Time

[Ethanadams]

I was told that time is just a measurement of distance of an orbit like 24 hours of time on earth is equivalent to I rotation is this true?

[Sillychris]

It's pretty accurate. Einstein discovered that our universe is actually 4 dimensional with time being the fourth dimension. Hence the idea of 4d "spacetime".

You are always moving through spacetime. If you come to rest with respect to the spatial dimensions, you will move through the time dimension at maximum possible speed. However, if you move rapidly through the spatial dimensions, you will find that your travel through the time dimension slows. If you manage to propel yourself to the speed of light (unfortunately impossible since it requires infinite kinetic energy), your travel through time will stop.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Sillychris

[MrZayas1]

Time measurement, in 24 hours, 360 days a year, etc, is actually just measurements based on our own relative space. Since we know that Earth's rotational period is 24 hours, we can divide hours into minutes and seconds to represent how much time has passed. Time is actually an illusion to us, it is a series of causes and effects, caused by the small molecules in our body, set into motion by millions of causes, and millions of effects. Rather than explaining all of this at one time, it is easier to designate it into chunks, like seconds, minutes and hours. So really time, it isn't overly a measurement. More of just, a human logical explanation of events happening. It's really a tricky subject. If we were really technical, we would be basing our time on the beginning of the universe, which again, we would bring down to minute amounts of "time" in order to make it practically useful to us.

Don't know if this made too much sense, but yeah, time is just an illusion of cause and effect that we put into chunks in order to make it practically easy to use.

[PakledHostage]

Since we know that Earth's rotational period is 24 hours, we can divide hours into minutes and seconds to represent how much time has passed.

Not to pick nits, but the Earth rotates on its axis once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds (plus a few fractions of a second). It only appears to rotate (on average) once every 24 hours because we are moving around the Sun at the same time. The length of a solar day actually varies by a few seconds plus/minus throughout the year because the Earth's orbit is elliptical.

[LordFerret]

'Time' has no dimensional properties. If anything, it would more properly defined as the 'zero dimension'.

[MrZayas1]

Okay well as an expression, rounding it to twenty four hours works well enough XD

[ZetaX]

'Time' has no dimensional properties. If anything, it would more properly defined as the 'zero dimension'.

You might have missed that time runs forwards, which almost by definition makes it at least one-dimensional.

[Bill Phil]

You might have missed that time runs forwards, which almost by definition makes it at least one-dimensional.

Maybe time could be a dimension with each point being an instance of the universe?

Basically, a 3d plane would be a point above 3 dimensions.

But that's just a hypothesis. A pretty dumb hypothesis.

[ZetaX]

Maybe time could be a dimension with each point being an instance of the universe?

Basically, a 3d plane would be a point above 3 dimensions.

But that's just a hypothesis. A pretty dumb hypothesis.

Sorry, I'm not sure I get what you want to say. Did you mean: consider every point in time as its own seperate thing¿ Well, that makes each of them three-dimensional, but they would also have no relation, so no "time" (and relativity renders it wrong anyway).

[Bill Phil]

Sorry, I'm not sure I get what you want to say. Did you mean: consider every point in time as its own seperate thing¿ Well, that makes each of them three-dimensional, but they would also have no relation, so no "time" (and relativity renders it wrong anyway).

I was saying that each instance of the universe can be represented three-dimensionally. Then, time can be represented as a line where each point is one instance of the universe. The relation would need, er... explaining.

Then, a new three dimensional plane would be needed. A 4th, 5th, and even 6th dimension.

Again, a hypothesis. It's not backed by anything.

[ZetaX]

I was saying that each instance of the universe can be represented three-dimensionally. Then, time can be represented as a line where each point is one instance of the universe. The relation would need, er... explaining.

Then, a new three dimensional plane would be needed. A 4th, 5th, and even 6th dimension.

Again, a hypothesis. It's not backed by anything.

My problem with that is not that it is highly hypothetical, but that I have no clue what this words try to convey. So you say time is (represented by) a line; so why isn't it just your usual one-dimensional time then¿ And how does this need for more dimensions arise¿ It sounds like a non-sequitur.

[Bill Phil]

My problem with that is not that it is highly hypothetical, but that I have no clue what this words try to convey. So you say time is (represented by) a line; so why isn't it just your usual one-dimensional time then¿ And how does this need for more dimensions arise¿ It sounds like a non-sequitur.

The hypothesis here isn't really the description of time. It says that dimensions come in sets of three, with each set directly previous to the current one being represented as one point on the new one. So time would be a 4th dimension, and then there would be 5th, 6th, and higher dimensions.

It's hard to explain with text.

It stems from the question, "What is time?" Seeing how the universe changes over time, what if time has frames? If time is divided up into frames, then each frame could be one point on a different three-dimensional plane. If each frame is one point on a separate plane, then time can be classified as a "super dimension" or "higher dimension". If each superdimension then adds onto the others to become a new three-dimensional plane, then this one can be represented as one point on yet another plane.

I don't know, I'm not a theoretical, well, anything.

[kerbiloid]

It's a Stone Age definition.

Currently: One second = "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". © wiki

[Linear]

If there was no life, there would be no need for time, nothing would notice the passing of events.

As a physicist, i love ignoring the Science for a little while and thinking like that.

Time is pointless. Mwhahahaha.

[Sillychris]

It's a Stone Age definition.

Currently: One second = "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". © wiki

and the meter is defined as the length light travels in 1/299792458th of a second.

Perhaps reconciling QM and SR/GR will yield a quantum unit in the space-time fabric. Or perhaps not. I do firmly believe that a quantum unit in time or distance will mean that a quantum unit exists for the other, as they are inextricably linked.

Aside: has anyone made a black hole mod for KSP yet? Imagine the science points for sending a probe in! Oh wait, it wouldn't be able to transmit home...

[LordFerret]

Will time be relative across branes? I'm thinking perhaps not, such as proposed (by I forget her name) that gravity here in our brane is a weak force - yet extends across branes and could exist as yet an even weaker force elsewhere, or stronger.

(Wish I could remember her name, wrote a superb book on/about string-theory. )