This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
What Is Time? (Physics Continued)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
After discussing the speed of light on the recent physics thread, I have come to the conclusion that time is the key factor when attempting faster than light travel. This line of thought leads to a problem:
What is time?
I sat up in bed last night contemplating the answer to that question. I figured wikipedia would answer it for me in the morning. Well, it didn't. Wikipedia says that a non controversial defintion of time eludes scholars. It is no wonder man has not figured out how to manually transcend time. We haven't even defined it yet. That is the first step.
And so, we here on the wowhead randomness forums are going to attempt to figure out a way to time travel. The first step is to conclusively define time. That alone would be a breakthrough in modern science.
Post by
mudfish
Time is something the most people doesn't have enough, and something some people have too much of.
Post by
MyTie
After reading Wiki's
spacetime
article, and how gravity affects time, and how gravity is related to mass, I have to wonder about empty space that is out of the reaches of any mass's gravity. Does empty untouched space not travel through time?
Post by
Queggy
I would say Time is defined by how fast and how much light travels past you. Like Einstein's theory of relativity. For example, it's like a person sitting in a river. The longer they sit there, the amount of water rushing pass them increases and they get wetter. It's the same for Humans except the longer they live, the amount of time they have lived for increases, because the amount of light passing them increases and their body decays. I just pulled that out of my head in a few minutes, haven't really thought about it much. :P
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
313302
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
"Time" can be easily defined as a man-made concept, created to help better explain other man-made concepts. It exists, but only as long as you want to believe it does, much like space, beauty, or the color indigo.
This is philosophical, but not scientific. I can stop believing in time, yet the clock still ticks. Time is something that we can only measure by perception, which makes our measurements biased to our perception, but does not necessarily mean that the thing that we measure is based on our perception.
Post by
Slimda
Time is manmade, indeed. Time progresses regardless of what we do. The only thing that changes, is our perception. Freezing yourself down for 10 years isn't "timetraveling", even if you suddenly find yourself 10 years into the future.
Post by
MyTie
Time is manmade, indeed. Time progresses regardless of what we do. The only thing that changes, is our perception. Freezing yourself down for 10 years isn't "timetraveling", even if you suddenly find yourself 10 years into the future.
I think you mean our perception is manmade, not time itself.
I've been thinking, and 'time' might be defined as:
"the sequenced effect of energy on matter"
what do you all think?
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
GoGoGodzilla
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
304510
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Neutronimity
One of the most interesting topics in the randomness forums!
I personally think Time is part of Energy or is Energy.
Because:
Everyone knows that Energy is needed for movement.
Nothing can move / "have" Energy if Time does not exist. It cannot evolve or devolve.
Just look
E
kinetic
= 1/2 * m * v²
It's also logical, that for more/faster movement you also need more Energy.
The more movement, the more Energy and vice versa.
I believe this is called Entropy.
Now I'm going on loose ice with this assumption:
In Biology class today we have discussed the RGT-rule (Reaktionsgeschwindigkeit-Temperatur-Regel for the german folks, translated to something like "reaction rate-temperature-rule", also known as
Van't Hoff Equation
I believe).
The more heat (which is caused by Energy as a side effect), the faster are the chemical reactions within organisms (biological cells).
Now let's assume there is some analogy between organic systems (life, biological cells, etc) and anorganic systems (stone, minerals and other stuff). This would mean that Time is speeded up when there's a LOT of Energy, no matter where. And it is slowed down when there's a lack of Energy.
Just imagine the Universe short "time" (hours, days, weeks, maybe years...?) after the Big Bang. It must've been incredibly hot, something like 10^23 °C. At first, Time must have been very fast.
Now let's imagine an Universe without movement, without Entropy. Nothing moves, it'd all be frozen. Thus, Time could come to a halt because nothing keeps up the Evolution.
I'm not quite sure if said biology subject fits with that. And if I confused you, I'm sorry.
Post by
MyTie
"the sequenced effect of energy on matter"
I sorta see what you're trying to say, but the wording should change a little bit. Energy and Matter are the same thing, but just in different states.
I also don't really think that could possibly be an all encompasing definition for time, or even a good way to explain it.
How about:
"The sequenced effect of matter changing into energy, and the sequenced effect of energy changing into matter.
Post by
136555
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
E.g: If humans are and always were colorblind (like dogs), could we ever conceive the concept of the color "red"? Just like, since we can only see in the "visible spectrum" we can never conceive of what the color of ultraviolet light is because it isn't a color for us.
man's concept of it is limited by his own limited perspective.
I disagree with you two completely. You are saying that science is limited by our perceptions. The fact of the matter is we can detect ultraviolent light using insturments we have devised, whether or not we can see it like we can see 'red'. Our ability to engineer new ways of meausring things surpasses our innate abilities.
Therefore, our perspective IS NOT LIMITED to what we understand at this point.
Post by
MyTie
How about:
"The sequenced effect of matter changing into energy, and the sequenced effect of energy changing into matter.Getting better. But "sequenced effect", what does that imply? Is there a better way to say what you mean by that?
I knew that 'sequenced' was going to be questioned. That word relies on time, and so can't be used in the defintion of time.
How about, "The shifting of dimentions caused by the conversion of matter into energy, or the conversion of energy into matter."
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.