is the maths or physics of time wrong

TX123

We take time as a general concept but if you think of this example :
Take a second. between that second you have milli, micro, nano, pic, etc all the way to an infinitely small number. So does that mean that time does not exist as we perceive it to? But then you have the ageing process which is change of reactions which depend on "time" or does it? comments much appreciated

Professor_Fink

TX123 wrote: »

We take time as a general concept but if you think of this example :
Take a second. between that second you have milli, micro, nano, pic, etc all the way to an infinitely small number. So does that mean that time does not exist as we perceive it to? But then you have the ageing process which is change of reactions which depend on "time" or does it? comments much appreciated

In short no.

A longer answer would be that it is perfectly ok to use real numbers for time (as opposed to integers). We do exactly the same thing with space. In fact, Newtons laws rely on time being continuous rahter than discrete (hence all the calculus). The label "second" isn't really important, we just need to choose to fixed points in time and can define that interval as a unit with which we can measure any length of time.

As a side point, it is quite possible that time and space are discrete. Beyond the Plank scale, we simply do not know. Some researchers think that time is discretized in units of the planck time, and space discretized in units of the planck length, although we do not yet have a firm answer.

mawk

you could take the pratchet interpretation of time and accept that the is no such thing as the progression of time and that the universe is actually destroyed and re-created every planck time (5.391 24(27) × 10−44 s)



its also interesting to think of time from 2 dimensions above. you picked time as being cross sectional because it is the dimension above your ease of preception. if science was a little different you could see all of time at once and the 5th dimension would seem to be passing in planck duration cross sections. seeing as how time is simply another axis it is exactly as important to consider the space between planck metres and say that length as we understand it does not exist

I could fumble the explanation but this might be easier.

vibe666

all i know is that if it wasn't for time, everything would happen all at once.

Morbert

mawk wrote: »

you could take the pratchet interpretation of time and accept that the is no such thing as the progression of time and that the universe is actually destroyed and re-created every planck time (5.391 24(27) × 10−44 s)



its also interesting to think of time from 2 dimensions above. you picked time as being cross sectional because it is the dimension above your ease of preception. if science was a little different you could see all of time at once and the 5th dimension would seem to be passing in planck duration cross sections. seeing as how time is simply another axis it is exactly as important to consider the space between planck metres and say that length as we understand it does not exist

I could fumble the explanation but this might be easier.

That is an absolutely horrible video, and I would recommend disregarding everything it says.

The idea of dimensions is best understood in terms of relativity (i.e. Linear algebra and, if you're feeling ambitious, differential geometry)