[ 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: 33 KB, 640x480, 1285777152814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2987894 No.2987894 [Reply] [Original]

A clock is the source of time. Sure, one could say that movement of planets and stars can be used for measuring this, but how can we be sure? What i'm saying is, time is a man-made phenomenon, and if you simply break your watch, time stops. This, however, does not mean the world stops moving. It would be like removing the speedometer from a car and then assuming the engine stopped working.

Thanks for listening.

>> No.2987897

derp

>> No.2987899

>Have you ever herped so hard that you derped

>> No.2987905

>it would be like removing the speedometer from a car and then assuming the engine stopped working.

which is exactly what you are saying. If you brake your clock time still keeps going you just dont have a way to measure it.
Time as we know it is man-made but it is a necessary tool of measurement so we could understand change.

>> No.2987902
File: 193 KB, 473x606, 1285396110576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2987902

>> No.2987907

The source of time is matter. Clocks are made of matter. So they're one source of time, I guess.

>> No.2987909

>>2987907
They see me herpin', they derpin'

>> No.2987922

"Time" is a derivation from the speed of information. Information, in our universe, travels a certain distance per unit time, and it this speed that we use to implicitly define distance and time. (speed of light, if you haven't grasped it)

It is not made up, and it can be measured by axiomatically defining a unit distance or a unit time.

We can measure how the rate at which information propagates relative to inertial reference frames changes and we know it is intrinsically linked to the metric that we use to determine distance in the universe.

It's not abstract and can be mathematically defined and manipulated.

It's just a philosophical plaything; it has been quantified, similar to the smallest possible distance, or lowest energy state.

>> No.2987923

>>2987909
There is no time without matter, prove me wrong

>> No.2987926

>>2987922

>It's just a philosophical plaything

it's NOT just*

fixed, my bad

>> No.2987932
File: 32 KB, 243x312, 1284325506837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2987932

>>2987899

captcha: science, worithe

0_o

>> No.2987935

Also, interesting fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

There is a smallest unit of time, and it is the time it takes for a photon to travel one Planck length. In other words, the time it takes information to travel the smallest possible unit of distance.

From the Planck length, we can define time.

Planck units are interesting to read up on, if you can stop discussing philosophy for 2 minutes.

>> No.2987938
File: 38 KB, 600x450, DM294-small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2987938

So what happens if I don't buy a watch in the first place?

>> No.2987980

>>2987894

> A clock is the source of time

No, a clock is a measuring device for time intervals(!).

> time is a man-made phenomenon

Any evidence supporting your thesis?

>> No.2987986

>>2987922

> it has been quantified, similar to the smallest possible distance, or lowest energy state.

> implying there is a smalles possible distance/time
> implying this is related to having a lowest possible energy state

>> No.2987996

>>2987935

What is up with these idiots claimking there is a shortest ammount of time/space?

Nobody said that, except for some string-theorists and loop quantum gravity wannabes.

Planck units are just another unit for measuring, so particle physicist don't have to write down small-ass numbers.

It's like saying 1000 m are 1 km to shorten things up.

i almost mad.

>> No.2988025

A clock measures space, not time. Specifically, the space 'folded' into its clockwork. Time is just entropy, it is the clockwork of reality slowly winding down to heat death.

>> No.2988028

>>2987996
>notsureiftrollorjuststupid.jpg

>> No.2988033

>>2988028

wtfamireading.jpg

So you think time/space is quantised? Source/evidence please.

>> No.2988061

There is a smallest unit of time because there is a smallest unit of measurement. The fact that the smallest unit of measurement is a Planck unit (known for being a system of measurements that are dimensionless and invariant) doesn't change the fact that that Planck length is the accepted smallest unit of distance. Thus it follows that, because we measure time and distance in terms of the speed of light, the smallest meaningful unit of time is the time it would take for information to travel the smallest meaningful unit of distance. Information cannot travel in increments of this distance because at that scale, distance becomes quantized in terms of Planck distnances.

Thus the phrase 1/2 of a Planck second is meaningless because it is impossible for anything to measured by it, similar to the phrase 1/2 of a Planck distance is meaningless because it is impossible for anything to be measured by it.

These aren't because of the system of measurements used, these are because of how we know the gravitational constant, the planck constant, and the speed of light interact with each other.

Don't be so quick to throw out "morans"

>> No.2988076

>>2988061

> There is a smallest unit of time because there is a smallest unit of measurement

[citation needed]

> The fact that the smallest unit of measurement is a Planck unit

You're really a fucking idiot if you believe that. Read the wiki article you quoted before. This time DO read it. Nothing mentioned about Planck scale being of some sort of fundamental meaning to measurement or anything else. It is just the scale at which both gravitational and quantum mechanical influences become important.
Nothing else!

Now get your bitch-ass educated, then come back.

"Moran"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Quantised_time

> Time quantization is a hypothetical concept. In the modern established physical theories [...] time is not quantized.

>> No.2988090
File: 45 KB, 500x380, lol1276858116734.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2988090

>>2988061

> reads pop-sci
> thinks he knows everything

Some theorists just play with the idea of time and space being quantised. Up until now, they haven't found anything of interest as far as i know.

>> No.2988097

>>2988076


http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Planck+Time

Cannot be edited, copyrighted to Swinburne University

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

Georgia State University

Until a quantum theory of gravity is is accepted into scienfitic cannon, there is a unit of time below which we cannot infer any information.

Thus time and distance are, for all intents and purposes, quantized.

And those previous wiki pages do state that within the theoretical confines of our current physical understanding of the universe, planck time/distance are the shortest units in their dimensions.

Go fuck yourself, "moran".

>> No.2988109

Taken from the wiki

"One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change."

and

"In some forms of quantum gravity, the Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it would become impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart. The precise effects of quantum gravity are unknown; often it is suggested that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at Planck length scale.

The Planck area, equal to the square of the Planck length, plays a role in black hole entropy. The value of this entropy, in units of the Boltzmann constant, is known to be given by A/4\ell_P^2, where A is the area of the event horizon.

If large extra dimensions exist, the measured strength of gravity may be much smaller than its true (small-scale) value. In this case the Planck length would have no fundamental physical significance, and quantum gravitational effects would appear at other scales.

In string theory, the Planck length is the order of magnitude of the oscillating strings that form elementary particles, and shorter lengths do not make physical sense.[3]

In loop quantum gravity, area is quantized, and the Planck area is, within a factor of order unity, the smallest possible area value.

In doubly special relativity, the Planck length is observer-invariant.

According to the generalized uncertainty principle, the Planck length is, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length."

>> No.2988113

>>2988097

> there is a unit of time below which we cannot infer any information

theoretically! No boundaries on measurements.

> Thus time and distance are, for all intents and purposes, quantized.

The first one does not imply this.


> those previous wiki pages do state that within the theoretical confines of our current physical understanding of the universe, planck time/distance are the shortest units in their dimensions.

[citation needed]

"Moran"


Also, the pages you quoted are full of shit. I quote:
> and is the shortest possible time interval that can be measured.

which they just say without giving justification/source/evidence. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

Hyperphysics ddoes not mention anything like time/space quantization.

Do you even read the articles you cite?

>> No.2988120

>>2988109

> Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3]

look at what [3] is. Recursive linking.

There is NO reason for why time/space should be quantised. Give me a reason/evidence, then come back.

>> No.2988122

>>2988076
>>2988090

To the troll they are scientists playing with ideas and to the scientist they are one among a select few theories under heavy scientific debate and each with predictive and analytical power and worth.

Sure I might be wrong under some interpretations, but does that mean we can't talk about quantum probability when string theory joins the discussion? That's the opposite of science; each model has a use.

Just look at Bohr's model for the atom.

>> No.2988132

>>2988097

Et >~ h

E >~ h/t

If i want to measure something in the time interval t_{Pl}, i'd have to use particles of energy

E > h/t_{Pl}

Where is the problem?

There is none.

>> No.2988140

>>2988122

Some hypothetical, unestablished theories existing does not imply time is quantized, which is claimed by that failure of a human in here.

>> No.2988146

Well then that's all I have, and that's how I currently understand it. I've taken up to physics 3 and differential equations and I haven't exploded because of my incorrect interpretation, so I imagine I'll learn more about it in the future.

Understand it anyway you like, it's not like we can even probe that far or be doing any work on that level (personally, you or me) for several years. I just wanted to give an interesting interpretation I came upon that was relevant, so do with it what you will.

>> No.2988156

>>2988120

[3] seems to be a completely independent wiki run by a university. How is it recursive?

>> No.2988165

>>2988146

Well, i am a physicist working on deriving a limit for the graviton mass using fixed point quantum gravity, so that "you or me" might not apply.

Didn't want to get so harsh but i hate that these claims are so wide-spread and make science-newbies get a lot of things wrong (just like relativistic mass or that light travels slower in matter). I'm not really blaming you, even professors get this wrong from time to time (especially experimental physics profs).

>> No.2988169

>>2988156

He quoted that independent wiki, to which i replied they did not quote any peer-reviewed/other kind of reliable source or motivation or anything, then as an answer posted that wiki article, which quoted the first link again.

Not really recursive, but ... what do you call these situations?

>> No.2988170
File: 38 KB, 562x437, 1298215233865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2988170

>>2987894
>if you simply break your watch, time stops.

LMFAO

>> No.2988197

it seems that the argument for the plank length being the smallest distance is that any smaller and our physics breaks down because we have to understand how gravity interacts on the quantum scale. in a sense, doesnt that mean that, as far as we can measure within our own accepted theory, it is a quantized unit of measurement?

>> No.2988203

>>2988197

All it says is actually "we don't know what happens there", nothing more. It could even be the case gravity does not play a role at, say, half the planck time, so that QM is valid up to that point.

>> No.2988207

>>2988203

i guess going so far as to say that it is the "quantum" of distance is going too far.

>> No.2988212

>>2988207

Yep.

>> No.2988218

>>2988207

> I can't grasp the amount of pun in that post

going so far is too far, quantum distance far, i lol'd a bit. then again, i should probably restrain to lurk the stoner thread right now.