What is Time?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ju1cyJ

Member
Nov 10, 2001
99
0
0


<<

<< So just how much energy are we talking about? Infinite can me a lot of things. A friend of mine basically stated that it was impossible to go the speed of light for even a relatively small particle because it would take roughly all the energy of the known universe to get it there. Anyone that can give me a # to grasp? >>


how much energy?
Relativistic energy is defined as: (rest energy + kinetic energy)
E = m(c^2) + m(c^2)(gamma-1)
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

so, the rest energy, we dont have to apply, just m(c^2)(gamma-1)
suppose you want to go .99c
then you have gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(.99)^2) = ~7
so youd have to put in 6 times the rest energy to get it to go .99c, which is a whole lot!
make it .999c and you have to put in 21 times the rest energy
make it .9999c and you have to put in 69 times the rest energy
make it .99999c and you have to put in 222 times the rest energy
make it .999999c and you have to put in 706 times the rest energy
make it .9999999c and you have to put in 2235 times the rest energy

And this is assuming 100% efficency and no friction!
This is why its only practical to make a single molecule travel at .99c or so, and those particle accelerators use a whole lot of power to do it.

aw crap... just realized i left out a power of 2 in all my posts
>>



Thanks, really does paint a picture, quite a big one in fact.


And as to your previous post, a real occurence you could have sighted was an isotope (dont make me remeber which one, its been over a year since someone told me this example) that comes from the son has a half life of 1/100th of a second in our labatories. We also know for a fact that while streaking through our atmosphere that isotope has a half life of 1/10th of a second.
 

cyclones

Member
Sep 8, 2001
83
0
0
"Change" is the "Primary Manifestation of Time" , this is a fact of Axiomatic observation.
If "Nothing changes "there can be no observation of the passing of "Time".
Like a film, if you only see one frame.....is it the first or the last frame ?
For time to pass, there must therefore be an "Observation Point" for you to view another point in time
or "Space" in order to create "Distance".
You would need to postulate this space as it would not exist unless you created it.
Having created "Distance" by virtue of TWO points in Space.....we now have the requirement of a
journey in order to get from "A" to "B".
This then generates "Time" as the journey must take longer than the asumption of the journey.
Courtesy of some Greek blokes and re-fandangled by L.Ron Hubbard.
Gung Ho!
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
86


<<

<< im scared >>


Congrats.. Welcom to Anandtech forums!

NOw.. I read from "How to build a time machine" by Paul Davis about travalling into the futuer and stuff. He was explaning that ... a pair of twins age 12. one goes off in a space ship and zooms off earth at near light speed for 2 years return trip. During the trip, at near light speed, the twin that travelled aged 2 years to become 14, but when she returned, she finds that her sister (the other twin) is aged at 20. This is due to time which expands or contracts. After Paul Davis explained this, he said that some people find this rather paradoxial as the story could be thought of as - the twin who remained on earth was moving away ffrom the other, in this case, the twin on earth should be the one who finds out that her sister is older. Paul Davis said that this is not possible as it was the first twin that fired the rockets and moved away. However, motion is relative isn't it? so either way you think about it, bothe are correct?
>>



I think both twins are actually aging at the same rate relative to each other. The problem is, you're trying to measure their age difference relative to YOUR observations. From what I remember, if you were to think this one out with quantum mechanics, you're supposed to assume that you're observing from the viewpoint of one of the twins. Then, when the twin in the space ship turns around and starts going home, the time axis has been shifted cause the frame of reference has shifted, so that when the twin returns to Earth, both are the exact same age (plus or minus the time between births).

Personally, I think time is a fourth dimension and can be measured and moved about in the same manner as the spatial dimensions. My pet postulate is that anti-matter is merely matter with a reversed time axis. When anti matter and matter are created out of nothing (vacuum, background radiation, what have you) you have one particle that travels in the same direction as we do and the other is actually the particle coming back from a future explosion with itself.
As for light and mass.. well, I think mass is merely a measurement of the velocity of time for a particle. The faster you travel through time, the more your mass increases. Of course, this is relative to your frame of reference. The is my way of thinking how particles in different frame of references interact. If two particles are moving through time at almost the same speed, then affecting each other is easier than, say, if one moves really fast and one's chugging slow or even moving in the other direction.
Oh, yes, and I think light is the fundamental building block of the universe. aka. oscillating electromagnetic radiation. Matter is merely light moving through time at different speeds.

FYI, I flunked physics. And I believe if I'm going to be shot down, I might as well try for a spectacular fireball.
 

CSFM

Senior member
Oct 16, 2001
518
0
0
As for planck time, it is defined as the plank length (the smallest possible meaningful distance) divided by the speed of light (the largest possible speed (according to current theory)) so it is sort of like the smallest unit of time in which anything can happen.

OK, OK... Now a question...If light speed is the fastest possable speed, What if light has a head on collision with light... ... what would there collision speed be?

Light speed + light speed = 2 x light speed.
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
86


<< As for planck time, it is defined as the plank length (the smallest possible meaningful distance) divided by the speed of light (the largest possible speed (according to current theory)) so it is sort of like the smallest unit of time in which anything can happen.

OK, OK... Now a question...If light speed is the fastest possable speed, What if light has a head on collision with light... ... what would there collision speed be?

Light speed + light speed = 2 x light speed.
>>



Light is the fastest possible speed with any frame of reference. So, from the viewpoint of the front of one light beam, the other beam would be heading towards you at the speed of light. Collision speed would be the speed of light. It's kind of hard to get your head around it, but basically, the absolute fastest observed speed you can ever get is c, no matter where you're looking from. As for the light itself, it's wavelength and frequency may change if you look at it from a different frame of reference, but its speed is always the same.
 

winryan

Senior member
Dec 6, 2000
249
0
0
wow, after reading this forum, i know how stupid I really am

I need to start reading...oh well back to waisting TIME, which after reading this forum, I realize it's a lot more complicated then a tick and a tock.

must feel good to be smart...does it?Text
 

Agent004

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
492
0
0


<< I think mass is merely a measurement of the velocity of time for a particle >>



That's not true, mass is a 'weight-able' block of energy.




<< The faster you travel through time, the more your mass increases. >>




That's because of the energy input and the energy to mass conversion takes place.



<< OK, OK... Now a question...If light speed is the fastest possable speed, What if light has a head on collision with light... ... what would there collision speed be?

Light speed + light speed = 2 x light speed.
>>



I think you mean the resultant speed. No, that wouldn't be true, as light speed is the fastest constant you can have, at any point, any time. Don't ask me why though, ask Einstein
 

Anaxagoras

Junior Member
Apr 14, 2000
20
0
0
"Time" as we normally conceive it (i.e., in terms of hours, etc) is an artifact of our contingent existence on this planet, in the current state of the local planetary system. Had we existed on a different planet, our use of time would not be the same, assuming that the planet had a different orbital velocity around its sun. In fact, the artifact that we call "time" could have been derived from a different source other than the relative position of the Sun. "Time" as we normally consider it (as a marching of days, or hours, or seconds, or nanoseconds) is a anthropomorphic hypostitization; it is an arbitrary abstraction of a contingent being.

What would "time" be to a race of beings who didn't use visual cues to explore their environment? Suppose we, as a species, didn't have eyes and couldn't sense our environment at a distance. Suppose we used hearing and touch and the other senses. Could we have the same concept of "time" that we currently do? No, because "time" in its practical sense is a visual measure of the passing of the seasons.

There is no such *thing* as "time", because "time" is an epiphenomenon of our evolved senses and the local state of the planetary system. Our "time" may not be the same "time" as a different species, on a different planet. In fact, our "time" could have been different. We could mesure time in terms of some other phenomenon. For instance, a unit of "time" could be delimited in relation to the "how long it takes" for 1,000 grains of sand to pass through a funnel. And, of course, this "how long it takes" is directly dependent on the diameter of the funnel and the diameter of the grains (assuming they are all even identical). Analogus to this "how long it takes" and its relation to the size of the elements is our subjective concepts of "time", our personal experiences of "time". "Time" goes quickly when we are busy or having fun, but "time" goes slowly when we are bored, etc.

Is there a real Time? Something other than our perception of "time"? Something independent of any species' perception of it? Well, the most ingenous answer is: "I have no idea". For to state and explain that there is an existence or substance or independently real phenomenon that would be Time and to describe what this Time is, would be to turn it again and inevitably into a human metaphor. If there is Time, Time would exist with or without us, unlike our "time", which is merely a figment. If the human species were to die out, our concept of "time" would die out too. But Time, be there such a phenomenon or no, would continue to Be. But what this Time is, is not something that pertains to our explanations of it. Time, therefore, can only be a negative concept: It is not this; It is not that.

Perhaps the only thing we can accurately say of Time is that it is in some manner related to movement or motion. However, I tend to consider this to be another artifact of our contingent existence here. Our use of "time" is directly derived from the movement of the Sun and the Moon. Had we not eyes to see, we would never have developed our concept of "time". Perhaps we would have developed a different "time".

Imagine yourself existing in a vacuum, with no light, no sound, no smell, etc. You cannot see. You cannot taste. You cannot touch. You just have thought. Suppose you were detained in such a device. Could you determine how "long" you were in there? What counter of "time" would you use? What would "time" even be to you? Would you have a sense of Time, or the fluid passing of duration? Or would this sense of passing duration merely be the body's consciousness of its own metabolism of matter? "Time" here would probably be the pulse of your nervous system and the chemical reactions, which would be different for different people. So, again, even this passing of duration would merely be a epiphenomenon of your peculiar chemical makeup and metobolic constitution.

So, is Time perhaps some aspect of the universe that underlies all epiphenomenal "times" and is a necessary, non-arbitrary condition of them? Well, if it is, I would dearly like to know how anyone can establish this independently of our arbitrary, non-necessary and contigently evolved senses and cognitive abilities.

---

Thanks for starting this topic. I enjoyed being nihilistic.
 

RemyCanad

Golden Member
Sep 28, 2001
1,849
0
0


<< Imagine yourself existing in a vacuum, with no light, no sound, no smell, etc. You cannot see. You cannot taste. You cannot touch. You just have thought. Suppose you were detained in such a device. Could you determine how "long" you were in there? What counter of "time" would you use? What would "time" even be to you? Would you have a sense of Time, or the fluid passing of duration? Or would this sense of passing duration merely be the body's consciousness of its own metabolism of matter? "Time" here would probably be the pulse of your nervous system and the chemical reactions, which would be different for different people. So, again, even this passing of duration would merely be a epiphenomenon of your peculiar chemical makeup and metobolic constitution.
>>



Time is an actual "thing". (I use the word thing because, well because we don't know what it is.) We relate it to something so that we can have an understanding of it. We are existing, changing, moving and so on. Just because we relate time to something such as rotations of the earth and so forth does not mean is just something we made up. Time is something or else we all would not be here right now.

I am sorry for the short post and very cryptic responce. But I will rewrite what I am saying a bit more clearly so that you can understand it when I have some more Time
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< Time is an actual "thing". (I use the word thing because, well because we don't know what it is.) We relate it to something so that we can have an understanding of it. We are existing, changing, moving and so on. Just because we relate time to something such as rotations of the earth and so forth does not mean is just something we made up. Time is something or else we all would not be here right now. >>

Yup, time is pretty much real, even though we don't know exactly what it is.

But in short, 'time' is how we define what 'moves' us from one event to another. Not major events, very small ones, which add up to the larger events we keep ourselves busy with every day.
 

Monkit

Junior Member
Oct 26, 2000
10
0
0
OK i haven't read the whole thread but If noone has said it, here is what time really is.

Time is simply a term invented by man in order to guage, measure and judge the passing of events. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think there is anything more to "time" then your fooling yourself and attempting to complicate matters beyond reason. Noone can define time without saying it is simply a scale invented by man. All the previous deffanitions involving mathmatical formulas of vacume, energy and what not are irrelavent.

If there were no humans, then time wouldnt exist as we know it, there would simply be the passing of events. your search for a description is in vein and will never be answered if you look any furthur than this.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Ok, I am only in HS and haven't paid too much attention in math, but if gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) and v = c then the whole equation would be undefined, right? Or is there some complicated way to figure it out. I just assume that (1-(c/c)^2) = 0 since anything over itself = 1 and 1^2 = 1, and then finally 1- 1 = 0. If you multiply sqrt(0) then you get 0. 1/0 = undefined? or infinite?
 

flood

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
4,213
0
76


<< Ok, I am only in HS and haven't paid too much attention in math, but if gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) and v = c then the whole equation would be undefined, right? Or is there some complicated way to figure it out. I just assume that (1-(c/c)^2) = 0 since anything over itself = 1 and 1^2 = 1, and then finally 1- 1 = 0. If you multiply sqrt(0) then you get 0. 1/0 = undefined? or infinite? >>



yep.
Your v can only approach c, it cannot match it.
 

swifty3

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
392
0
0
time is a figment of the human imagination. we lead ourselves to beleive it is impossible to have more, always getting less. other than humans, are there any other orginisms that care "what time it is"

R u kidding? how do trees know when to turn their leaves, or begin to blossom? of course there would be many variables involved in this, temp., light, and time is the measure of the procession of the universe. It's not a question of what organisms "care" about the time. they all do. a bear hibernating, migration of butterflies, the tidal pull of the moon. everything follows the cycles of life, and time is one way to measure and quanticize these transitions.time is a figment of the human imagination. we lead ourselves to beleive it is impossible to have more, always getting less.
 

ShadowFox

Senior member
Nov 26, 2001
304
0
0
"Time is an abstract concept created by humans to measure thier ongoing decay" - Thundercles, The Brak Show

j/k
 

Muerto

Golden Member
Dec 26, 1999
1,937
0
0
Time is an idea, a concept. It is not a form of energy. Before clocks were invented people had no concept of time. They got up when ever they woke up and went to bed when they were tired. We use the concept of time to relate many things to, like speed, power, etc.
 

navyrn

Member
Jul 13, 2000
112
0
0
Forget the math for a second (pun?)... Time as humans know it stems from the most basic unit we all have.. The heart beat. Think about it. 60 seconds in a minute= average beats per minute. We all heard this clock before we could count numbers. Later we assigned other units that conformed to our work schedule, tee times, and conference calls.
 

cryptography

Junior Member
Jan 29, 2002
24
0
0
Time is simply the way we measure age. We use the sun as a gage. No matter how fast you travel, or in which direction, given the same environment, age happens at a set rate, weather we perceive the change to be fast, slow, or standing still. You can neither stop it, slow it down, nor reverse it; at best you can interact with the effects of aging.

If one would say ?Since the beginning of time?, when would this time have begin? Time only begins when something starts to age, before aging there is no time for what is time but passage, and if something does not pass, how can it be subject to time?


But time is also the way we measure distance traveled. We measure time, or the passage of it, by change of position (the increments of change in position of the sun and earth). But what we have just done is subject age and motion (measured by speed) or distance to the same law, but they are not the same. Because something can age without traveling any distance (standing still in the universe). Time can either be a measurement of change in position or age, but not both as humans have done, or at least they can not interact within the same definition, for how can age know of distance or speed? Nor does any amount of distance age anything, but rather age occurs independently within its own laws. So time has two definitions, one of age and the other of motion or distance. But it is when we try to use these measurements within the context of one law, that we get dirty data.

Test this theory: Put, as you have described above, two elements, one on the earth and the other traveling at an extremely high rate of speed for a set duration of ?time? above the earth. Your clocks will show a difference of time measured by change in position relative to speed. Do this long enough to produce a significant amount of difference. Then carbon date both of them and see that both have aged the same. Also, can we not carbon date someone that has been frozen in ice and determine their age, yet the effects of age were ?frozen in time??


Plants and animals react to climate changes. As the earth moves away from the sun, life reacts to the change by whatever means based on their need for survival through instinct. Trees get rid of leaves to cut down on the nutritional needs that tree will have during winter. Also the bear will hibernate due to the lack of food during the winter.


 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |