-3

We get different definition of time? the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity.

But in physics can we have a deep answer?

Ketan Shah
  • 9

1 Answers1

-1

Time is a human construct that only exists in the virtual world of mathematics. It's like someone trying to prove there is a relationship between the circumference of a circle and the diameter. There is no relationship it's an approximation. What was 1 second before atomic clocks? A made up number that continues to evolve. Now it's some arbitrary value of atomic decay. Unlike the charge of an electron that remains constant throughout the universe.

PeterS
  • 47
  • I think your reasoning would apply to the units used to measure time rather than time itself. One can say time is what is in between events. Obviously it remains immaterial but not forcedly a construction. – Alchimista Jan 29 '18 at 12:59
  • 1
    I voted this down because time clearly has a significant reality in physics (not to say people waiting for buses and pizza) and as such it makes no sense to say "it only exists in the virtual world of mathematics". – StephenG - Help Ukraine Jan 29 '18 at 13:44
  • @StephenG. No one said time wasn't significant. But you have to admit it is a construct of human creation. Does a fixed quantity of time exist in nature the answer is no. – PeterS Jan 29 '18 at 19:40
  • 1
    "Time" is a human label. So are e.g. "force" and "length". They are not abstract mathematical constructs, as you imply. The number $e$ is an abstract mathematical construct. The definition of units of time using an atomic clock is what you would describe as universal constants - you should be happy with this. It is definitely not abstract mathematics - it's hard physical experiment. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Jan 29 '18 at 20:00
  • @Alchimista Can you have time without motion? How would you measure it? Motion of some object relative to another is required to create the concept of time as we like to think of it. Is it a property of matter or simply a tool we use to help understand our universe? So the deep answer is that Time is a construct that belongs to the human mind. You can't undo an event once it happens but in the mind you can imagine it. – PeterS Jan 29 '18 at 20:08
  • @StephenG You can stack up a bunch of atoms to produce length. You can remove some of their electrons to produce force. How do you produce Time? – PeterS Jan 29 '18 at 20:18
  • @PeterS. I did not say that time exist without matter. To have time we need events, thus energy and matter. You call it motion. But the same is true for length. What is the meaning of length without a bar or a ruler? There is not even length without matter. As soon you need a brain to named point 1 and point 2 , than the distance between them is a construction, too. Is the separation in length units between those points, as time is the separation in time units between events. The only things clear to everyone is that we cannot go back along it. It is the only thing that makes time different – Alchimista Jan 29 '18 at 20:22
  • @StephenG, Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you said "time exists without matter." The whole problem with physics is that we like things to fit neatly into boxes and for one box to fit in with another. And mostly it works. What they fail to teach clearly is that every mathematical model has physical constraints. V=IR is a formula I use every day. Its a great unbreakable mathematical triangle, That is until superconductivity comes along and now we have an exception V=I . Try explaining that to Poor old Ohm who thought he had it all worked out. – PeterS Jan 29 '18 at 21:04
  • I don't think the concept of time is well enough understood or defined, however we base many theory's on it. That to me is a conundrum. – PeterS Jan 29 '18 at 21:04
  • @StephenG Just a comment I would like to add re your vote down, People waiting for buses or pizza have a very subjective view of time and while time is important to people waiting for events to happen subjective views can't be classed as a scientific examination. Time is not like a quantity of matter that you can say weighs x number of grams or an equivalent of x number of atoms. I have never heard anyone speak of time in equivalent natural units. So this is why I label it a construct. Time here may be perceived differently over there, hence we have a difference between atomic clocks in orbit. – PeterS Jan 31 '18 at 22:14