What is Time?

[samsara15]

I am told on other forums (Bad Astronomy / Universes Today) that the past no longer exists, which seems to rule out the 'so everything doesn't happen at once' idea, and Cubed Time as well. Perhaps time could be defined as a function of distance...if that's not a tautologuy... which it probably is

[iahag]

If they explicitly tell you what is and what isnt, they arent scientists. Do not understimate the power of this distinction .

[Nathan Struth]

I don't think it's distance samsara, moreso time represents a change in something. My definition of time that I made up is "The perception of events in a linear fashion". The line is change. But perhaps time may not even exist in other places and maybe we're just accustumed to having this time-field here on Earth. One must note that a second lasts longer on the sun than on the Earth, due to the gravitational ffields. I think a vacuum isn't just a vacuum. There has to be something that allows light to travel through it. The way that I correlate this to time is because gravity is supposedly a wavelength on the EM spectrum in the ultara low frequency. Remember C=wavelgnth*frequency. I think there's something in the vacuum that we can't detect. THe reason I say this is because in order for sound waves to travel you need a medium for them to propagate through. So maybe without a vacuum time could perhaps stop or go backwards? Dunno, but it's fun guessing off a few scientific facts. I don't see how this goes into religoin/philo topic though.

[The Architect]

This was posted by Lullaby Chainer on another chat
It may help alittle to understand, maybe not.


Tenth Dimension

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: The Architect This was posted by Lullaby Chainer on another chat It may help alittle to understand, maybe not. Tenth Dimension

I was just about to mention that video.

I'll try to put it in my own words.

We have dimensions that compose existence. We, are 3 dimensional creatures living in a 4 dimensional world.

First, let me explain what it would be like for a 2 dimensional creature to view a 3 dimensional world.

A 2 dimensional creature, one with length and width but no depth, could only see 2 dimensional, flat, cross sections of this 3 dimensional world. For them, a balloon would start out as a dot, and grow to a hollow shape, and back to a dot until it pops out of existence. Just imagine being able to see only one layer of the balloon at a time, because, that would be all you could see as a 2 dimensional creature.

It's important for you to understand the above in order to understand the next part.

We, are 3 dimensional creatures. We have length, height, and depth. Time is the 4th dimension. Just like the 2 dimensional creatures viewing a 3 dimensional world, we 3 dimensional creatures viewing a 4 dimensional world works in the same way. We can only see time in 3 dimensions, thus, we see instant by instant.

We, to a 5 dimensional creature, would look like a long snakes, stretching from our birth to our death. They would see the 4th dimension, time, in its entirety in comparison to our limited, 3 dimensional view.

Thus, just like length or width, or depth, time is an extension of such. It is the 4th dimension. No more amazing than the concept of depth. It only seems more elusive or amazing because we are 3 dimensional creatures.

But, definitely watch the video! It explains it far better than I can. Follow the link, and click on "Imagining the 10th Dimension" The video actually goes beyond the concept of time, all the way to the 10th dimension, explaining it as it goes. Even if you don't agree with the Super String Theory, it's still very interesting.

[iahag]

Your merely extrapolating to logic applied to the 3 spacial dimensions we see. I dont think thats valid considering we only really know 3 dimensions. Meh, guess its a good guess.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: iahag Your merely extrapolating to logic applied to the 3 spacial dimensions we see. I dont think thats valid considering we only really know 3 dimensions. Meh, guess its a good guess.

It isn't just a guess. I can get into the Super String Theory, but this isn't the place.

[iahag]

Enlighten me :)

[Lullaby Chainer]

Not the place. If you make another thread on it, I'll be there.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Does there need to be an observer in order to experience what is called time? How does time fit into an "objective perspective"? Doesnt "objective perspective" sound like an oxymoron?

[Fonceai]

@Bacon Guy

I've done a lot of stuff with time dilation, time as a dimension, and those diagrams.

The positive matter / negative matter interaction creation a photon, and the presence of energy being "created" but moving in the opposite direction is a big clue.

The best illustration of this is the series finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation and the time anomaly.

But those kind of interactions are a big clue about the nature of time and its relation to energy.

The "polarity" and "phase" of energy determines the direction and rate of travel through time.

We all are technically travelling through time. We are doing so at the same rate as our energy, so we perceive the motion through time as being constant.

If we could change the polarity of our energy, we would go back in time at the same rate.

Change the "phase" or "frequency" of our energy, and we could change the rate of passage through time.

[Captain Chaos]

So, in layman's terms...

Why does time dilation occur in objects moving very fast?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] Does there need to be an observer in order to experience what is called time??

No, time isn't something we just "make up" or percieve. It's a living breathing dimension, just as real as depth or length.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Captain Chaos So, in layman's terms... Why does time dilation occur in objects moving very fast?

Imagine an object is moving straight up.

The object then begins to move slower and slower.

As the object moves slower and slower upwards, the negative downwards velocity of the object is increasing. From -5 to -4, for instance.

Eventually, the object moves to a stop and immediately downward.

Needless to say, you cannot move up and down at the same time. As you move through the spatial dimensions, you move less in other directions.

Basically, all matter in our universe is moving at the same speed in regards to all four dimensions, length, width, depth, and time.

Just as when you move more west, you're moving less to the east; when you move faster in the spatial dimensions, you move slower in the 4th dimension, which is time.

I believe there is an equation for this, but I don't have it with me. Everything equals the speed of light when you factor in time. Meaning, time stops for objects moving at the speed of light.

I don't think I've really explained how it works, but you get the idea.

Though, I don't really know why gravity effects time. Something to do with the "space time continuum." Gravity acts like a dimple in space time, meaning, it bends the imaginary grid we think of as space and time around itself, pulling other objects to it, as well as effecting time some how.

[Fonceai]

In the "laymanest" terms possible...

Imagine that at their current speed of c, photons are spaced one second apart.

That means that if you stand still, once a second a photon hits you.

Your speed is 0, photon's speed is c, so you get hit once a second.

If you were running at c/2, half the speed of light, then a photon would have to catch you in order to hit you.

The formula is exponential, but you get the idea.

If you are moving at almost the speed of light, a photon doesn't hit you once a second, it takes much longer.

So for you, moving very fast, you would perceive less time passing. But for me, holding still, time would be "normal".

Does that makes sense?

[Captain Chaos]

Not entirely.

What does photons catching you have to do with the running of a clock on board the spaceship?

[Fonceai]

It's analogous.

Because the clock is moving at very high speeds approaching the speed of light, also known as relativistic speeds, it takes longer for time to catch up to the clock. So while 5 years might pass for you standing still, time takes longer to "catch" the clock on the ship, so only 2 years passes for the clock.

When the ship stops, the real date might be Oct. 11th, 2011, but the ship's clock would show Oct. 11th, 2009.

This is a tough thing to describe through chat, because it's not a "layman" kind of question.

[Captain Chaos]

I have asked this question on many different boards.

My own understanding is more in line with quantum gravity type theories that see both space and time as quantized.

If spacetime is divided up into individual quanta, then there is a good explanation for time dilation.

All motion is the transfer of a pattern of information that defines an object from one region of spacetime to another region of spacetime. There is one speed in the universe, which is the speed at which information transfers from one spacetime point to another spacetime point.

When an object moves very fast, relative to spacetime, then the information that defines each particle of the object is constantly being transferred. For information to move from one point to another, it takes up one unit of time. If the object is moving near light speed, most of the available units of time are being used up in transferring the waveform that defines the object. Thus, less units of time are being used for motion that takes place within the object, such as the movement of a clock.

Think of it like this... motion requires the use of units of time. The faster you move, the more units of time are used, and thus the less that are available for internal motion.

An information pbysicist once told me this was pretty accurate - according to his beliefs. But relativity physicists seem to think the idea is bizarre - but then, relativity theorists have no causal explanation for time dilation.

Your thoughts?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Think of it like this... motion requires the use of units of time. The faster you move, the more units of time are used, and thus the less that are available for internal motion.

Is this backwards?

[Fonceai]

Yeah, that type of description is highly unnecessary and overly complicated.

It makes sense, but only because I understand time dilation.

The way I learned, and I think the best way to picture it, is the whole thing with motion creating a triangle.

Have you ever seen that and how it gives you gamma?