0

Just curious to know. Suppose physicists start from the very beginning, i.e defining the fundamental quantities, figuring out the math etc. So will they see the universe differently than what we have presently, particularly can we obtain any alternative to time? Why is time given such an importance? Why is time defined as : "Time is what the clock reads"?

codetalker
  • 972
  • According to general relativity time is not exactly defined as what the clock reads, it's different for everyone... – auden Jul 06 '16 at 15:24
  • My first thought is of Stephen Hawking's imaginary time, but then, that's more of a mathematical convenience than anything else. – auden Jul 06 '16 at 15:24
  • If I were to give you an extra dimension, how would you make that dimension time? – Peter R Jul 06 '16 at 18:01

1 Answers1

1

The universe is not static, the configuration of objects change, in the same way we can measure a length with a rule, we can also measure how fast or slow something changes. The rule compares the marks on it(ticks) with the edge of the object. In the same way we can measure the length of a change by measuring it with a clock (we call clock as anything that can tick uniformly so we can count the number of ticks than a process lasts. But that is not telling much about the nature of time. There are different theories, for instance, you have "Eternalism" (a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time), which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real