1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is there any need to introduce time as a parameter?

  1. May 12, 2009 #1
    is there any need to introduce time as a parameter?
    is there any meaning of time, without any velocity?
    time is because of some change and that change can be measure by position only. so why is there an unnecessary extra parameter (time).is there any need to measure a rate of change with some non-physical quantity (like time)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 12, 2009 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The questions really don't make a lot of sense to me. It almost seems like you are thinking about it backwards: there is no such thing as "velocity" without time, but time most ceratainly can exist without velocity. I'm sitting on my couch right now, experiencing time without velocity!
     
  4. May 12, 2009 #3
    I think he is saying that instead of saying X happened for a Y time interval, we should say X happened while Y happened Z times.

    Which is how it is currently right? I mean we have to use some physical yardstick as a standard for us to all agree on how long 1 second is.
     
  5. May 12, 2009 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The first is correct. Just because we use motion to measure time, that does not mean that time requires motion.
     
  6. May 13, 2009 #5
    So Russ, have you been sitting (motionless) on your couch for ten minutes or twenty? How do you know?
     
  7. May 13, 2009 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    One should also note that we use time to measure distances or space, per Special Relativity. The fact that "c" is defined using both time and space imply that you can't have one without the other, either explicitly or implicitly.

    The whole question of the OP is also puzzling. To prove that one doesn't NEED anything, try describing something without any use of it. So try describing the dynamics of a system without using something. That you have shown that that something isn't needed.

    I don't see how one can eliminate time from the Hamiltonian of a system. Until I see that, I consider the argument that time isn't needed as being false.

    Zz.
     
  8. May 13, 2009 #7
    A couple of month ago, I stumbled over this article:

    http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/rovelli_time.pdf [Broken]

    Is this complete hogwash? I found it interresting.

    I was really intrigued and started thinking a lot about time. The same question as the OP popped up. What is most fundamental? Time or motion (change)?

    When Russ sits on his couch, how does he experience time? One answer could be that he does because things are changing. no? His thoughts are evolving, heart beating, a fly flies by, etc.

    I know that SR basically says 'Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows', but I'm still not convinced that time even is neccessary.

    Would it be psossible to remove time alltogether and invent some new concept of change with some new unit? I dont know if this even makes sense, but I'm still thinking about it ;)

    /Frederic
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. May 13, 2009 #8
    Why do neutrons scattering off of nuclei obey the "1/v cross section dependence", i.e., the one-over-velocity dependence of neutrons scattering on nuclei?
     
  10. May 13, 2009 #9
    To describe a single state, like a photograph, you do not need time. To make a prediction of a future state or to describe any change from a previuos state, time, as a dimension is required.

    Is the question whether time is constant or variable?

    From my understanding of SR, time is always constant for a single observer. Its when you have multiple, diversly located observers, using duplicate time measurement devices, that time is variable.

    Although, thinking out-of-the-box, I could imagine replacing space/time with space/distance. You would need all observers to use a centrally located time measurement device. The variable is the amount of space that needs to be traveled for a given distance. So it could take you more or less time to travel a given distance depending on how much space there was in that distance.
     
  11. May 13, 2009 #10
    "To describe a single state, like a photograph, you do not need time. To make a prediction of a future state or to describe any change from a previuos state, time, as a dimension is required."

    Actually, that is false. Time is still required for photographs. Show me a camera with a 0 second exposure time and I'll show you some pretty dull pictures.

    The questions are actually good questions.

    What if there were a demon who could cause everything in the universe to stop moving, and then start everything back up moving again exactly as it had been before. We would not have the slightest clue that the demon had done the deed... no time would pass if nothing was moving.

    Time and motion are inherently linked.
     
  12. May 13, 2009 #11
    That is why I used "like". The photograph analogy wasn't meant to be literal and account for the exposure time.


    Since you're in the literal mood ;), wouldn't the demon also be affected and not be able to start time again? Unless you are suggesting this demon could choose what is affected by the stoppage of time. In that case you could say that stopping a single particle's momentum is stopping time for that particle. So ceasing all movement and stopping time are the same (not linked).
     
  13. May 13, 2009 #12
    to all,
    I think one can replace time by entropy. A lot of problems are there but still one could think about it(as I think).I don't know whether it is more difficult or easy for calculation, but it has a great physical meaning.
    This is one of the possibilities.In some sense it is equivalent to the time as a parameter,but problem is that time has no physical sense like entropy or other physical quantity.
    as lachelimbo said to describe a single state I don't need any 'time',similarly to describe a periodic motion you don't need any time, all physical quantities can be written in the form of position only. after calculating all these quantities we have seen that they are just independent of time, so is it not enough to think.
    I am not saying that there is some mistake in SR or any thing else.What i am saying is that, SR or any thing else are developed in the view point of time as a continuous parameter, is there any chance to think 'dynamics' without time.
    I don't know what is the meaning of time without any motion. one could experience time without any physical motion ('I'm sitting on my couch right now, experiencing time without velocity!') but what about his motion of realization (he realise 'time' by some motion like motion of a clock).
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  14. May 13, 2009 #13
    it is not only for neutrons scattering, the all physics depend on the time, because we have already set the picture in that way.
     
  15. May 13, 2009 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    My watch doesn't require me to be moving in order to report the time to me.
     
  16. May 13, 2009 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sure, lets call it the "Watters concept of change" and call the units "Russ".... of course, a unit of "Russ" would be referenced to a second and the "Watters concept of change" would be indistinguishable from what we now call "time"...
     
  17. May 13, 2009 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes you do. When you use such a description, there is an implicit time coordinate (or range) to it. Think about your address. Is that address for you valid for all times or just now and over a certain range? A million years from now, will I find you at that address?
     
  18. May 13, 2009 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's mostly just gibberish. The fact that mass doesn't require time doesn't in any way imply that time (or length!) doesn't exist. Entropy can be used to discern the arrow of time, but it doesn't describe the same thing as time and thus can't be a replacement for time. You can't describe periodic motion without time because without time, there is no motion. And my clock's motion is not *my* motion.

    You asked the question in the OP, so why don't you see if you can answer (prove) it yourself. See if you can describe the concept of velocity without time! If you can do that, then just maybe you're on to something...
     
  19. May 14, 2009 #18

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    All you have done so far is make unverified speculation.

    Fine, replace time with entropy. Now solve for the equation of motion of a simple pendulum and show me you get the same thing.

    Zz.
     
  20. May 14, 2009 #19
    Maybe it is just semantics but I disagree. I can describe a yellow box without a time coordinate. I don't have to describe what it was before or whether it will be there a million years from now. That is making a prediction, which requires a time coordinate. The same applies to my address.
     
  21. May 14, 2009 #20
    Yes, but to take a picture of anything, you have to look at it over a range of times.

    Instants in time don't exist. They are used as thought experiments involving limiting processes when we're trying to understand things that happen so quickly it's like they never happen at all.

    Every single thing in the entire universe either exists for a finite, non-zero interval of time, or it doesn't really exist at all.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is there any need to introduce time as a parameter?
Loading...