Can time be modeled by an asymptote?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dkpalea
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Asymptote Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of modeling time as an asymptote, likening its infinite progression to a line that approaches a point without ever reaching it. The original poster questions whether time can be represented on a graph, contemplating the axes and dimensions involved. Responses suggest that while the idea is intriguing, it may be overly complex, as a simple line could suffice to represent time. Furthermore, the notion of movement presupposes the existence of time, leading to circular reasoning in modeling such phenomena. The conversation emphasizes the need to differentiate between general discussions and specific physics inquiries.
Dkpalea
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello all! I'm new to this forum (and forums in general as this is my first) so please excuse my etiquette. When I was in my trig class (I'm a high schooler), we brushed up upon asymptotes, and it made me wonder: Can time be modeled by an asymptote? I like the idea of a line moving in a direction infinitely toward a point without ever reaching it. I related this to time. That is, if time never had a beginning nor will every have an end. If time could be modeled as an asymptote, what would the x and y-axis be labeled as, beginning and end of time? (Are there more dimensions? Z axis?). I can't really make sense of this, but I imagine that the line would represent the movement of time itself, moving infinitely in both directions? Has this already been done? Is time even real? Does this even make any sense?! Please enlighten me...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thinking of a moving along the curve that forms an asymptote, we would wouldn't be moving "toward a point". If our coordinate is (x,y), our y coordinate might be moving toward a point on the y-axis. But the (x,y) location isn't moving "toward a point". It's seems just a well to use a straight line to plot the time coordinate
 
  • Like
Likes Dkpalea
Hmmm, the answer was much simpler than I thought it would be... A simple line could describe it. I made it confusing for nothing. Thank you!
 
If we think of modeling time by something moving, this is a circular type of thinking because to have something moving presupposes you have the phenomena of time in order to have the motion.

A similar type of circular thinking plagues us when we try to model other basic phenomena - such as mass and probability. The "General DIscussions" section of the forum is the place to discuss such generalities. The physics sections are for specific questions.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top