Unraveling the Meaning of t = 0 in Physics

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Amad27
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the meaning of t = 0 in physics, particularly in the context of a device's operation and the implications of defining a starting point for time measurement. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of time measurement, including conventions, idealizations, and the implications of infinitesimal time intervals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that t = 0 is an arbitrary choice made for convenience, representing the moment a process begins, such as pressing a start button.
  • Others argue that while t = 0 is a convention, it lacks special physical meaning and is primarily useful for measuring elapsed time.
  • There is a discussion about whether the device actually starts at t = 0 or if it is an idealization, with some participants proposing that an infinitesimal time must pass before the device begins functioning.
  • One participant shares an experience of defining "time zero" in an experimental context, emphasizing the challenges of measuring time accurately and the errors that can arise.
  • Some participants question the necessity of starting at t = 0, suggesting that any arbitrary time could serve as a starting point, including infinitesimal values like Planck time.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the model for the device's processing rate near t = 0, indicating potential limitations in the mathematical representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of views, with no consensus on the significance of t = 0. Some agree on its arbitrary nature, while others emphasize the implications of idealizations and the practical challenges of defining a precise starting point for time measurement.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of time and the potential for errors in measurement, particularly near the starting point of t = 0. The discussion highlights unresolved questions about the validity of models at very small time scales.

Amad27
Messages
409
Reaction score
1
Hi,

It is a mystery that is complicated to figure out.

What does t = 0, (time 0) actually mean in Physics?

Suppose a device's rate of processing is modeled by

Q(t) = 467√(t) [where "t" is the time in minutes after the device began working]

Why is the instantaneous moment when the device began working t = 0?

In addition, what would

"0 minutes after the device began working" mean? What does this represent?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's when you press start, or when the engagement mechanism is released.

In general it is an arbitrary point on the time scale which corresponds to your beginning of the process of interest ... like in a count down, but going in the opposite direction.
 
Amad27 said:
Hi,

It is a mystery that is complicated to figure out.

What does t = 0, (time 0) actually mean in Physics?
No great mystery here, just convention. No special physical meaning. What does have meaning is the amount of time elapsed--which is easier to represent if you start from 0.

Suppose a device's rate of processing is modeled by

Q(t) = 467√(t) [where "t" is the time in minutes after the device began working]

Why is the instantaneous moment when the device began working t = 0?
Because you want to measure the elapsed time from the moment the device began working. You could call that time Ti, if you like. But then you'd have to describe your model in terms of T - Ti, to get the time since the device began working. Much easier to let Ti = 0.

In addition, what would

"0 minutes after the device began working" mean? What does this represent?
It just represents the instant that the device began working. Nothing more.
 
You can chose t = 0 to be any time whatsoever. It's an arbitrary choice made to our convenience. The idea is to make a choice that helps understand the problem and solve it. A different choice might be more difficult but it won't be wrong.
 
Doc Al said:
No great mystery here, just convention. No special physical meaning. What does have meaning is the amount of time elapsed--which is easier to represent if you start from 0.


Because you want to measure the elapsed time from the moment the device began working. You could call that time Ti, if you like. But then you'd have to describe your model in terms of T - Ti, to get the time since the device began working. Much easier to let Ti = 0.


It just represents the instant that the device began working. Nothing more.

How would you force the device to start at t = 1?

But think about this, WHY does it even start at t= 0

Once you turn the device on, at least 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a picosecond must have passed? Some very small infinitesimal time MUST have passed right?

Thanks
 
Amad27 said:
But think about this, WHY does it even start at t= 0

Once you turn the device on, at least 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a picosecond must have passed? Some very small infinitesimal time MUST have passed right?

It's an idealization in the experimental world - part of my research was to experimentally find the "time zero" which was defined as the "time when a laser pulse passed through an electron pulse"; with the expenditure of time, ingenuity, and sweat a repeatable experimental technique was developed - it was good to less than a picosecond; the limitation was about double the pulse duration.

The "error" then contributes to the experimental spread.

But for a theoretical model you can just set t=0; a mathematical analysis will tell you the amount of error which will accumulate for small, random variations.
 
UltrafastPED said:
It's an idealization in the experimental world - part of my research was to experimentally find the "time zero" which was defined as the "time when a laser pulse passed through an electron pulse"; with the expenditure of time, ingenuity, and sweat a repeatable experimental technique was developed - it was good to less than a picosecond; the limitation was about double the pulse duration.

The "error" then contributes to the experimental spread.

But for a theoretical model you can just set t=0; a mathematical analysis will tell you the amount of error which will accumulate for small, random variations.


I can sort of see where you are getting at.

The device DOESNT start at t = 0, but rather some infinitesimal time after that?
Devices starting at t= 0 is just an assumption in the mathematical world?

So because it doesn't actually start at t = 0, you get the error right?

This could mean that

it could have start at t =

1 Planck time of 1 Planck time of 1 Planck time...
 
Amad27 said:
I can sort of see where you are getting at.

The device DOESNT start at t = 0, but rather some infinitesimal time after that?
Devices starting at t= 0 is just an assumption in the mathematical world?

So because it doesn't actually start at t = 0, you get the error right?

This could mean that

it could have start at t =

1 Planck time of 1 Planck time of 1 Planck time...

You are SERIOUSLY over-thinking this. t=0 is a mathematical ideal as has been explained. Depending on the characteristics of a physical device, its actual "start" time will be some amount of time later. SO WHAT? You have to assign some value to the start and as long as you are consistent, it doesn't really matter.
 
Amad27 said:
How would you force the device to start at t = 1?

But think about this, WHY does it even start at t= 0

Once you turn the device on, at least 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a picosecond must have passed? Some very small infinitesimal time MUST have passed right?

Thanks

Do you also have a problem with following a recipe? If the recipe tells you to bake the cake for 45 minutes, how much do you over-think this? Or do you simply put the cake into the oven, and then start your timer or look at your clock?

Zz.
 
  • #10
you can say t=0 the time that it actually starts to to work- problem solved.
No matter what, what is important is the elapsed time, and not a single instant time (you need two ("tick tack") to measure time, not just one ("tick")...)
After that it depends on your MEASUREMENT device- how close together are the "tick tacks" it can realize... speaking of Planck time for example, for any device we have, is totally meaningless...Don't forget that the clocks we use, are using some process to measure time (eg atomic clocks), so even they measure "time differences" and not instant time values...
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Are we still talking about this?
Amad27, the choice of origin for the time coordinate is completely arbitrary and we can chose it to be whenever we want. I may chose the time the device stars to be 0, 1 Plank time, 1 billion years, whatever I want... t=0 seems like a simple choice. Why not go with?
 
  • #12
The model for the device's rate of processing is probably invalid near t=0.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What does "m0 → 0" mean in physics
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Undergrad Capacitor Voltages at t = 0: Zero or Split?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
Undergrad Direct and alternating current, a personal approach to understand them
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad States and observables in quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Physical explanation of energy shift in Heisenberg term in t-J model
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad ##x'=0## and ##t'=0## axes in railcar thought experiment
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Undergrad De Broglie Wavelength at rest: λ = h/p = h/0 when v=0?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Barandes's Unistochastic Refomulation Applied to Entanglement Swapping
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
Simple timed controller
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
863
Undergrad Some notes on stochastic physics
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K