• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Time Stops . . . . . . . . . Or Not

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think it has something to do with entropy, but I don’t know much beyond that.
Entropy is sometimes called the "arrow of time".
This is because no process is reversible with 100%
efficiency (on the macro level). Id est, there are always
inefficiencies resulting in loss of available energy.
In short...everything runs down. If time were to reverse,
it would mean violating the laws of thermodynamics.

An example....
When you're on a swing, each up & down cycle
results in friction with air & within the rope, which
is lost as heat to the environment. This heat is
at a temperature which won't allow the energy to
be recovered. So your swing amplitude & speed
inexorably decrease. All processes work this way.

Parenthetical aside....
I did once experience what stoppage of time would
feel like. It happened about 2 hours into the movie,
The Irishman.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
I'm inclined to say time would stop.
Subatomic particles? Do they "move," in the commonly understood sense?
Electrons move around their nucleus.

As has already been pointed out, subatomic particles don't really move in the sense of following classical trajectories and the condition of everything being exactly "stopped" is forbidden by the uncertainty principle.
Imagination dear ratiocinator. Imagination.

66, member: 68141"]Define time.[/QUOTE]
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I tend to think the scientific definition of time is vastly different from the popular chronological definition of time.

"Scientific definitions for time
A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. ... A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated."

Popular definition of time
"The duration in which all things happen,"

.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Imagination dear ratiocinator. Imagination.

You can imagine a universe in which "stopping" everything is possible and one in which you could do so simultaneously for all observers but, since neither are possible in our universe, it's not going to tell us anything at all about the nature of time in our reality.

You might as well just imagine a universe in which time was only defined by "motion" and be done with it.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If time halted such
that this relationship disappeared (eg, all motion of all things ceased) then
the question of time stopping wouldn't even apply.
You seem to have the cause and effect reversed. In my question things didn't stop moving because time stopped, but does time stop because things stopped moving?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
You can imagine a universe in which "stopping" everything is possible and one in which you could do so simultaneously for all observers but, since neither are possible in our universe, it's not going to tell us anything at all about the nature of time in our reality.

You might as well just imagine a universe in which time was only defined by "motion" and be done with it.
Well, I tried.

.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You seem to have the cause and effect reversed. In my question things didn't stop moving because time stopped, but does time stop because things stopped moving?
No reversal...I'm saying they're one & the same.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Do they, though?
Perhaps "move around" is a bit misleading.

"In atomic theory and quantum mechanics, an atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons in an atom."
Source: Wikipedia



"In 1924, a French physicist named Louis de Broglie suggested that, like light, electrons could act as both particles and waves. De Broglie's hypothesis was soon confirmed in experiments that showed electron beams could be diffracted or bent as they passed through a slit much like light could. So, the waves produced by an electron confined in its orbit about the nucleus sets up a standing wave of specific wavelength, energy and frequency (i.e., Bohr's energy levels) much like a guitar string sets up a standing wave when plucked.

Another question quickly followed de Broglie's idea. If an electron traveled as a wave, could you locate the precise position of the electron within the wave? A German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, answered no in what he called the uncertainty principle:

We can never know both the momentum and position of an electron in an atom. Therefore, Heisenberg said that we shouldn't view electrons as moving in well-defined orbits about the nucleus!"
source

.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Time is always moving forward?
Maybe it only seems that way
If it didn't, shouldn't we see the Universe collapsing rather than expanding?

Wouldn't we have to put everything upside down? So after humans are dead, somehow the dinosaurs will rise, which is then weird why we find their fossils... Not really sure how it would work if time didn't go forward, but I reckon that we would be able to figure it out rather fast :D
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If it didn't, shouldn't we see the Universe collapsing rather than expanding?

Wouldn't we have to put everything upside down? So after humans are dead, somehow the dinosaurs will rise, which is then weird why we find their fossils... Not really sure how it would work if time didn't go forward, but I reckon that we would be able to figure it out rather fast :D
There is nothing in Relativity that supports the arrow of time. It's experientially validated, but not mathematically.
In fact, as I understand it, there's nothing in theoretical physics barring time from running backwards. :confused:
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
There is nothing in Relativity that supports the arrow of time. It's experientially validated, but not mathematically.
In fact, as I understand it, there's nothing in theoretical physics barring time from running backwards. :confused:
I have no clue, I find time to be extremely weird in general :D
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There is nothing in Relativity that supports the arrow of time. It's experientially validated, but not mathematically.
In fact, as I understand it, there's nothing in theoretical physics barring time from running backwards. :confused:
Gravity waves increase entropy, which is the arrow of time.
Perhaps frame dragging would do it too, if the rotating body had other bodies in orbit.
It's all far above my pay grade....so treat these as ignorant speculation.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
There is nothing in Relativity that supports the arrow of time. It's experientially validated, but not mathematically.
In fact, as I understand it, there's nothing in theoretical physics barring time from running backwards. :confused:
You mean like this?


>
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
If absolutely everything in the universe, from supernovae to subatomic particles, stopped moving for a minute (and no, don't ask how it could happen or be measured) would time have stopped for that minute?
Would it continue if one singular subatomic particle kept moving? If so, could time then be said to be dependent on the movement of such a tiny, unexceptional object?

.

Could a consciousness perceive it?

I only ask because time itself is a measurement. It’s what a clock reads. The intervals between common cyclical cosmic events are what we call time. The interval between birth and death is what we call time.
 
Top