TIME: What is it? Does Time have a Beginning or End? Does time only move in one Direction?

RE: TIME: What is it?
SUBTOPICS:
..........................◈ Does Time have a Beginning or End?
..........................◈ Does time only move in one Direction?

In the 20th Century, The Greatest Physicists of all time, gave use pause on the matter of time and its connection to space.

This is open to all contributors on the Physics and Metaphysics of time...


Most Respectfully,
R

 

For your first question: We don't know either way since our technological limitation doesn't let us see that far back and in the second case, we're not there yet.
For your second question, yes it does, since this is how we define time. "measure the time taken by (a process or activity, or a person doing it)." Since a process can't take negative time to be resolved I guess there's only forward for time.

 

good comments. Many physicists believe in the arrow of time. I think of time as sequence. But I also think time need not be described as going forward into the future.

 

Hmm.....time is measured by events. But it is also affected by gravity. Could time travel in an ellipse also?

 

Time is simply the movement of electrons. If electrons ceased to move, there would be no thing such as time.

 

Well, I have a question now? Is time separated from space?

 

I don't see how. What do you think?

 

Can multiple dimensions co-exist at the same time? And if so, would that make time relative or would that be only on a per 'user' basis??

 

I accept relativity of time.

 

I'm amazed how people can take simple things and try to make them difficult.

 

FOR INFORMATION ONLY (FOOD for THOUGHT)

The Fabric of the Cosmos: The Illusion of Time
..
In the first 60 seconds of this video, Professor Brian Greene asks the question - something to the effect - Why don't we ever see events happen in reverse order? "According to the Laws of Physics, this can happen."

Regards,
R

 

Thunder is the Gods bowling. That appeals to you?!

 

RE: TIME: What is it?
SUBTOPIC:
..........................◈ Does time only move in one Direction?
※→ Badaboom, et al,

(COMMENT)

I can agree, I can observe this common sense evidence with an Oscilloscope (Amplitude by Time) and take a measurement (Peak-to-Peak) and see the two events in the measure of frequency.

So, I can see that and logically your observation and reply are observations for which I can hardly disagree. Yet I find it hard to disagree with Professor Greene. My everyday experience says something contrary.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

RE: TIME: What is it?
SUBTOPIC:
..........................◈ Does time only move in one Direction?
※→ Hey Now, et al,

(COMMENT)

If we think of space as a 3-dimensional grid, then as space expands outward, the distance between the vertices increases. If you measure the shift in the distance during expansion, then you can calculate the frequency. t = 1/f. This is the calculation based on the difference between the vertices.

Most of the time, we see the fabric of space as a arrangement of cube. But I think that is simplification by ease in calculation. I think it could be in the form of any of the Platonic Solids (Tetrahedron, Octahedron, IcosaHedron, and even the Dodecahedron). I think entropy plan a serious part.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

no, its purely abstract math, an infinite periodic series of intervals.

time does not move.

'IT' does not have a connection to space any more than it has a connection with the acceleration of a falling rock

all scopes have an internal time base calbrated to a 1 second interval.
time is purely a mathematical abstraction, the only thing thats changes is how you wish toi apply it

 

time has no connection what so ever to space.

It doesnt have any connection to a falling rock either.

people seem to have great difficulty distinguishing the difference between a model and reality

 

From the human perspective, it can be said that time:
-has a beginning, which is the point where we start experiencing things
-has an end, which is the point at which we stop experiencing things
-only moves in one direction (unless we consider our memory of the past an actual experience of the past, which I do not)
-does not move at a consistant rate, since we can speed or slow it with acceleration and gravity wells (this is only academic at this point, but with advances in technology may be relevent in the future)

which is to say, its relative because of human perception, or perhaps more accurately because of the limits of human perception.

 

yes the 'psychology' and 'objectification' of time not time in and of 'itself', the time interval never changes, its purely an abstraction, any time I see any time theory that does not include Lorentz, I summarily dismiss it as bullshit.

 

Gravity can speed it or slow it down, but it doesn't seems to have an impact on the "direction"

 

Oh?
Can gravity change 2 + 2 = 4?
If it cant then neither can it change time.

 

RE: TIME: What is it?
SUBTOPIC:
..........................◈ Does time only move in one Direction?
※→ The Wyrd of Gawd, et al,

(COMMENT)
Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

It is hypothesized that in the easiest events in the universe, there was no light. So, that probably means no photons. However that is purely my logical assumption (PSR). I'm not sure what the original source of energy coalesced to create the first embryonic prime particle. But I am betting it was not an electron or a photon.

But there must have been something by which time could have existed before the great inflation (Big Bang Expansion); unless it was something like the Dark Matter. I read somewhere that the fabric of space expanded first. And that rapid expansion of the framework dragged enough energy out into the newly created space to cool and create the first proto-particles.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Experiment have been made and that effect has been mesured. Time is impacted by gravity.

 

More gravity equals slower time.

 

false

you are trying to measure a pure ideal abstract condition with faulty mechanical devices, nothing more

gravity affect the devices not time.

Did it ever occur to you that our ability to measure 'ideal' time is getting better, as we get more accurate measuring devices.

you simply measured the defects of your measuring device, nothing more


Space and Time
Conclusion

Kant has argued that space is merely the form of outer intuition, and not a property of nor a system of relations between independently real things in themselves. Likewise, time is merely the form of inner intuition. But, as the necessary a priori forms of intuitions, they are thereby the forms of all intuition, and so, of all cognition. That is, everything we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in time, and every outer thing we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in space and time. Thus, space and time are “transcendentally ideal” yet “empirically real.” They are transcendentally ideal because they are merely the forms of intuition and not properties of nor relations between things as they exist in themselves. They are merely the “subjective” forms of sense experience. But as the necessary forms of all experiences, they apply universally within experience. This is what it means to say they are empirically real or “objectively valid.” Within the world as we necessarily experience it (within the “empirical world”), space and time are perfectly real. They are not illusory, but as (empirically) real as anything could be. But their very necessity and universality within the world as we experience it demonstrates that they are parts of the subjectively necessary conditions of the possibility of experience of objects. As subjectively necessary conditions, they are transcendentally ideal. As subjectively necessary (and consequently universal) conditions, they are empirically real. And this same thing then applies to all the objects that exist “in” space and time: they are at once transcendentally ideal and empirically real.
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/spacetime.htm

 

RE: TIME: What is it?
SUBTOPIC: ◈ Does time only move in one Direction?
※→ Kokomojojo, Badaboom, et al,

(COMMENT)

Well, I do not think we can use the decimal system of numbers and the traditional number line when talking about Relativistic speeds or Space-Time. Nor do I think that we can use the Quanta-Packets of energy (from Quantum Mechanics) to work with Space-Time (Relativity). And while there must be an infinitely small, there must be some point where it no longer becomes significant. The same must be true of the electron. I do not think it is a fixed particle in orbit around a nucleus of an atom. I think it is energy mired around the atom and only becomes a particle when the electron brakes away from its parent atom and the relativistic speed (c^2) drops below that point and the electron evolves into a particle (mass).


Most Respectfully,
R