Definition Of Time?

[Mr Q]

It's kinda like describing the taste of milk In one short sentence, can you describe "time"?

Here's my try - Human conception of the evolution of things we observe.

[sologuitarist61]

Not sure that is right - time surely exists regardless of whether we observe it or not - or does it?

However I like your question, it makes you have to think and that is never a bad thing. Give me a couple of hours and I'm sure i will come up with something!

[wulfrunian]

A framework in which change can occur.

[Ags]

Time is often called the fourth dimension, suggesting it is not fundamentally different from the regular three dimensions. Not sure about that...

[sologuitarist61]

The spatial separation of two events.

[Treeden]

Not so easy is it?

How about... Time is a label we use to describe and measure the idea that one event follows another.

[Thirdway]

Is relative to memory.

[richbyers]

its like the whole does a tree make a sound if no ones around to hear it thing (which ive always though a load of rubbish) but the point remains is that time does exist outside human experience

yes it is relative to us, it separates events, it separates things within our inner workings, but if we ceased to exist it would still be here, therefore the definition (which im not about to give here.....because i just dont know anything to say yet) has to be more than that.....i mean we use it as a means of measurement....but thats not the real purpose of time, its just convenient to use it that way...i guess what i mean is that, take distance for example...we use the distance of a mile as a type of measurement, but the fact remains that a mile still exists whether we realise it or not, so the same with time...if we stopped measuring it, it would still go by

doesnt the theory for the big bang (or is it more accepted these days that it was not THE but A big bang) state for time to exist though matter has to FIRST exist?...so it must be relative to matter, time cannot exist without anything else being in existance, much like the other 3 dimensions cannot exist without matter existing....but im getting too deep for me here....perhaps after ive finished my studies i will know more- but thats doubtful

i think the question is more can we define time scientifically? or can we just theorise?

[RobH]

its like the whole does a tree make a sound if no ones around to hear it thing (which ive always though a load of rubbish) but the point remains is that time does exist outside human experience

yes it is relative to us, it separates events, it separates things within our inner workings, but if we ceased to exist it would still be here, therefore the definition (which im not about to give here.....because i just dont know anything to say yet) has to be more than that.....i mean we use it as a means of measurement....but thats not the real purpose of time, its just convenient to use it that way...i guess what i mean is that, take distance for example...we use the distance of a mile as a type of measurement, but the fact remains that a mile still exists whether we realise it or not, so the same with time...if we stopped measuring it, it would still go by

doesnt the theory for the big bang (or is it more accepted these days that it was not THE but A big bang) state for time to exist though matter has to FIRST exist?...so it must be relative to matter, time cannot exist without anything else being in existance, much like the other 3 dimensions cannot exist without matter existing....but im getting too deep for me here....perhaps after ive finished my studies i will know more- but thats doubtful

i think the question is more can we define time scientifically? or can we just theorise?

How do you know?....So far, the only creatures we've ever talked to about time are other humans.

I tend to believe you're right, but would not be so bold as to make your first statement

What it does seem to be (if it exists outside of our method of processing our world) is a measure of the increase in entropy of a system. This only seems to go one way...the 'Arrow of Time'

Fascinating, and 'timeless' subject and I doubt that we'll have an objective truth for a very long time, if ever.

Rob

[richbyers]

i apreciate other's views on this, however i would have to say i still strongly stick to my guns on my original point- time has to exist outside human experience- humans have only been here as a tiny dot on the universe's timeline....therefore regardless of what humans have done in the past or even do in the present, we are unlikely to ever interfere with time itself (even if we time travel we still are not tampering with time itself-its still there)...thereore time has to exist on its own, as its own entity- it will be here when we are gone, and then what happens? we as observers have died under time's unyielding power....it still ticks on...

ps....i think its important to state that i have strong views about life being in the universe, which are probably taking a big part in my opinion here (which is very unscientific of me i know) however its because of this that i put the importance of humans as hardly worth mentioning in this matter .....i always tend to have strong views about the 'big questions'

as for if we'll ever answer this who knows....personally i do not think humans are evolved enough as a race to be able to tackle this----sort of like asking a cow the time of day

still just because the chances of finding an answer are low no reason not to try....we wouldnt have got very far without giving it the good old try

rich

[ollypenrice]

Let's look at whether or not time exists without us. Firstly the OP asks for a definition and that's fair enough. However, who is going to create this definition? We are! So time as we choose to define it has to be created by us.

That may mean that something approximating to our definition, but which we may have mis-defined, exists without us. However, suppose that our definition really is way out because we have no access to the information we would need to make a better one. At this point the phenomenon which is really out there and really does exist bears little resemblance to what we call time. What then? Well, 'time' as defined by us really is just created by us. I very strongly suspect that this is the case and that 'what is out there' and what we call 'time' are wildly different things. I think time as we use the term is a human construct, possibly even an illusion.

Take the rainbow. Does a rainbow exist if we don't look at it? Consider the physics and the answer is dead easy. Absolutely not. It ceases to exist if you close your eyes. You friend does not close her eyes and still sees a rainbow but that was never the one you saw. The angles are different, different light from different particles creates hers. You have a relationship with some light and some particles and you 'see' a coloured arc (or two if you look carefully a little higher.)

Does the rainbow exist? Yes, it exists as a perception in your mind.

Does it exist in the sky or outside your mind? No.

Is it entirely the product of your mind? No, it arises from a set of circumstances that are 'out there' but what is out there does not remotely resemble a rainbow.

I think time will be like that. Past, present and future may be like red, orange and blue in the rainbow. Our particular way of looking selects them, separates them, but really that separation arises from a wider set of circumstances which, in the case of the physics of space and time, are beyond us. Sadly they main remain so, I guess.

Olly

[Thirdway]

Time is relative, at the speed of light, time stops. Time is relative to human experience and experience is relative to memory.

[Moonshane]

time is just one of the four co-ordinates required to specify a location. this comes naturally if you think about it. if someone said I'll meet you at 53 degrees north, 2 degrees east at the top of the tall tower, what would your next question be?

[Thirdway]

i apreciate other's views on this, however i would have to say i still strongly stick to my guns on my original point- time has to exist outside human experience- humans have only been here as a tiny dot on the universe's timeline....therefore regardless of what humans have done in the past or even do in the present, we are unlikely to ever interfere with time itself (even if we time travel we still are not tampering with time itself-its still there)...thereore time has to exist on its own, as its own entity- it will be here when we are gone, and then what happens? we as observers have died under time's unyielding power....it still ticks on...

ps....i think its important to state that i have strong views about life being in the universe, which are probably taking a big part in my opinion here (which is very unscientific of me i know) however its because of this that i put the importance of humans as hardly worth mentioning in this matter .....i always tend to have strong views about the 'big questions'

as for if we'll ever answer this who knows....personally i do not think humans are evolved enough as a race to be able to tackle this----sort of like asking a cow the time of day

still just because the chances of finding an answer are low no reason not to try....we wouldnt have got very far without giving it the good old try

rich

Awareness began at point zero, even if the human species has only been around for a fraction of that. At point zero, everything grew in awareness and awareness itself was created from that. It's not possible to separate time from awareness or awareness from matter, or matter from time. Look at yourself, see a body ageing, it is seen from awareness, it ages with time and it consists of matter. Does one co-exist without the other ? Without awareness there is no time, no matter. Test it for yourself, in deep sleep, without dreams, what exists ? Does time exist for you there? Does matter exist there?

All that can be said is that it has one direction and that is towards entropy and awareness directly observes that effect. It would not be known except for a picture of what went before and that is held in memory.

[Woolleson]

The pause between tick and tock

[Thirdway]

time is just one of the four co-ordinates required to specify a location. this comes naturally if you think about it. if someone said I'll meet you at 53 degrees north, 2 degrees east at the top of the tall tower, what would your next question be?

How tall is the tower ?

[Moonshane]

that would be the third dimension!! when shall we meet being the fourth.

[Thirdway]

that would be the third dimension!! when shall we meet being the fourth.

Will you have a red carnation and a copy of the financial times ?

I don't even know you, why the hell am I meeting you up a tower ?

What are the views like ?

[Starlight 1]

Time recorded on your clock.

[Moonshane]

Will you have a red carnation and a copy of the financial times ?

I don't even know you, why the hell am I meeting you up a tower ?

What are the views like ?

depends on what time it is

[starnut]

Being retired I seem to have a lot of it

[Thirdway]

depends on what time it is

It depends where I am in relation to this tower. Maybe we better meet somewhere else ? I don't have a watch so you will have to ring a bell or something.

I'm still not sure why I'm meeting you, but I'm going to go along with it. You seem like someone who might know how to collimate a Newtonian.

[Thirdway]

Being retired I seem to have a lot of it

Being retired you have wasted a lot of it. Make sure you don't waste any more. Start knitting umbrellas.

[ollypenrice]

All that can be said is that it has one direction... QUOTE]

Nooooo.... not even that can be said. We perceive it to have one direction, yes. But that may just be a characteristic of the way we see it. I have a deep feeling that this is so.

Quantum physics may have glimpsed a wider reality in which time's arrow ceases to be what it was. Richard Feynman discovered that it is impossible to distinguish between a positron and an electron travelling backwards through time. That is, for me, the most tantalizing discovery in science.

Olly

[Ags]

Richard Feynman discovered that it is impossible to distinguish between a positron and an electron travelling backwards through time. That is, for me, the most tantalizing discovery in science.

Olly

Really? I can't argue with Feynman, but that doesn't make sense to me. Two protons smash together, releasing a positron and a neutrino. In the Feynman world, what does this mean? Does an electron travelling back in time somehow manage to hit the two protons just at the moment of fusion? Does the fusion create an electron sent backwards in time? If so, why do we see the positron gonig 'forward' in our time?