[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateTime is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

[edit]

Please Change Current View to Submitted View:

Current View: The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time.

Submitted View: The operational definition of measured time does not address what the fundamental nature of Time is. The operational definition of measured Time does not address why changes/events can happen, or whether they can happen forwards and backwards in spacetime. Physicists operationally define measured time as the progression of changes/events from the past to the present into the future. Change is all about the comparison of something made different to what it currently is; the act or instance of making or becoming different, whether physically or temporally respectively. Consequently, if a system is changing, it has an operational measure of time. Alternatively, if a system is unchanging, it has no operational measure of time. In our world the happening of changes/events assumes that there is an 'arrow of time'. You cannot change something backwards, due to the theory of causality. Operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for measured change.

However the fundamental nature of Time is best expressed as the providing for the allowance/potential of change. Basically, Time is a constituent of spacetime and it is all around us. Time is considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe changes/events in three-dimensional space. Yet it is not something we can see, touch, or taste, but we can measure its passage. The approach of philosophy to Time differs from that of physics. Whenever these differences are disregarded there is a danger to use the same term for differently perceived phenomena and then false conclusions may be drawn. In general, physics operates with actual time concepts, whilst philosophy generally considers time as a potential form of existence.[1]. Sjbauer121552 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Sjbauer121552 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Buccheri, R. (2003). The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Chapter:Potential and Actual Time Concepts: KJuwer Academic Publishers. p. 417. ISBN 978-1-4020-1201-3.
 Not done: That is too much detail for the lead. Further elaborations exist in the body of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When will the edit be published in Wikipedia?
If it its is too much detail, the second paragraph can be moved to be a separate subsection [The Nature of Time] under either the section of Philosophy or Perception.
If so, do I have to provide for another edit? How do I proceed? Sjbauer121552 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add new subsection "The Fundamental Nature of Time" under section "Philosophy"

[edit]

Please Add Submitted View to 'Philosophy' section:

Submitted View: The Fundamental Nature of Time The operational definition of measured Time does not address what the fundamental nature of Time is. The fundamental nature of Time is best represented as the allowance/potential of change. Basically, Time is a dimensional constituent of the modeling for spacetime and it is all around us. Dimensionally modeled Time is considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe changes/events in three-dimensional space. And while we can indirectly experience the reality of temporal differences, the nature of Time is not something we can immediately comprehend via our five senses. The approach of philosophy to Time differs from that of physics. Whenever these differences are disregarded there is a danger to use the same term for differently perceived phenomena and then false conclusions may be drawn. In general, physics operates with actual time concepts, whilst philosophy generally considers time as a potential form of existence.[1]

The dynamic of 'change' is all about the comparison of something made different to what it currently is; the act or instance of making or becoming different, whether physically or temporally respectively. Consequently, if a system is changing, it has an operational measure of time. In our world the happening of changes/events assumes that there is an 'arrow of time'. You cannot change something backwards, due to the theory of causality. Operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for a measured change. However, the measured change/event only happens within the calculable measure of our conscious memory.

Alternatively, if a system is unchanging, it has no operational measure of time. Non-operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for the allowance/potential of change. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential transition does exist. The definition of potentiality is the ability to develop or come into existence. Therefore, the nature of Time is its relative potentiality; potential to transition into a Present Time existence from a Past Time reality. Also referred to in philosophical presentism, reality can only be realized as existent in Present Time, it is only the duration of measured Time that is the illusion.Sjbauer121552 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Buccheri, R. (2003). The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Chapter: Potential and Actual Time Concepts: KJuwer Academic Publishers. p. 417. ISBN 978-1-4020-1201-3.

Incorrect phrasing (31 July 24)

[edit]

Hello. I'm not used to complex modifications in Wikipedia, so I prefer to put my remark here.

In the "Definition" section, it is written that "Events can be separated in many directions in space, but if two events are separated by time, then one event must precede the other, and all observers will agree on this."

This seems to be incorrect, or at least misleading for a non-expert. Indeed, the time-separation claim is correct only for two events which are in their respective light-cones, for which the notion of past an future is unambiguous. I.e., if they are separated by a time interval. This is not anymore the case if they are out of their respective light-cone, i.e., separated by a space interval.

2A01:CB18:92E:2E00:7591:83A:C2DA:FF73 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is necessarily as misleading as you describe: certainly, two observers would need to be in the same light-cone to be able to agree or otherwise ascertain anything meaningful? That is, for every possible observer where the notion of agreement is physically meaningful, this will be the case. Remsense诉 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that sentence. I am not clear on what you think is incorrect or misleading. I will break it down. Here is what I wrote
1. Events can be separated by space or by time. (or as a special case be directly on the light cone, which is both, but I left this out for simplicity).
2. If two events are separated by time, then one event must precede the other and all observers will agree on this. (This is a proposition of special relativity - in general relativity it is not quite true as there are closed timelike curves but no such curves have been observed empirically)
Here is what you wrote:
1. "The time-separation claim is correct only for two events which are in their respective light-cones" - I am not sure how an event can be outside its own light cone? The light cone is defined relative to the event. So this boils down to "The time-separation claim is correct."
2. "The notion of past and future is unambiguous." - not quite, as mentioned there are the CTC's which have never been observed. But if you fix a point on such a loop then past and future are unambiguous.
3. "If they are out of their respective light-cone, i.e., separated by a space interval, they are not separated by a time interval." (paraphrased) - this is logically equivalent to my (1) Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer to me.
First, let me say that I had in mind how unfamiliar readers would read the text, not experts. This maybe caused some confusion.
I have in mind an example as the sun stopping to shine. The sun is at a bit more than 8 light-minutes. Now, let say that I'm on Earth, and I describe this event with Minkowski coordinates centered at me now, for which the sun stops to shine at 30s (for instance). This is typically a case where this event is not in the future of the event "here and now for me", from a special relativity view, which is typically what could be confusing for an unfamiliar reader.
In this context, I think that I fundamentally misunderstood the current wording. From you answer, I now understand that you used separated in space for space interval, and separated in time for time interval, which was not obvious for me. In this case, I agree with your wording. However, as the previous sentences were talking about time as a coordinate, and then time as measured by the clock of each observer, I didn't understand it that way, and had the impression that the example I just gave could be encompassed in "Events can be separated in many directions in space, but if two events are separated by time", since for my Minkowski coordinates, they are separated by time (in addition to being separated by space).
For the first answer, I would refer to my example, where the two events "here and now for me" and "sun stops shinning" are not in the same lightcone.
For the second answer, I hope I have solved our mutual misunderstanding: I was indeed mostly reading "time" as "time coordinate in Minkowski". You're right, I let aside the possibility of CTC. For the events being "in their respective light-cone", it was a bad phrasing for "each one is in the lightcone of the other".
Now, if you think I'm only nitpicking, and I could understand it, no problem :) But if you agree with this potential misreading, maybe a slight modification of the wording could change it.
But overall, it's interesting to see that this confusion was mostly due to a bad understanding of what we meant by "time" on the "time" article of wikipedia... Maybe it was also caused by the fact that I learned this topic in French, and that the exact wording we use cannot be literally translated.
Sincerely 2A01:CB04:CC5:3000:9110:32D1:7FC5:9A21 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me see if I understand. The goal here is naturally to make the explanation as un-WP:TECHNICAL as possible while still being correct with the current understanding in physics. So let's turn to your example first. As suggested in the paragraph, every event is assigned time and position coordinates. For simplicity I will use only one position coordinate and assume nothing moves, so observer and place coincide. Let's say you are at position 0 and the sun is at position 8*60=480 light seconds. Then at time t=30 seconds you observe that the sun stops shining. In other words, these are 3 events:
  • (t=0,x=0) - here and now
  • (t=-450,x=480) - sun stops shining
  • (t=30,x=0) - you observe the sun stops shining
Now in some sense the sun stopping shining and your observation of it are just different coordinates for the same event - this is the principle of relativity, that time coordinates are not absolute but are a function of the observer. Then regarding space vs. time separation, it should be clear that since (30,0) is in the future of (0,0) that the "sun stops shining" event is separated from your current "here and now" reference event by space - although you will observe it in the future after it has happened, it is not causally in your past or future. This situation should be what you meant by "not in their respective light-cones". Now regarding the time coordinate I guess you could say that -450 is less than 0 but generally it is meaningless to compare coordinates like that - I would not say that any of these events are separated by time besides (0,0) and (30,0).
I think the issue is that there are in fact two definitions of time operating here. First is time as a coordinate, as measured by the clock of each observer. Then there is time as causality, a poset based on the relation "is caused by". This is a more philosophical notion. It is true that if you have a clock that measures the time of two events, the earlier event causally precedes the other, but this causal definition extends to situations where precise clock coordinates are not present. It would be good to find some sources for this section. There is this paper which just rattles off a theorem "Thus, the causal structure poset (M, ≺) of a future and past distinguishing spacetime is equivalent to its conformal geometry." but maybe it is too technical. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there is a little problem here. "Events separated by time" seems to be an attempt at nontechnically talking about "events separated by time-like intervals", which is the standard, correct phrasing and which thrives in the literature. I have never seen the shortened form in the literature in its relevant context. Of course the problem is how to talk about a highly technical subject in a nontechnical way.
A well-targeted Google search gives this:
Google Search Scholar Books
observer events "separated by time" 9.370 411
In most instances the string "separated by time" is immediately followed by "-like" or " -like", so that does not count, but I found at least one relevant source that explicitly uses the string from the article:
And it gives a neat explanation to boot. So I have added it to the article and italicised the term to mark its hidden technical nature: [1] - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good source, it still doesn't support what I said though as it ends up defining the intervals as time or space -like. I have revised the whole thing, to add the earlier source I linked - let me know what you think. It should at least be clearer although I fear the wikilinks may make it seem more technical. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time&oldid=1247276029"