What is Time?

[Anonymous No.14506581]

Is there any physical definition for it? always appears as t in physical equations but I don't recall anyone defining it. In almost every case it's considered to be a scalar but is this a fact? Most things that turned out to be true defied human intuition. Could time be a vector quantity (eg. complex)? What are the implications of imaginary time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

[Anonymous No.14506594]

Like space and gravity, it's something very weird and beyond our understanding.
You might like this video OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg

[Anonymous No.14506600]

With only 3d, length, width, depth...

There is no description of the posibility of that 3d object to spin, to wobble, to change shape/bend, to move in a direction.

If you have a 3d stationary cube, and you push in with your fingers one of the sides;

It is the same exact 3d object, yet from before, to during the push, to after your finger is remaining there pushing in, the object has changed.

The 3d is not enough descriptions to describe, the change that takes place through the process of finger push plane bend.

Interestingly enough, as your finger begins to push in the exact point it is touching on the cube surface, the process is described in rates of time: the rhythem, pattern, rate of change Of, the new and new and new and new location of that finger point in space.

[Anonymous No.14506636]

>>14506581
your equations do not accurately reflect real life, that is why the terms in your equations do not dovetail with your real world experience. the only people who say that they believe that equations define reality are coincidentally people who have some other motive, often financial, to say it.

[Anonymous No.14506647]

>Interestingly enough, as your finger begins to push in the exact point it is touching on the cube surface, the process is described in rates of time: the rhythem, pattern, rate of change Of, the new and new and new and new location of that finger point in space.
Yet you don't need time to deduce speed or rate of change, even if speed is a ratio of distance/time. What I mean by this is that you can look at a static picture, and for the sake of simplicity we'll pretend we're looking at a bullet breaking the sound barrier. In this case, without looking at multiple frames, I can tell you that the bullet is travelling at 1,239 km/h. Notice that I did not need multiple frames as per your description of the 3d cube. I was able to look at a static picture and deduce speed/rate of change when traditionally it requires two frames (what you called rates of time).

[Anonymous No.14506649]

>>14506581
Time is a stripper doing it just for you

[Anonymous No.14506652]

>>14506581
Time is just another dimension of a filament, that we find ourselves in, called spacetime.
If I tell you to meet me, you always have to specify 4 coordinates, that is to say 4 dimensions, three of space amd one of time. I will tell you meet me at x 100 and y 100. But if it's a building or a hill I have to specify a z, or height, so a 7th floor. But these three aren't enough aren't they? In order for us to meet we always need to be on the same plane in all four dimensions, I also need to specify the time of the meeting.

[Anonymous No.14506655]

>>14506600
>>14506647
Obviously the example involving a bullet breaking the sound barrier isn't limited. You can apply this principle to the wake of a boat in motion, or a syllable leaving your mouth. The idea is that you can look at how air, water, etc. is dispersed in a static picture and from this you can deduce rates of change.

[Anonymous No.14506676]

>>14506581
Pseudo intellectual drivel. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.14506724]

>>14506676
Define time or duration.

[Anonymous No.14506726]

>>14506581
>special relativity is all about confronting lengths to the distance light travels in a given time, by 3D pythagorean theorem
(ct)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
>therefore
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0
>4 degrees of freedom being tracked so 4 variables
>WOAHH 4D SO MYSTERIOUS

-t^2 = (it)^2
>therefore
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2 = 0
>WOAHH IMAGINARY NUMBERS SO MYSTERIOUS I'M GOING IN ANOTHER DIMENSION

[Anonymous No.14506732]

>>14506652
This. In the future there's a huge time-gravity well that we're all falling towards. We're in a black hole.

[Anonymous No.14506775]

>>14506726
It's 3 degrees of freedom. If 3 are known, then the 4th is already predetermined. Take the x^2, y^2 and z^2 terms to be a, then:
>a = (ct)^2
You didn't answer the question. What are the implications of imaginary time since complex time adds another direction? Like what does it change for the current Big Bang model?

[Anonymous No.14506789]

>>14506647
>>14506655
I didn't read your cool looking image/text yet as I was out and my phone died and i wanted to add this thought:

Clap your hands:
Clap******Clap******Clap******Clap******

Now clap twice as fast:
Clap***Clap***Clap***Clap***Clap***Clap

This expresses an idea about one aspect of what time is and might mean.

To measure space, an extended object composed of many equal units are needed: a wooden ruler of equidistant inches.

To measure time, units of equality are also needed, but these mesure duration, change, blossom/decay, stability, occurance, regularity, irregularity.

There is a difference between cooking a hamburger for 5 minutes, and 50 minutes. It is not a spatial difference, it is a duration difference, it is a number of claps difference.

[Anonymous No.14506816]

>>14506647
That's only because you already know the speed required to break the sound barrier? And finding that out required many tests and trials of falling just short of that, and just short of that, and just short of that, and just short of that, and by looking at still pictures of those cases,
could you determine the speed?

That is a very beautiful image by the way, everything about it, surprisingly those bunch's of wakes to the right least stoke me, I am marveled by those thick black perfect lines, and the less bold lines between them, and the bullets plumey trail

[Anonymous No.14506820]

>>14506655
>The idea is that you can look at how air, water, etc. is dispersed in a static picture and from this you can deduce rates of change.
Hm really... Knowing the mass of the object, details about the medium, like molecular bond strength, density, pressure, mass, area; and the angle of wake?

I geuss I should have taken my cube finger pushing example to the next level by bringing to mind the fact that someone can push a side of the cube in quickly, and slowly, and many speeds in between, steadily, and chopily jerkly,

[Anonymous No.14506834]

>>14506816
>And finding that out required many tests and trials of falling just short of that, and just short of that, and just short of that, and just short of that, and by looking at still pictures of those cases,
could you determine the speed?
We are reverse-engineering the universe, so in our case some trial and error was indeed required to arrive at quantities like the speed required to break the sound barrier. But these quantities are already known to whoever built this universe. We've started from the top instead of the bottom. But whoever built the world must have known the initial conditions from the very beginning.

[Anonymous No.14506926]

>>14506775
>a = (ct)^2
>a - (ct)^2 = 0
>a + (ict)^2 = 0
That's literally all there is to it.

The mathematical significance?
x = y implies x - y = 0, so x - y != 0 is a measure of how dissimilar x and y are, when x > y, then x - y > 0, when x < y, then x - y < 0, and because x^2 - y^2 = x^2 + (iy)^2, you get "imaginary time".

So r^2 - (ct)^2 != 0, when negative, is called a time-like interval because it's an event happening within the light cone of the observer, when positive, it's called space-like because it's happening outside the light cone.
Because special relativity is all voodoo about pretending that if light signals from an event haven't arrived to you then it hasn't happened, it's important data to track.
But it's nothing more than a comparison reified into a quantity through subtraction. You can see that it is the case, because at the end of the day, what you do with a spacetime interval is to check its sign.

It's all a mathematical pun and there is nothing mystical about it.

[Anonymous No.14506999]

>>14506732
If we were being sucked into a black hole. the universe would look exactly like it does now, expanding, accelerating.
It's freaky to think that the universe has been born and died in a sub nanosecond flash and we haven't caught up yet because our time frame is stretching to infinity

[Anonymous No.14507173]

>>14506789
>Clap your hands:
>Clap******Clap******Clap******Clap******
>Now clap twice as fast:
>Clap***Clap***Clap***Clap***Clap***Clap
>This expresses an idea about one aspect of what time is and might mean.
>To measure space, an extended object composed of many equal units are needed: a wooden ruler of equidistant inches.
>To measure time, units of equality are also needed, but these mesure duration, change, blossom/decay, stability, occurance, regularity, irregularity.
>There is a difference between cooking a hamburger for 5 minutes, and 50 minutes. It is not a spatial difference, it is a duration difference, it is a number of claps difference.

Respond to this good elucidation of Time please.

[Anonymous No.14507180]

>>14506581
>What is Time?
An illusion. An attempt by humans to quantify and measure that which cannot be quantified or measured, or even really explained.

[Anonymous No.14507187]

>>14506581
"It doubtless seems highly paradoxical to assert that Time is unreal, and that all statements which involve its reality are erroneous. Such an assertion involves a far greater departure from the natural position of mankind than is involved in the assertion of the unreality of Space or of the unreality of Matter. So decisive a breach with that natural position is not to be lightly accepted. And yet in all ages the belief in the unreality of time has proved singularly attractive."
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time

[Anonymous No.14507206]

>>14507187
Yuck!

TIME IS THE FACT OF SEQUENCE.
TIME IS THE FACT OF SEQUENTIAL ORDER.

YOUR GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDMOTHER AND YOUR GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDMOTHER ARE NOT ALIVE ON EARTH RIGHT NOW.

THAT IS WHAT THE WORD AND IDEA TIME REFERS TO

[Anonymous No.14507211]

>>14507206
Well you can read the whole thing it's still used if you're taking metaphysics of time or whatever your University calls it.

[Anonymous No.14507324]

>>14507173
>>14506789
This is not a usable definition. What's a clap? What happened at number of claps = 0? How many claps can you fit between a pair of claps?

[Anonymous No.14507367]

We're a 3d being and can't perceive time. What we understand is that time goes forward, but we only ever experience one moment in time. What about the other moments? We feel they exist but likely inaccessible to our perception. Mathematical model shows us time is another dimension, similar to all other dimensions like length, width, height. It's got a scale where all other moments in time are marked.
Then there are other dimension in top of time, that our mathematical models shows as well,but we have no hope of perceiving them.

[Anonymous No.14507526]

>>14507324
It's not meant to be a usable definition, it is meant to give an idea, that there is an isness to it.

The definition of time is any regularity. Even if humans are not around, the universe still acts as it does, and the concept of all possible regularities exists, for out of all possible, all regularities, the universes motions and patterns and rates of cycle and regularities, occur in reference to the perfect order of all possible regularities.

Just like in space; even before a ruler was invented, the length of 5 inches was a real distance.

And 35 and 36 and 37 centimeters too.

[Anonymous No.14507531]

>>14506581
I like how your wiki article is titled "imaginary time", because time is imaginary, just like all other physics concepts, and all human concepts in general. Your sensation of time passing is a real sensation, but that's obviously not Math&Science(tm).

[Anonymous No.14508366]

>>14506581
There's motion, time is conjectured from motion.

[Anonymous No.14509529]

>>14508366
Thank you finally

[Anonymous No.14509538]

>>14506581
Things change or they don't. Time good for a to b timing. Otherwise it change or not.

[Anonymous No.14509562]

The amount of times some repeating event happens between event A and B.

[Anonymous No.14509565]

>>14506581
Perhaps get more insight by asking why there’s an arrow of time.

And for me, it seems probable that it’s about data. A universe centred on you has enough data capacity to describe you, but it doesn’t have enough to describe you 5 minutes from now. Need the cosmological horizon to expand, new bits to be added, to describe the more complex state in 5 minutes.
Conversely, the past is a subset of the present state; so it can be recalled. Though not experienced.

All this means, time is not a reductive dimension but rather a holistic dimension.