Time...

I've been reading a lot into time, specifically what exactly it is. After accepting that time isn't a cosmological constant I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around all that it the idea implicates. If subatomic particles can literally move forward and backwards in time, and that time occupies 2 (at least) dimensions of M-theory, then is time planar? If so and particles can move about on that plane then why can't macroscopic particles move shot on there as well? It would take immense measures of energy to do so, but the universe is very large and such forces may exist. If that's the case then can particles freely move about? If they can then by Feynman's."every possible route" idea would imply that everything exists simultaneously everywhere and everywhen. If that's true then could out be stated that the universe is both beginning and ending at all times, but only at this exact moment?

I realize that this seems rambling and odd, but for a moment I thought I understood the concept of time and how causality could be irrelevant and now it's slipping through my fingers.

No idea, I struggle to accept the constancy of the speed of light myself. It's so god damned unintuitive.

Physics is, in my opinion, like a woman in many respects. I love it, it's beautiful, eloquent, elegant, but I can never, for the life of me, fully understand it.

This, has got to be the most coolest and honest thing I heard in a while.

Now back on topic, I guess time is literally "moving" ... like I have been questioning myself such as different dimensions that has no time and nothing decays, it just reproduces itself in that exact matter as if everything is fresh.

For example, the returning of Jesus, he departed from this world 2000 years ago at the age between 30-35. Now based on Islamic sources it said he will return on Earth at the same age, meaning the place where he was had no time, which makes me think, " Is time really a "movable" dimension"?

How can time move? And if it moves, what does it have to do with life forms decaying overtime such as humans and so forth, which is also called aging.

Thus it leads me back to space and time, is there a space so utterly huge and so stable that time itself is not able to move it? Is it too much for time to handle? That real which never decays, can constantly regenerate itself without time slowing it down, also meaning that maybe everything over there is very fast?

And what about an unstable space/dimension? Does everything inside that space moves so utterly fast that everything gets literally destroyed at the blink of an eye and regenerates at the blink of an eye and we can't even see the process?

For me, time itself is literally a "moving being" that sets everything in motion and that space itself is a place of halt, it is just space, not governed by time so maybe everything floats, maybe you can jump high without having the laws of gravity to worry about, but then it leads me to believe, does time, space and gravity work together?

I am asking myself WAY too many question, so forgive me and I shall leave it at that.

To resolve this dilemma I realize one thing... I really must go to college...

[color=#2e1a6b]I think we should define "time" before we discuss the implications behind this concept. I think time is best defined as: a measurement of consistent motion sequences. A year is time because it is a measurement of the consistent motion sequence of the earth's revolutions. A day istime because it is a measurement of the consistent motion of the earth's rotation. What's important to understand is that consistent motion sequences are necessary for time to exist. Without them, we wouldn't have time

That only supplies frames of motion with which we can measure time. Tinge doesn't stand still in empty space, it still progresses. The only areas I know of which are void of the passage of time are black holes. Even so it may do during there altogether stranger than I can imagine. I understand the temptation to extrapolate that when time is considered a standard when charting location and velocity, but it can't be fully argued because of special relativity which states that time passes at different rates dependant on speed. If time dilation is taken into account then time cannot be accurately described as a frame of reference for movement.

So given that information the question changes to, what is time if not a frame of reference for motion?

Because of such a cool quote I see in this thread, I gotta post my ideas.

I never knew that M-theory posits more than 1 dimension of time. Iirc it's 10 space and 1 time... well, I'll pretend the OP is right in this case, though I'd like a source. Moving on. While string theory (and its more general version M-theory) posits that there can be more than 1 dimension of time, it's better if we don't let that mindfuck with us too easily yet. The theory doesn't even have a final form yet and ofc that means it is untested. Very highly speculative and the extra dimensions are only there for the maths to work out. There are known cases where some parts of the maths in a theory give weird predictions and we tend to just ignore it. Such as electrodynamics predicting a wave propagation backwards in time. Not to mention that its rival theories don't require all this extra dimensions, which is a lot of relief to us physicists. Either way, point is that it makes no testable prediction yet so until it does, it's best for non-specialists to not take these things seriously.

Which brings us to the next part; what is our best definition of time? Given the definition of a second, I would agree with Lelouch's simple definition of time being a measurement of consistent motion sequences. Yukito said that such definition encounters difficulty when we account for time dilation (and gravitational time dilation, where your measurement of time is messed up simply because some fat blob of matter is near you) which is correct. However, a better understanding of relativity would inform us about how to get around this difficulty. Remember that time and space cannot be separated in these theories and must be taken into account together as a single entity; spacetime. Also, it is wrong for us to think about one special reference frame for the measurement as one of the basics of relativity is that there is no such frames; all frames are equally valid.

If we don't accept those two changes to our thinking, then we cannot possibly make sense of the postulate of general relativity: All observers, regardless of their state of motion, measure the same speed of light in vacuum. That is only possible with spacetime subject to the transformation given in the theory which is impossible to make sense of had space and time being separate concepts.

So, what's the definition of spacetime then? Well, let's just call it a measure of constant intervals and sequences.

My question is then, from what frame of reference? The only one that's truly sedentary is, from what I can imagine, the exact center of the universe. We're on a moving platform, a massive organic starship orbiting a hadn't nuclear fireball in an immense formation containing 400,000,000,000 (approx.) other nuclear fireballs, swirling around, what I understand is, a massive black hole which is itself zooming through space. There's a lot of disruption we could be observing. As for a source on imaginary time I read Stephen Hawking's the universe in a nutshell, which doesn't supply any mathematical proofs.

Incidentally don't take my questioning as me being unwilling to accept others' ideas, I simply want to know, and as such I will question. I don't have anything more than a high-school physics class under my belt (although I want much more) and I'm not entirely sure what to make of all of this. Take my questioning as my asking for elaboration in the best method I see. If ever I come across as obstinate it's simply because I want not only to know, but to comprehend. Bear in mind my stance of having extremely limited knowledge in the matter.

From no frame or all frames of reference. That's the main point of relativity; there is no such thing as a sedentary (or fundamental, special, preferred etc) frame of reference. Your frame of reference, mine, a particle whoozing at speeds close of light, the earth, anything that is in motion relative to one another are all equally valid reference frames. The only thing absolute is the speed of light, as all frames will measure the same value of it regardless of their relative motion. And for that to be possible, all the frames must be related by the transformation rules described in relativity.

I see. Again, I only have a basic conceptual knowledge based around a very limited source of knowledge. Helping me with this is greatly appreciated.

No prob man. I'm glad to see people are interested in physics.

I do love physics, I simply lack the foundation to further it. Given the resources, time and liberty to do so I would study physics to, as Stephen Hawking said, know the mind of God. I'm an atheist as well so don't read more into it other than the fact that I want to understand the universe.

First off, I'm truely sorry, but this quote is irresistible:

“People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff.” -The Doctor

Which pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Since the beginning of human history, humanity has been plagued a ravenous curiosity for what surrounds it, and has strived, much like the knights of the Grail, for millenias on an endless quest for knowledge, for answers too the why, the how and the what.

So your impulse for knowledge is absolutly normal and is a very good thing. Discovering the wonders of the world and understanding things that were at first deemed "magical" or too complex in nature is immensely satisfying. But the problem is that God or Probability or The great Mind of the universe or Magic, or whatever you want to call it, is a dickhead. And that for each answer to a given question, you're getting two hundred and thirty two more questions. Feel free to call it a douchebag. But at the same time, say a little thanks, at least he's keeping you occupied.

Thank you for your time, and have a nice time with physics. She's a bimbo and you'll be wanting more.

Wait, where did you get the idea that subatomic particles could move through time? That would imply that time travel is possible, no matter if subject is a subatomic particle or a person. So far as I know, time travel research still needs more work (not going to say its impossible).



Behavior of particles is in the realm of quantum mechanics. Subatomic particles behave with particle-wave duality, where as massive objects behave as strictly particles.

So then what is time? It could be a dimension independent from the 3 we know, in which events can be ordered sequentially. But that doesn't explain spacetime, which relates time and space, making time dependent on space. How can we be sure that time isn't just an illusion?

Now my head hurts...

To begin, I heard of the notion of subatomic time-travel from Michio Kaku in a book of his, also it was touched upon by Stephen Hawking. Secondly, it's the entanglement of space and time (or it's independence from it) that confounds me.

Ahhh...time's existence.

Such a fun topic, truly. I think for anyone interested in this topic a FANTASTIC book to read would be Richard Matheson's Bid Time Return.

Whether or not Time exists would depend an awful lot on one's definition of Time, and Existence.

For example, if existence is limited to entities, it's gonna be different than if you broaden your understand inf existence to things like entities and FORCES and other broader understandings similar.

In one sense, time most definitely exists. That would be the physicist's explanation of time. Space-time is pretty much, since Einstein's time, the fabric of the very universe itself. Time in this sense has been measured. Not just in the abstract either. There's the Gravity Probe B experiment and Frame Dragging for examples.

So yeah...in the scientific sense, I'd say the physicists tend to agree that...time exists.

Is it available on audible? I have a credit and I can't decide what to do with it.