Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time and motion

  1. Mar 9, 2007 #1
    Could a String be thought of, say a duration of time? I would think that as a single dimensional object it just might fit.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2007 #2
    What you have in mind is similar to the notion of a 'string bit' moving along a string. If you'd like to learn more, check out the Sept. 2006 paper: A Model for the String Structure.
     
  4. Mar 11, 2007 #3
    Thank you, Kneemo. Could duration of time be thought of as this string? With two bits of motion that we think of as particles, one expanding and the other contracting, I would think it fits as one dimensional duration.

    Can we separate time and motion? With this example no, but we can say that time, or the potential for motion, is expanding and or contracting ahead of the bit(s) of motion(s) we call particle(s). Is this a fair statement?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2007
  5. Mar 11, 2007 #4
    Hi petm1,

    I`m not sure what your after here. Are you looking for natural phenonmena that could serve as some sort of clock?
     
  6. Mar 11, 2007 #5
    For years I thought of time as a tool for the measurement of motion, and therefore space. Now I think that time as the forth dimension contains not only all motion but all potential for motion. Can we think of time as a potential for motion? Like the string from the paper that Kneemo showed us talks about (using that string as a temporal object), and the motion as being just a small part of that one dimensional duration. If time is potential motion and we can picture it as a string could it be broken into three separate dimensions one each for the other three dimensions? By adding these strings of potential, could different combinations make the idea of a point charge easier to understand? I was thinking of time as a one dimensional object because all motion was contained in it but now I am wondering if the bits on time strings of potential movement have to be combined before we would be able to detect them as a one dimensional motion. I guess what I am asking is if we have three dimensions for the meter, why don't we have three dimensions for a second?

    As for josh1's question, no I am not trying to reinvent the clock.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2007
  7. Mar 12, 2007 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    The concept ot motion makes no sense without time. For example, velocity equals distance / time. Since 'space' is merely the relationship between objects traveling along a time line, it is pointless to attempt to separate the two concepts.
     
  8. Mar 12, 2007 #7

    The concept of motion without time does not make sense to me either, but the concept of time with out motion does seem reasonable to me. It could explain how the universe could be expanding faster than light, dark energy could be explained by the difference between motion and its limit to c, and time's expanding potential for motion that we cannot "see" because motion has not caught up with it yet. Time as a forth dimension containing all motion has to be an object such as our visible universe and at the same time it has to contain all the potential motion that our universe is expanding into. Yet time as a one dimensional duration has to have direction in this case two directions the potential to expand and the potential to contract with motion between. Three separate dimensions of time with only the motion portions "visible".
     
  9. Mar 17, 2007 #8

    vld

    User Avatar

    Not only the notions of time and motion are inseparable but also speed (velocity). Moreover, since the notion of speed implies both time and motion, it is the former that might be considered as a fundamental entity rather than the latters. In principle, it is known that time could be excluded from the equations of motion (unlike velocity).
     
  10. Mar 18, 2007 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    How is that? Motion is merely a different way of describing velocity.
     
  11. Mar 18, 2007 #10
    I can imagine an unmoving space, devoid of time,
    but what motion could take place in time devoid of circumstance?

    So is space more fundamental than time?
     
  12. Mar 18, 2007 #11

    vld

    User Avatar

    Exactly! For simplicity one can imaging a two-body system with a potential well (say, an oscillator). It can be described using only space coordinates, velocity and acceleration.
     
  13. Mar 19, 2007 #12
    To elaborate, it is possible to imagine a world which has spatial relationships but has no moving parts. There would be no motion, no change, no evolution of time in such a world.

    On the other hand, if I try to imagine a time world, in which there are no spatial relationships, no objects, no place in which any change could occur, what am I imagining?

    I am posting the above simultaneously in one of the philosopy forums.
    So, a priori, I conclude that space may exist without the need for any presense of time, but that time cannot exist without space.

    For this reason I propose that an operational definition of time can be made from spatial concepts alone. However no operational definition of space is possible from temporal concepts alone.

    Therefore, a priori, space is fundamental and time is derived from space.

    I will post this simultaneously in one of the philosophy forums, but it was generated here.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2007
  14. Mar 20, 2007 #13

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I think space and time are inseparable. Neither concept makes sense without the other component. The concept of space is only meaninful in terms of the time required to go from point A to point B: d = vt. If d or t is set to zero [or infinity], the other quantity cannot be quantified.
     
  15. Mar 20, 2007 #14
    1d, 2d, 3d.... 4d..
     
  16. Mar 20, 2007 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Er.. how so? How exactly are you able to "detect" space? How would you know that, for example, Point A is closer to you than Point B? And just in case you plan on bringing out a very long measuring tape to answer this question, consider what is necessary for you (i) calibrate that measuring tape and (ii) to actually observe various part of that measuring tape.

    Of course, if you claim to have the ability to observe all parts of the universe instantaneously, then there's no reason why one can't answer your question by simply making things up as one goes along without regards to any physical laws.....

    Zz.
     
  17. Mar 20, 2007 #16

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Why are you cross-posting this when that has been explicitly prohibited in the Guidelines?

    The other thread has been merged to this one. Please don't do this again.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2007
  18. Mar 20, 2007 #17
    Thanks, Zz

    Well, I did say imagine, didn't I?

    But I think you are right in physical terms. My little mental exercise does require an observer who can move from place to place, and must require time to do so. So I have merely moved the property of time into the obervation apparatus, not really removing it from the universe. That was part of the reason I chose to use the word "world" rather than using the word "universe."

    I wouldn't try to measure an imaginary world, any more than I would try to calculate the unique value of an imaginary number.

    I have learned this week from Wiki that the modern view of science, due to Kant and Liebnitz, is that time, space, and mass are fundamental units, which remain undefined. They are not to be thought of, as Newton did, as a kind of container in which objects float about, but as a part of the process of observing events. Not as things in themselves, but as part of the conceptual apparatus.

    So as long as we are making up time and space without regard to any physical laws, why not make up an imaginary world for them to play in? And my point is that I can construct a concept of a world containing objects that do not experience time, but I am unable to construct a concept of a world without space. I can even make a picture of it. Any common photograph will do.

    Then there is the idea of relitive events. I have just come across this so I am prone to mis-speak, but there is a category of events called light-like, in which the space-time interval is said to be zero. Nevertheless, there is a spacelike separation to such events, not so? So the timelike separation must be the zero factor.

    This interpretation is supported, I think, by the notion of time dilation. When an event occurs very near the speed of light relitive to the observer, it experiences time dilated until it nearly passes not at all. If it is at the speed of light relitive to the observor, as in a light-like event, or just the radiation of energy in free space, then it experience zero time in the observors space.

    So is light real or imaginary? We do consider it a physical quantity, and we need it for every kind of measurment I can think of.

    I am honored that you have given my little thought consideration, Zz. It seems not unlikely that I have made a mishmash of physics, but I hope you can apply your critical skills to help me slice away everything that is not necessary or sufficient, so I can see for myself if anything "discreet" is left over.

    Honest thanks,

    Richard
     
  19. Mar 20, 2007 #18
    Sorry, I only wanted to try my idea out on the philosophers, who probably don't read much in this forum. And it wasn't the same exact post, I made some small changes to address the academics in the other forum.

    Zz, do you really expect that everyone who visits physicsforums.com reads every post in every forum? I wasn't spamming, I was merely directing my question to a group who would not see it otherwise.

    Nevertheless, I do want to follow the guidelines here, as I am a guest in your house. Is there some acceptable way to ask for evaluation from other forum users?

    Sincerely, Thanks

    R.
     
  20. Mar 20, 2007 #19

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I'm sorry, but if you want us to simply drop all of physics and just make things up, you're in the wrong forum. You want a science fiction forum.

    And since you stated that you do abide by the rules of this forum, pay attention to the part on overly-speculative post.

    Zz.
     
  21. Mar 20, 2007 #20
    ok. goodbye.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Time and motion
  1. Motion of a string (Replies: 10)

  2. String motion (Replies: 7)

Loading...