Is Time the Movement of Matter Through Space?

[erausch]

Since space and time are considered one thing due to Einstien's research... Would time be considered the movement of matter through space? Or possibly that time is created by extremely massive objects such as the sun? I'm not sure.

 

[cragar]

Im pretty sure you can have time without matter or energy.

 

[erausch]

If there was no matter or energy we wouldn't have a universe... but I suppose all that there would be would be space... and since space and time are the same I guess there would still be time. But I think it is common for people to think that light is time. Which I don't agree with. I think light gives us one perception of time, but is not time itself.

 

[Lsos]

Interesting...is there such thing as time without movement?

If you were locked in a box in the middle of nowhere, and you couldn't observe any movement...then you would have no way of knowing how much time passed.

 

[beready]

I was wondering if any thought given to the idea of time moving both forward and backward. we seem to view time as only moving forward and not backward.

 

[diazona]

Since space and time are considered one thing due to Einstien's research... Would time be considered the movement of matter through space? Or possibly that time is created by extremely massive objects such as the sun? I'm not sure.

No, neither of those. In the relativistic view, time is another dimension, just like the 3 dimensions of space.

Also, time is not light, and light is not time. Light is something that follows a path through space and time, just like matter is.

Lsos brings up an interesting point, but it's one of a philosophical nature. Currently, at least as far as I know, most people (including most physicists) take the view that time is something that would exist even without movement.

 

[Dale]

Since space and time are considered one thing due to Einstien's research.

I'm not sure that I would go that far. From the Minkowski metric (in units where c=1)
ds²=-dt²+dx²+dy²+dz²
It is still pretty clear that time is different from space because:
1) it has a different sign from space
2) there is only one dimension of time and 3 dimensions of space

They are certainly related in spacetime, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the same.

 

[snackster17]

Well wouldn't your particles that compose you still be interacting in this box? Would it make sense to say that particle interactions are the most fundamental aspects of time? I don't see how space could be expanding though without making new particles unless the expansion of space puts space in between already existing particles

 

[erausch]

I've been thinking about this more. And I think that without matter we would still have space and time. Matter is just something that affects spacetime. But.. thinking about the three dimensions of space, would they still be existent if there were no matter? I am thinking that they would, that matter is just how it is due to the three space dimensions. I'm not sure. I've only recently been actually studying physics. But have been interested for a long time.

 

[K^2]

Since space and time are considered one thing due to Einstien's research... Would time be considered the movement of matter through space? Or possibly that time is created by extremely massive objects such as the sun? I'm not sure.

There are two different things one can mean by time.

One is purely the time dimension in Space-time. It is a direction just like any spatial direction. The difference is in its metric, but that's a separate discussion.

The second is time as sequence of events. A caused B, B caused C, and so on. This has to do with entropy, information, and is responsible for apparent "flow" of time. This time is governed by our Sun, as it is our primary energy source. But again, that's something completely different.

Matter is said to propagate through time. That doesn't mean movement in the sense you are used to it, because you usually think of movement as change of position with respect to time. How can position in time change with respect to time? It cannot. There is, however, something called proper time.

Any particle in 4-space is not a point. It is a curve in 4-dimensions. We only see one point along that curve at anyone time. Distance along that curve is called particle's proper time. To each "moment" in proper time corresponds one point on the curve. The rate with which that point moves with respect to proper time is called proper velocity. The time component of proper velocity is the rate at which particle propagates through time.

If this is a bit confusing, you might need to take it one step at a time. You might want to take a look at this Wikipedia article.

 

[candyred312]

Would time be considered the movement of matter through space? Or possibly that time is created by extremely massive objects such as the sun?

I don't think that time can be or was created by anything. We needed to measure passage of duration and we needed a name for it and we called that time. Even if nothing existed (impossible of course to feel or measure) time would still exist because nothing exists (seeing nothing as something because even if nothing exists at a point it still is space).

I don't get it how time can be considered the movement of matter through space. You can calculate the amount of time that matter takes to move from one point to another, hm in that sense, time exists only if some form of activity takes place.

 

[FREEDOM2]

There are two different things one can mean by time.

One is purely the time dimension in Space-time. It is a direction just like any spatial direction. The difference is in its metric, but that's a separate discussion.

The second is time as sequence of events. A caused B, B caused C, and so on. This has to do with entropy, information, and is responsible for apparent "flow" of time. This time is governed by our Sun, as it is our primary energy source. But again, that's something completely different.

Matter is said to propagate through time. That doesn't mean movement in the sense you are used to it, because you usually think of movement as change of position with respect to time. How can position in time change with respect to time? It cannot. There is, however, something called proper time.

Any particle in 4-space is not a point. It is a curve in 4-dimensions. We only see one point along that curve at anyone time. Distance along that curve is called particle's proper time. To each "moment" in proper time corresponds one point on the curve. The rate with which that point moves with respect to proper time is called proper velocity. The time component of proper velocity is the rate at which particle propagates through time.

If this is a bit confusing, you might need to take it one step at a time. You might want to take a look at this Wikipedia article.

If the propagation of matter could not happen without time. How could the theoretical p-branes, that collided causing the Big Bang and the creation of time, collided?

 

[litton1000]

Time is affected by matter, it can speed it up or slow it down. But objects don't make time.

 

[christopherV]

there are many definitions of time depending on what you are using it for...but principally the way time has always been understood in a scientific context is a tendency for any system towards entropy(chaos). i.e. if you smash a plate on the floor it breaks into many pieces, and it will never happen the other way(the plate suddenly reassembling)...time is asymmetrical and our entire foundation of science is based on that one simple immutable thing. cause and effect.

What Einstein said that was so amazing is that the duration between the plate hitting the floor and the plate shattering is variable and relative to your motion, but time will always continue to move towards entropy.

As a side note: godel loops involve bending light, and since time and c are so closely linked, you can bend a light cone around itself and arrive at the point in time where the machine was switched on. It's completely hypothetical but a very intriguing idea because the system would essentially be 'closed'(non-entropic) and unable to experience time(as defined above) on a global or local scale, however time would continue to move forward through that time until you caught up...or maybe you would create a new time and the broken plates from the last go around would still be there...however we will probably never reach the level of science to be able to construct such a machine. oh well.

 

[WarVsFutility]

Sooo, is there a "Plank length" regarding time, or is it infinitely divisible?

 

[diazona]

Sure, you can divide the Planck length by the speed of light to get the Planck time. But it's not the smallest possible unit of time or anything like that (at least, not as far as we know); it's just the unit of time that can be formed from the fundamental constants of physics.

Similarly, the Planck length is not the smallest possible unit of length (as far as we know). It's just the only combination of those constants that happens to form a length.

 

[christopherV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_time