I Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?

  • Thread starter Thread starter curiosity1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Block universe
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on various theories of time, including Presentism, Eternalism, the Growing Block Universe, and the Block Time Theory, with participants questioning their status as theories versus interpretations. It is noted that none of these interpretations make distinct experimental predictions, leading to the conclusion that they are equally valid or invalid in terms of evidence. The conversation also touches on the role of time in physics, emphasizing that time is a component of broader theories like relativity rather than a standalone theory. Participants express confusion over the nature of space-time and its implications, highlighting the complexity of understanding these concepts without a solid mathematical foundation. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the philosophical and scientific challenges in defining and understanding time.
  • #31
Thread closed for moderation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
After moderator review, the thread will remain closed.
 
  • #33
curiosity1 said:
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. I don't understand what space-time is. What is it made of? Isn't space just emptiness? As far as I know, at the speed of light, time stops. How does that work? I am sorry if my questions are silly - they reveal how little I understand!

The thread is shut.

Here's a comparison that might help. Remember geometry from school? Points have position but no size and a line length but no width. Such do not exist. They are abstractions. It talks about points and lines that exist in theory but not in the physical world. They're the building blocks of geometry, abstractions that help us understand the real world. Similarly, space-time is a theoretical construct that helps us make sense of the universe.

Every theory, every single one, is like that. They contain abstractions used in the theory. If you succeed in finding something deeper that either explains those concepts or somehow replaces them, in a sense, you have not got anywhere because what you replace it with has the same problem. Absolute knowledge is beyond science's grasp.

For time, like point and line, we all have an intuitive idea of what it is. To make it more precise, we need what is called an inertial frame. A frame is simply a standard of rest on which experiments can be conducted. An inertial frame has a special property - the laws of physics (again, an abstraction) are the same in any direction, at any point, or at any time. The earth is an approximate inertial frame. Suppose we have some repetitive process and count the number of times it occurs. Repetitive process is a fundamental abstraction. But since the laws of physics are the same at any point, time, or direction, we have a way to assign a number to the time it is anywhere in the frame. The count of the repetitive process measures time and is called a clock. This is the idea time is what a clock measures.

I will mention I am reading a book now that explains time at a deeper level, but it is advanced and needs as background what I wrote above:



Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes curiosity1 and Dale

Similar threads

Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
90
Views
9K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K