# Time...

## Recommended Posts

If time is not fluid but broken into individual fragments and moments that exist independently....like pages in a book. Are there any existing theories to support this???

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shai H said:

If time is not fluid but broken into individual fragments and moments that exist independently....like pages in a book. Are there any existing theories to support this???

This is a valid conjecture and there is a recent Cambridge University book devoted to it, edited by a Professor of Mathematics from London University.
Many august (pun intended) scientists have contributed.

On Space and Time

Shan Majid

Cambridge University Press

The current term used is not fragmented but granular.

However time is continuous, in that there is nothing between the segments and all the segments  'line up'  and abut each other, if they exist.

This is unlike Quantum (energy) levels.

##### Share on other sites

There are several approaches to quantum gravity that effectively quantise space-time, for example:

Quote

The results of researchers suggest that this is a good way to model the early universe[citation needed], and describe its evolution. Using a structure called a simplex, it divides spacetime into tiny triangular sections. A simplex is the multidimensional analogue of a triangle; a 3-simplex is usually called a tetrahedron, while the 4-simplex, which is the basic building block in this theory, is also known as the pentachoron. Each simplex is geometrically flat, but simplices can be "glued" together in a variety of ways to create curved spacetimes, where previous attempts at triangulation of quantum spaces have produced jumbled universes with far too many dimensions, or minimal universes with too few.

##### Share on other sites

Here are two discussions on time that are interesting.....

The $64,000,000 question seems to be is time fundamental. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 2 hours ago, beecee said: The$64,000,000 question seems to be is time fundamental.

Is that all you get for answering?

Doesn't seem worth getting out of bed for.

##### Share on other sites

Time may indeed appear continuous and infinitely sub-dividable, and it very well might be.
But at certain scales time and/or geometry cease to have any valid meaning.
Or at very least, not the accepted meaning.

This may be one aspect of its 'granularity'.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shai H said:

If time is not fluid but broken into individual fragments and moments that exist independently....like pages in a book. Are there any existing theories to support this???

We know that time is not fluid-like and most are leaning towards it not being broken into fragments that could exist independently. We also know some fundamental properties of time like that it has an arrow - it runs one direction with events occuring one after another and never the other way around. An egg never goes back into its shell when you do scrambled eggs. There are various theories trying to explain what time is fundamentally, in physics time is explained simply by "what the clocks read" and that is enough for most purposes in physics. The question whether time has some fundamental properties is still open, we just don't know. We do know exactly how it behaves in most circumstances but we don't know if it had a beginning and we don't know if it will have an end. Time in physics is very much similar to gravity as for the level of our knowledge about it - we do know a great deal about both but we cannot say we know how they both work on the most fundamental level.

Edited by koti

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, koti said:

broken into fragments that could exist independently.

Excellent observation about independent existance. +1

##### Share on other sites

https://www.zenodo.org/record/1447218

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Doug Jones said:

https://www.zenodo.org/record/1447218

!

Moderator Note

Responses to threads should be mainstream science. Posting pet theories should only happen in their own thread in Speculations. Also, not that discussion should be able to take place without clicking any outside links.

Please review the site rules (click on guidelines in the browse tab)

##### Share on other sites

I feel, time is not an entity. its property of given spacetime fabric.

speed with which information Iradiation travels in different spaces

there are different times  for different radiations with different masses,for multidimensional  spaces .

##### Share on other sites
On 19/08/2018 at 7:28 AM, Shai H said:

If time is not fluid but broken into individual fragments and moments that exist independently....like pages in a book. Are there any existing theories to support this???

The problem is that there are no "true" equations of time in both GR and QT to either discredit or support your answer...

##### Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

The problem is that there are no "true" equations of time in both GR and QT to either discredit or support your answer...

What do mean by “true”? And why do you think it is relevant?

##### Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 7:09 AM, Strange said:

There are several approaches to quantum gravity that effectively quantise space-time, for example:

I keep running into the situation where I am apparently trying to quote a quote. Leaving me wondering  how to reference the comment I want to make. Usually I just give up, but in this case it doesn’t seem too difficult.

If you follow the word simplex in Stranges post it leads to a geometric representation of what I believe is  to represent a unit of time.

I was wondering if it’s shape resembling Delta was intentional, or coincidental?

Edited by jajrussel

##### Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I was wondering if it’s shape resembling Delta was intentional, or coincidental?

Not sure what you mean by coincidental, but a triangle is the simplest geometric shape that can be used (repeatedly) to represent any 2D surface. It is used in computer graphics for example. The same is true for the 3D equivalent (a tetrahedron) and also for 4 dimensions.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Not sure what you mean by coincidental, but a triangle is the simplest geometric shape that can be used (repeatedly) to represent any 2D surface. It is used in computer graphics for example. The same is true for the 3D equivalent (a tetrahedron) and also for 4 dimensions.

you’re getting good at this moderator stuff...

You have  managed to get me wondering  what I meant by  coincidental. While at the same time answering a question I hadn’t thought to ask yet... Though, I was mentally putting the non-blocks together to see if they would indeed go in the direction I envision time going in. Which would always be in the direction  I go,  whether I choose to go or not? Though I’m not sure you would have applied the  fourth dimension quite the way I did...

I read something not to long ago that referred that the Big Bang was not a point in time, but rather a moment in time. Is the tetrahedron shape an attempt to  legitimize  the way of thinking of a point of time as a moment  encapsulating much more than just a point? Suggesting that it should mean more than a mere point, and should be thought of as having volume?

There seems to be a number of people who would disagree with that thought because they can’t envision the beginning of time as a moment in time. I mean, even the beginning of time would technically be a point in time. Assuming that the beginning of time is the first step after zero.

The stretch for me would be assuming volume. Though after thinking about it it makes sense.

If you think Delta Time, the shape implies change. I was just wondering if I was the only one to notice.

Hmm, I didn’t realize that trying to understand this would require my learning a new language. I’m afraid I’ll just have to accept, others explanations.

Edited by jajrussel

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I read something not to long ago that referred that the Big Bang was not a point in time, but rather a moment in time.

I'm not sure I see the difference in meaning there. Maybe that is the problem with using words to describe things, instead of math!It

Also, I prefer to think of "the Big Bang" as the ongoing expansion we see around us, rather than some (possibly non-existent) event.

4 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

﻿Is the tetrahedron shape an attempt to  legitimize  the way of thinking of a point of time as a moment  encapsulating much more than just a point? Suggesting that it should mean more than a mere point, and should be thought of as having volume?

It is certainly attempt to say that there would be a minimum "quantity" of space-time (ie. that both space and time would be quantised). If "moment" was meant to mean some minimum but non-zero amount of time, then this would be true, in this sort of model.

6 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

If﻿ you think Delta Time, the﻿ shape implies change. I was just wondering if I was the only one to notice﻿﻿?

I think that is a coincidence. Delta was chosen, as far as I know, to represent a (small) difference between two values because it is the first letter of diaphora (difference). The letter originally seems to have comes from an Egyptian glyph representing a door (dalet). It is also a pretty odd coincidence that "door" begins with D even though the word is completely unrelated!

##### Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 9:30 AM, Strange said:

It is also a pretty odd coincidence that "door" begins with D even though the word is completely unrelated!

This is Moderating to perfection... Lol

##### Share on other sites
On 8/20/2018 at 1:43 AM, koti said:

We know that time is not fluid-like and most are leaning towards it not being broken into fragments that could exist independently. We also know some fundamental properties of time like that it has an arrow - it runs one direction with events occuring one after another and never the other way around. An egg never goes back into its shell when you do scrambled eggs. (...)

I have repeatedly thoughts about this. All the examples we use are direct products of Life (an egg) or by-products (a broken glass). But when you take examples from simple physics, you see water getting into vapor & vapor getting back into droplets. So I am still wondering about the validity of the argument.

##### Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

I have repeatedly thoughts about this. All the examples we use are direct products of Life (an egg) or by-products (a broken glass). But when you take examples from simple physics, you see water getting into vapor & vapor getting back into droplets. So I am still wondering about the validity of the argument.

I haven't noticed fusion or fission reversing itself anywhere.

##### Share on other sites

Or water running uphill

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

But when you take examples from simple physics, you see water getting into vapor & vapor getting back into droplets. So I am still wondering about the validity of the argument.

Without energy exchange with the environment? The law of entropy is only valid for closed systems.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Or water running uphill

Right, water does not flaw uphill. But water from the rivers flow to the ocean, then evaporates and eventually rains on a mountain top, forming a river, ever again.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, michel123456 said:

Right, water does not flaw uphill. But water from the rivers flow to the ocean, then evaporates and eventually rains on a mountain top, forming a river, ever again.

And there’s a big ball of nuclear fire in the sky that adds energy to the earth, which means that we are not a closed system.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

I haven't noticed fusion or fission reversing itself anywhere.

Right. But if you describe fusion or fission time-reversed things will not look that much awkward as an omelette getting back to an egg.