[ 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: 62 KB, 623x358, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7054311 No.7054311 [Reply] [Original]

What is, in your opinion, time? We all have a feeling for time, we know its effects and what it is affected by (e.g. mass), we can measure it, we can calculate it, but it is pretty hard to understand and scientists still haven't found an explanation.

For me, this, together with magnetism, gravity, light and quantum mechanics, is something I wish to have an answer for (although it is very likely we will die long before they can be explained).

Bonus question: Do you think we are even able to understand time? Like hypothetical 2D creatures who cannot understand our 3D view.

I am curious about your opinions /sci/

>> No.7054564

Time on the level that I can experience it is the progression of motions, and events set forth at the beginning of the universe. It could be infinite going forward, but there is no experiment we can do to prove that.

If it's infinite and if the universe is cyclic everything that can happen would happen. But I don't know enough to say if that's true.

>> No.7054569

>>7054311
>>>/lgbt/

>> No.7054594

>>7054564
"The progression of motions" lacks two things. First, if there is absolutely no motion, would time still pass? Well, yes. Time is not bound to motion, but otherwise: Second, motion is defined by time. You can't define something by something that is defined by that thing. This is not meant as an offense to your thoughts, but rather an explanation why this topic is so complex.

>> No.7054609

>>7054594
I understand what you're saying and to be honest I have a hard time (get it) dealing with this too.

The way I define what time is to me in my every day life is what I said earlier, it is something that works on my level of existence.

I am completely aware of the circular logic in it.

There is also the trouble with language if I say time began to exist at the beginning of the universe it implies there was a time when time did not exist, which is paradoxical.

However ignoring any issues with language in my view time exists from the moment that the universe exists. What it is is something I can only use it's effects to define because I simply don't know of any other way.

>> No.7054626

>>7054594
Also there cannot not be any motion in the universe due to quantum mechanics. Where the location of a particle is probabilistic in nature. For as far as I know of course I'm open to be corrected in this.

>> No.7054628

>>7054609
It is not a hard time (haha) only for you. It is a very complex matter, that hasn't been solved by us since we exist and the thing that bugs me the most is that we are constantly using it. It is not like chemistry where you don't understand a process but you have some idea how it might work, then you try it by experiment and prove your theory. Time happens right now, and you just sit there and think "What EXACTLY is happening right now?". Hell, even gravity is somewhat easier to understand, since it is more of a geometrical problem.

All that thinking makes me depressed...

>> No.7054634

>>7054626
I don't understand that part, sorry..

>> No.7054645

>>7054634
Well when you asked if in the case of absolutely no motion time would pass I countered with the idea that there are always fluctuations in the position of particles, and virtual particles can come from nothing, irregardless of time. Therefore there will always be motion of some kind.

>> No.7054663

>>7054645
Oh okay, now I get the idea. But the question then is about vacuum. Since there are no particles (at some place, considering there are no photons etc.), would that mean that time does not pass there? So would time be limited to objects?
In my opinion not, because since space (empty space, so basically "nothing") is bound to time, they have a correlation and you don't need objects for time to exist.

>> No.7054666

>>7054663
even if space could be empty there would still be the motion of space itself expanding.

>> No.7054670

Yeah space is stretching so they say...

>> No.7054673

>>7054670
well it's pretty much proven to be true afaik.

>> No.7054680

>>7054666
So the question is still if time needs motion to exist at all, or if motion is the way we can actually experience time.

>> No.7054684

>>7054680
Well consider this, in physics there is the idea that space is time. And space is always expanding, thus it has motion. Therefore time is always moving. So as time is intrinsic to motion, motion could be as intrinsic to time.

>> No.7055124

>>7054684
I agree. This is how I rationalise the arrow of time. Expansion=progression

>> No.7055324
File: 52 KB, 460x365, appl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7055324

Time to level up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rExaKLEoU

>> No.7055535

10/10
Speaking of time is it happening today?

>> No.7055538

I'll just leave this here;
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3832v3.pdf

>rovelli's cock

>> No.7055659

>>7055324
>>7055538
I disagree with the notion that time does not exist in our regime.
We clearly have an arrow of time in the universe.
I won't suddenly remember what I will say tomorrow, and entropy is still flowing from a low entropy state to a higher one.

I understand that simple system (such as a pendulum) don't have an arrow of time but complexer system clearly seem to have one.

>> No.7055664

>>7055659
>We clearly have an arrow of time in the universe.

WOW!

Take a picture of it.

>> No.7055668
File: 57 KB, 400x253, arrows of time.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7055668

>>7055664

>> No.7055672

>>7055668

That is just a shitinfo graphic.

If it exists, take a picture of it.

>> No.7055675

>>7055672
to show it you'd need to take two pictures to show the progression between states. If you were to take a single picture you couldn't say which way time was flowing.

>> No.7055677

>>7055675
Nope. One should do. Two might mean you used a second camera.

>> No.7055679

>>7055677
Then I guess I would attempt to take a picture of something that enables the viewer to infer entropy from the image. As you need an arrow of time for entropy to function.

>> No.7055682

>>7054311
We exist in a dimension of time, therefore we can percieve it just as we percieve the 3 dimensions of space in which we live (length, depth, width)

>> No.7055687

>>7055682
Cool. Lets walk around it.

>>7055679
>implying implications are evidence.

>> No.7055703

>>7055687
>you have to be able to move freely in something to percieve it

>> No.7055718

>>7055687
I'm not implying an inference is enough evidence but it's at least something you can use as a basis to direct follow up experiments to confirm what you infer.

>> No.7055736
File: 487 KB, 900x900, 1423383647895.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7055736

Fucking when??

>> No.7055813

>>7054311
>in your opinion
>your opinions
Time is not a matter of opinions, faggot.

>> No.7055826

>>7055703
So what makes you think time has a dimension if you can't move around in it?

>> No.7055828

>>7054311

Time is the fourth dimension

>> No.7055832

>>7055718
Until you can actually examine time, you're just counting spring-wound ticks of motion, electrical cycles, light waves or atomic decay. That shit provides a reliable constant count, but time proceeds differently depending on a lot of relative factors.

>> No.7055911

>>7055813
Listen up, I am not gonna insult you, because you obviously lack the intelligence to discuss with other people on a higher level than 5th graders, or are unable to manifest your thoughts into words, so I politely would like to ask you to fuck off back to /b/ or /hm/ or whatever fucktard board you accidently chose to talk with the smart guys, faggot.

Oh, I could not keep my promise of not insulting you. Well, doesn't matter

>> No.7055952

>>7055911
>Listen up, I am not gonna insult you,
>proceeds to insult him

>> No.7055964

>>7054311
I believe the answer to this question will be the key to a ToE.

>> No.7055979

>>7054311
A one dimensional map of the Universe

>> No.7055992

>>7055826

We can and we are. It's just we can only move in one direction in time.

>> No.7056037

If time is depending on the expanding of the universe, then does that mean when moving faster we "catch up" to the expansion of space making time slower?
Is that why time is slower when moving faster?
I'm new to this so only asking

>> No.7056042

Time is a tool of social control used to overwhelm the underclass with responsibilities. Rich people do not have a concept of time. They show up whenever.

>> No.7056051

>>7056042
If your assertion is true then explain the concept of "Black people time". There are tons of poor black people yet they perceive time in a similar way to rich people. Can you explain this?

>> No.7056069

>>7054311
Time necessary for change to exist.

>> No.7056097

>>7055964
I guess that might be true.

>> No.7056123

>>7055992
You can't move in time at all. It is more accurate to say that time moves you than you move in it.

Hence, you are wrong.

>> No.7056128

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29

>> No.7056132

>>7056051
Wrong. Rich people use "Make your money work for you."-time and poor black people use "EEEEEEEK! A JOB?! RUN, MUTHAFUCKAH, RUUUUUUUN!!!!"-time.

>> No.7056134

>>7056069
Other way around.

>> No.7056136

>>7056123
I never get those "time is not a dimension" guys. It's like they think this is something you could discuss.

>> No.7056141

>>7056128

That only applies if entropy and time are the same thing.

Not who you were replying to, by the way.

>> No.7056150

>>7056136
Time is a half dimension, maybe. We only count it as a dimension for easy visualization. There is no "backwards" in time except in our imagination.

>> No.7056157

>>7056150
Well, there is no backward in length either

>> No.7056160

>>7056157
Actually, length can in fact be a negative.

Time cannot.

>> No.7056297

>>7056160
No, there is nothing called -1 meter, unless you mean direction which isn't what i meant

>> No.7056412

>>7056297
If you subtract 2 inches from a 6 inch ruler and throw them away, you have a whole 4 inch ruler.

If you subtract 20 minuets from an hour, in an hour 60 minuets will have passed.

Faggot.

>> No.7056639

>>7056412
What does that have to do with anything I said?
The guy said that there is no backwards in time(as in negative time) and I said there is no backward length either, which there isn't.

>> No.7056651

>>7056639
In a 3D cartesian system, there is an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis. These three axes have positive and negative directions. However, if you were to somehow chart time over the system, it is monodirectional. While the arrows of the first three axes extend infinitely in both directions, the arrow of time doesn't. That's what he's trying to say.

>> No.7056694

My personal opinion and what I want to prove at least theoretically is that, time, in and of itself is like gravity in that it is caused, in layman terms particle accumulation and that as those particles accumulate and flow over you so does time.

>> No.7056716

>>7056123
I never said we were willfully moving forward in time, I said we simply are. Whether time is pushing us forward or we are moving forward ourselves doesn't change the fact that we are moving forward in time.

>> No.7056722

Time is a field that is orthogonal to gravity.

>> No.7056785

>>7056639
I showed you negative length, and then I showed you how time does not have a negative.

Why are you so stupid?

DUUUUUUUUUUUUR!

>> No.7056796

>>7056716
I said:
>So what makes you think time has a dimension if you can't move around in it?
and you replied with epic stupidity:
>We can and we are.
Now you are denying that you said:
>We can and we are.
like a stupid chicken shit retarded faggot that says mutually exclusive statements in the same post.

>> No.7056828
File: 49 KB, 459x600, 4414141414.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7056828

If time is a man-made concept, how does time dilation work? How are the effects of gravity/speed measured without the use of time?

If I am from a civilization that has not developed the concept of time, and I approach the speed of light, how do I differentiate between the process of change in my spaceship and the process on my home planet? The "speed of change" is constant. Motion does not slow down. What then is different?

Is time an assumption?

>> No.7057054

>>7056796
Ok let me show you what I said
"We can and we are. It's just we can only move in one direction in time."
as in "we can move in time and we are moving in time. We are moving forward but we can't move backwards."

You replied with "It is more accurate to say that time moves you than you move in it."

I replied with "I never said we were willfully moving forward in time, I said we simply are. Whether time is pushing us forward or we are moving forward ourselves doesn't change the fact that we are moving forward in time."

Where in there did I deny that we were moving forward in time? By your logic a stick in river isn't going down the river because the water is pushing it.

>> No.7057075

>>7056796
Unless by the incredibly vague statement "Move around" meant "Move unrestricted" which is still an incorrect way to define a dimension because it would exclude the 1st and 2nd dimensions because they are restricted to movement along a line and within a plane respectively. Time is similar to the 1st dimension in that it is a line that stretches infinitely in two directions, and we are restricted to moving in the "forward" direction.

>> No.7057080

>>7057054
>"We can and we are. It's just we can only move in one direction in time."
I already told you that they are mutually exclusive statements.

You really ARE a stupid chicken shit retarded faggot that says mutually exclusive statements in the same post.

>> No.7057081

>>7057080
"We can move and we are moving"

How is that mutually exclusive? Are you high?

>> No.7057086

the way i see it mentally is that time is somehow perpendicular to all three spatial dimensions at once, and we are moving in that direction at a fixed rate, but if we veer off to the side (by moving spatially) then our progress in that forward direction (time) slows a little

this is why it is impossible to completely stop and move at 'light speed', it's like moving forwards and pushing to the right to stop yourself moving forwards, all it does it alter the incline it never straightens out completely

but i'm a physics layman so everything i just wrote is probably wrong

>> No.7057141

>>7057081
Wrong. "We can control our movement" and then "we cannot control our movement".

>I said:

>So what makes you think time has a dimension if you can't move around in it?

>and you replied with epic stupidity:

>We can and we are.

Go ahead and continue to struggle against your own stupid mutually exclusive statements.

>> No.7057282

I think time is a way to keep track of change. From second to second the entire state of the universe changes and we keep track of all the change with time