Is Time a Dimension or a Measure of Movement?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmchicken
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of time, specifically whether it is a dimension similar to spatial dimensions or merely a measure of movement. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, implications of time in physics, and the relationship between time and movement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that time is considered the 4th dimension, complementing the three spatial dimensions.
  • There is a viewpoint that time can be conceptualized as a coordinate in a system where movement through space and time can be represented, leading to the idea of an interval that combines both.
  • Some argue that time exists even without movement, questioning how time can be measured in such scenarios.
  • Others counter that various mechanisms, such as heartbeats or atomic clocks, can measure time independently of movement.
  • A participant raises a question about the preference for certain conceptualizations of time and its dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether time is a dimension or a measure of movement, with no consensus reached on the nature of time or its relationship to movement.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of defining time as a dimension versus a measure, highlighting the complexity of these definitions and their dependence on various assumptions.

mmmchicken
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Because it takes time to get from one point to another?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually it is considered the 4th dimension, since there are 3 spatial dimensions.
 
mmmchicken said:
Because it takes time to get from one point to another?
It also takes time when you don't move. Dimension means that one cannot be converted into another. You could replace time by velocity (preferably that of light in a vacuum), but you cannot replace length by time or vice versa.
 
Basically, yes. We can hypothetically set up a coordinate system where three of the axes represent locations in space and an additional axis represents a "location" in time. That gives rise to the notion of the interval, the separation in both space and time, which unlike spatial separation is not observed to be different by observers with different velocities.
 
fresh_42 said:
It also takes time when you don't move. Dimension means that one cannot be converted into another. You could replace time by velocity (preferably that of light in a vacuum), but you cannot replace length by time or vice versa.
How can there be time with no movement? There's nothing to measure?
 
mmmchicken said:
How can there be time with no movement? There's nothing to measure?
Your heartbeat measures time. An atomic clock measures time, and it doesn't move at all (relative to the Earth's surface).
 
jack476 said:
Basically, yes. We can hypothetically set up a coordinate system where three of the axes represent locations in space and an additional axis represents a "location" in time. That gives rise to the notion of the interval, the separation in both space and time, which unlike spatial separation is not observed to be different by observers with different velocities.
Why isn't this preferred?
 
fresh_42 said:
Your heartbeat measures time. An atomic clock measures time, and it doesn't move at all (relative to the Earth's surface).
not measuring but confirming
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
799
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K