[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 25 KB, 321x500, cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5804019 No.5804019 [Reply] [Original]

Do we have momentum in time? I know time is linked to but different from the spacial dimensions, so in a way I think that might be a nonsensical question, but is there anything similar that resists the various changes in time's rate we experience when going faster (and I know time is only different for someone traveling at a different rate who is observing us so we don't actually notice a change ourselves)?

>> No.5804305

Bump

>> No.5804583

Late night bump

>> No.5804587

define "time"

>> No.5804612

>>5804587
The t in d=rt and is generally measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, etc.

>> No.5804622

Time isn't a thing. Time is what is used to describe change.

>> No.5804639

Sure. It's called "energy."

This is a trivial result of special relativity - we deal with four-vectors (vectors with four component, three spacial and one temporal). Four-momentum is defined as:

<div class="math"> p_\mu =(E/c,p_x ,p_y ,p_z)</div>

where:

<span class="math">E=\gamma mc^2[/spoiler]

<span class="math">p_x=\gamma mv_x[/spoiler]
etc. for the y and z components, and:

<div class="math">\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-( v_x^{~2} + v_y^{~2} + v_z^{~2})/c^2}}</div>
Given the numerous relationships between time/energy and space/momentum, this shouldn't be too surprising. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of time translation symmetry, while conservation of momentum is a consequence of spacial translation symmetry.

>> No.5804677

>>5804622
Time is the distance between events in the same space.

>> No.5804682

>>5804622
For some reason this shit seems to be rampant on /sci/. Whenever I see a thread about time, I inevitably see a post about how time doesn't "really" exist, and how it's "actually" [ill-defined nonsense].

>> No.5804697

>>5804639
/thread

Ask if you have any further questions.