[URAIN]

I would like to know answers from science, to these following questions. Please answer

What is the time?

Which observe the time passing?

Who experience the time passing?

[Tres Juicy]

14:43

I do

I do again

[CaptainPanic]

The question "what is time" is something which will ultimately descend to very existential questions and debates. People start doubting about everything, and before long someone will ask you what is your "consciousness"... and frankly, nobody really knows.

By the way, we are not "science". You cannot "ask a question to science". Science never has any answers. Only observations and theories. But the funny thing is, science always doubts about itself.

This post has been edited by CaptainPanic: 8 December 2011 - 03:01 PM

[swansont]

A common physics answer is that time is what is measured by a clock. The question of the nature of time is one of metaphysics/ontology, not science.

[URAIN]

Assume two things (consider it vehicle) moving in same direction with same speed.

(If we consider only these two things) Persons in that vehicles, will not experience either self is moving or other vehicle is moving.

Time is like vehicle, which is moving. Other side we are also in other vehicle. who are moving, but we experience the movement of our near vehicle (time).

Which is this experience the movement of time? What is this self ?

Religious people may say soul. What is the answer for this question from scientific peoples?

This post has been edited by URAIN: 11 December 2011 - 05:00 PM

[dimreepr]

URAIN, on 8 December 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

I would like to know answers from science, to these following questions. Please answer

What is the time?

Which observe the time passing?

Who experience the time passing?

Time is part of the process that is our universe and as you and I are part of the universe we both observe and experience this process.

[URAIN]

dimreepr, on 11 December 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Time is part of the process that is our universe and as you and I are part of the universe we both observe and experience this process.

Do you not think we are also in the process?

[CaptainPanic]

URAIN, although it is not really on topic, I think you should watch this movie (7 minutes, youtube). A famous scientist (Feynman) explains why things cannot always be explained.

[URAIN]

CaptainPanic, on 12 December 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:

URAIN, although it is not really on topic, I think you should watch this movie (7 minutes, youtube). A famous scientist (Feynman) explains why things cannot always be explained.

Captainpanic, Do you want, I have to stop finding the answer for above question?

[CaptainPanic]

URAIN, on 13 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Captainpanic, Do you want, I have to stop finding the answer for above question?

No, of course you should search for an answer!

I am only saying why you may not find it
[edit] Actually, it's Feynman who is saying it, not me...

This post has been edited by CaptainPanic: 13 December 2011 - 02:05 PM

[DrRocket]

swansont, on 8 December 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

The question of the nature of time is one of metaphysics/ontology, not science.

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

[Tres Juicy]

DrRocket, on 13 December 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

"If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm."

Post it in speculations first though

[URAIN]

CaptainPanic, on 13 December 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

No, of course you should search for an answer!

I am only saying why you may not find it
[edit] Actually, it's Feynman who is saying it, not me...

If your well wishes are with me, I will definitely find. Thanks

[URAIN]

DrRocket, on 13 December 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

And since those disciplines only pose questions, and never determine final answers, one will not find resolution in that direction either.

Science may not answer the question "What is time ?" beyond that it is "what clocks measure", but somehow it manages to work the concept of time into powerful predictive models and muddles right along.

Given the subtleties of general relativity, time is rather mysterious, and time in scientific models is actually not a single consistent concept. In general relativity what clocks measure is proper time, and nothing else. But the time of special relativity, hence of quantum field theories, is only consistent with proper time in the complete absence of gravity. Neglecting gravity is often a very good approximation, but it is never exact. Hence from a purely philosophical perspective science adopts a rather pragmatic stance with regard to time that is dependent on the specific issues at hand -- perhaps unsatisfying philosophically, but very effective scientifically.

If anyone has a definition of time that will fit all situations precisely, and can demonstrate how that fits into predictive models, then I suggest immediate publication -- and preparation for a trip to Stockholm.

Time dilationpostulate says faster an object is moving, the slower time progresses for thatobject in relation to a stationary observer.



Assume a person travelingat the speed of light.

Then does it say there is no time?

[iNow]

URAIN, on 20 December 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

Assume a person travelingat the speed of light.

Does this person have zero rest mass? If so, then it's not within the realm of reality, and we may as well assume the person is flying around on a unicorn.

URAIN, on 20 December 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

Then does it say there is no time?

There is no valid answer given our current understanding. You're posing a question that breaks the laws of physics as we know them, and so you cannot determine what the laws of physics dictate will happen in this situation since you've dismissed them with the question itself.

Light lacks a valid frame of reference because it doesn't slow, it doesn't accelerate, and it is never at rest. Light moves at light-speed by definition. To have a valid frame of reference, you must be able to "be at rest" relative to something else, and light can never do that. This renders the question itself rather meaningless and moot.

However, as you approach the speed of light, time will pass more slowly for relative to others not moving at the same speed. They will seem to age more quickly than you, and it will be like you hit the fast forward button for everyone else while your watch appears to tick forward at a perfectly normal rate when you look at it.

[URAIN]

iNow, on 20 December 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

However, as you approach the speed of light, time will pass more slowly for relative to others not moving at the same speed.

It indicates that, If we not relate the persons who are moving with different speeds, then time is same for both.
( i.e 60 sec/min)

This post has been edited by URAIN: 21 December 2011 - 10:53 AM

[imatfaal]

URAIN, on 21 December 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

It indicates that, If we not relate the persons who are moving with different speeds, then time is same for both.
( i.e 60 sec/min)

That does not really make sense - unless you are stating that any observer always measures time to be the same within his own local frame

[DrRocket]

imatfaal, on 21 December 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

That does not really make sense - unless you are stating that any observer always measures time to be the same within his own local frame

That itself does not make sense.

"measures time to be the same" as what "within his own local reference frame" ?

Within a given reference frame there is one and only one notion of time. It is always the same as itself.

[Tres Juicy]

DrRocket, on 22 December 2011 - 02:31 AM, said:

That itself does not make sense.

"measures time to be the same" as what "within his own local reference frame" ?

Within a given reference frame there is one and only one notion of time. It is always the same as itself.

I think what he means is that it is impossible for the observer to notice any difference in time within his local frame

[URAIN]

Tres Juicy, on 22 December 2011 - 08:30 AM, said:

I think what he means is that it is impossible for the observer to notice any difference in time within his local frame

Yes.