On the quantum level (or even on our spatial level) , can time be broken down to like say a very tiny unit that cannot be broken down any more? In other words, is time like an extremely large amalgamation of these tiny units all put together, or is time infinitely smooth?

 

In case you still don’t get my question, look at it this way: can you break down the path of a particle or even an object in space as it moves over time to a point where instead of moving smoothly, it skips over distances, kind of like time elapsed photos?

 

I know there is uncertainty on the quantum level, so that fact might make my question impossible to answer but I dont know...

Standard physics does not assume dicrete units of time or space. But afaik there is also no valid argument that time and space must be continual.

The introductionary chapters of Bjoerken, Drell: "Relativistic Quantum Field Theory" talk a little about the possible implications that a quantized spacetime might have. I don´t have the book here at home (I decided not do do/have any physics at home so all except my most basic books are in my office) but I think I recall that the ultimate reason for not assuming discrete time and space is that we simply don´t have a working mathematical model for such a scenario. The book is roughly 50 years old, though, so it possibly not the most recent information you can get.

On the quantum level (or even on our spatial level) ' date=' can time be broken down to like say a very tiny unit that cannot be broken down any more? In other words, is time like an extremely large amalgamation of these tiny units all put together, or is time infinitely smooth?

...[/quote']

 

I think I know what you mean.would the smallest amount of tme be judged by the smallest amount of time the brain needs to make a single judgement? I mean the smallest fraction a neuron or synapse takes to fire?

I think I know what you mean.would the smallest amount of tme be judged by the smallest amount of time the brain needs to make a single judgement? I mean the smallest fraction a neuron or synapse takes to fire?

from his OP, i thought he was refering to wether or not spacetime had quanta. i often here people saying that plank lenth/time might be the quanta since gravity gets very strong at that short range and length/time don't always make sense.

If I'm awake then what I see and hear occurs at a set speed and time but If I'm asleep do thoughs of images and sounds happen quicker because they are created internaly without the delay of the outside world?

If I'm awake then what I see and hear occurs at a set speed and time but If I'm asleep do thoughs of images and sounds happen quicker because they are created internaly without the delay of the outside world?

what are you talking about and what does it have to do with this topic?

I thought we were talking about the smallest amount of time?

yea. what does this:

If I'm awake then what I see and hear occurs at a set speed and time but If I'm asleep do thoughs of images and sounds happen quicker because they are created internaly without the delay of the outside world?

have to do with it?

from his OP, i thought he was refering to wether or not spacetime had quanta. i often here people saying that plank lenth/time might be the quanta since gravity gets very strong at that short range and length/time don't always make sense.

That would mean that spacetime exists as a grid, like a checkerboard, correct? What would be between the squares? Or if there is no "space" between the squares, why is it quantized?

That would mean that spacetime exists as a grid, like a checkerboard, correct? What would be between the squares? Or if there is no "space" between the squares, why is it quantized?

not necessarily. actually, that may not be possible with space/time being relative. what i meant by it having quanta is that it is discontinuous in such a way that a timeline isn't infinately crowded. like, you can't halve an interval forever.

well we sense time when awake by a clock. we sense the world around us based on this clock. what we see and hear takes a certain amount of time to reach our brain and be converted into realisation but when we are asleep I propose that we have no sensorial time delay and therefore think that the smallest amount of time is that measurment it takes to fire a neuron. Sorry If I sound a bit Zany.

sensing time!=time

 

kinda like how the way we see things isn't how they work. it's all in the brain. like our eyes suck at distinguishing moving objects. move your arm in front of your face really fast. it's blurry. does that mean that your arm spreads out?

yes time is a constant so what is the smallest amount of time?

It's all about perseption. The dull person will think slower than the inteligent person for the dull person time APPEARS slower. what is the constant? the amount of time it takes for the brain to fire

@cpwmatthews: JonM was probably talking about the very basics of physics, not about how humans experience time.

 

When you look at a piece of paper, it seems naturally that you can halve it´s size as often as you want if you only had sufficiently small scissors. Also, I could put my cup of coffee (or something way smaller) on any position on the table in front of me if I had enough fine-tuning. For the piece of paper, a big scientific revolution at the beginning of the last century was that this isn´t true. There is a smallest possible quantity of matter (atoms) and matter can only come in the form as a natural multiple of that smallest unit.

Now you could ask yourself whether your observation that you can displace the cup of coffee by any distance you want is also wrong. Perhaps you can only displace it by a natural multiple of a smallest quantity of distance.

A similar analogy (yes, I know they are flawed at several points but one should get the spirit of the idea) could probably made up with time instead of space but I can´t think of a good one at the moment.

On the quantum level (or even on our spatial level) , can time be broken down to like say a very tiny unit that cannot be broken down any more?

 

That's what I postulated here, but it's nothing more than a gut instinct. I would just say that in the past things which at first appeared continuous have been found to be fundamentally clumpy (e.g. photons), so I don't think anyone should be surprised if time is discrete.

Hey guys, thanks for your responses

 

I wasn’t talking about human perception...

 

I was basically asking if matter can be broken down into atoms etc, then can time be broken down similarly? It seems people here have already asked questions like this... its interesting stuff