers perceive as change to a system. But that alone does not give any insight into time. I assumed readers of the forum may want to hear a perspective on this insight form a fellow interested lay person.

[michel123456]

 

Sorry about that michel123456. It is quite a difficult subject. Most physicists trying to describe time to the lay audience need complete books to do so. It involves looking at the different viewpoints relaing to time including:

1. The standardised ticking of clocks that measured system mechanics and behaviour in Newton's day. This is perhaps how most of us think about time;

2. To the recognition in relativity that the progression of time or the ticking of clocks is relative to the observer. In Special Relativity we deal with different inertial frames of reference in flat spacetime (Euclidean Space). The difference in ticking clocks in SR is based on relative motion and can be deduced by Lorentz transformations and is reciprocal. In General relativity we deal with motion in a gravitational field and we need to deal with gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal.

3. To the understanding in Quantum Mechanics that due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle there is a finite interval of time at the planck scale below which time is indeterminate and what constitutes a 'instant in time' cannot be determined.

 

The three views above are suggestive that time itself is an ilusion. I wanted to point this out in my preceding posts on discussing what time is which clearly is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer and the scale of observation itself. These viewpoints above give a counterintuitive understanding of time. What I also wanted to point out is that there is no counter-intuitivity in our classical world. There is a very good reason in thermodynamics why time marches in one direction. This is attributed to classical systems and entropy.

 

The prior post was a crack in a detailed paragraph without going into a book about it, what seems to be going on with time.

 

If you want a 'basic undersanding of time' then as simply as I can put it, it is just what classical observers perceive as change to a system. But that alone does not give any insight into time. I assumed readers of the forum may want to hear a perspective on this insight form a fellow interested lay person.

I disagree with the option that 'time is an illusion".

 

What is that "t" that you find in so many equations?

 

When someone comes up to meters, there is no problem, everyone understands clearly what a meter is. But when it comes to Time, then there is a problem. I hear nowhere people arguing that "space is an illusion".

To me, the statement 'time is an illusion" corresponds to a defeat of our understanding.

Edited February 9, 2014 by michel123456

[I-try]

Relative to humans, time certainly is not an illusion. Throughout our lifetime we observe change such as day and night constantly reoccurring. We are constantly aware of past happenings and of our instant by instant present progress into what we call the future. To keep an account of the past, we record the number of rotations of the Earth relative to the Sun DURING one orbit. To refine the measurement of Time, we have the oscillations of the atoms composing our atomic clocks to assist to regulate our interrelationships with each-other. Uniformly reoccurring oscillating type motion has to be present to provide a measurement of time, which in turn indicates and measures a portion of our existence.

 

Therefore and due to the above, we attempt to record the reality of our existence by the shortest constantly reoccurring oscillations available to us. Also, and because of our propensity to attempt to impose our concepts on the fundamental universal reality such as beginning, end, time etceteras, we entangle ourselves in complexity and quandary.

 

The way in which I view our idea of Time depends on the experience derived from our existence at near to the highest level of reality extant in the universe. At the fundamental dynamic level of reality, the shortest period of time relative to our concept time, would be in the form of the most rapid uniform reoccurring oscillating motion. That in turn requires human concepts involving distance, rate of acceleration, change and so on.

 

I hope the above will allow Petrushka googol and Implicat order to get better sleep.

[swansont]

 

It looks like you and I have similar sleepless nights pondering such matters. I wish these physicists would hurry up and work it out so we can get some sleep at least.

 

You're waiting on the wrong folks. "What is time" is more of a metaphysics question than a physics question. If you want a physics answer, time is what is measured by a clock. It's the phase of an oscillation.