A Theoretical About Time Freeze

[EldKatt]

If time could be sliced infinitely, how do those infinitely small parts, or zeros, add up to the movement we see? Zero times any number you care to name is still zero.

Infinitely small does not equal zero, though. Given that, your proposition doesn't really prove itself in such a foolproof logical or mathematical way as you imply.

That said, I'm not a theoretical physicist, and this topic is really way beyond my knowledge and understanding. And, to be honest, probably beyond the knowledge of pretty much everyone here AFAIK. I do not personally find it possible to "believe" anything about stuff I don't understand. The most I can do is have a rough idea of the scientific consensus, and in this case, I don't even have that. If this makes me a boring person, k, but there's enough things to speculate about that I actually can speculate about to keep me occupied, so I'm pretty happy.

[tube]

I believe that time ISN'T infinite, that time has a grain, a quanta. otherwise, how would it move?

If we're to believe some brainy people like Einstein, time is just a dimension among others. Which means it doesn't move, it is us who move through spacetime.

[monkey0506]

The way I look at it is that time isn't even a real thing.  That it's just a notion to help us understand the difference between 'then' and 'now' or two different 'thens'.

I pretty much agree with you on this point. Time isn't any type of "material" or matter that can be dealt with. Time is simply, and nothing more, an organizational tool. Which is why time-travel (as well as "stopping time") is impossible.

Time is simply a way of describing the order in which events happened. Time doesn't "pass", cannot be "stopped", and cannot be "reversed" or even "sped up".

If we looked at "time" as a sort of finite state machine, then the "passage" of time would be a way of saying "prior to state X the state was Y". Time is a way of relating past events to each other, as well as defining the order in which future events may happen (pending LIFE getting in the way ).

This is why I feel so strongly about time NOT being the 4th dimension. Saying that time is the 4th dimension would be the same as saying that we, as three-dimensional beings, are the most complex beings that could possibly exist. I am of the opinion that a three-dimensional object could not even properly exist in a four-dimensional realm. Take for example the square. A square cannot exist properly in our world. It can be represented...on paper, a three-dimensional realm...or in a digital realm projected onto a three-dimensional screen. Though the square can be represented, it cannot properly exist.

However if we look at time, we can exist in time. Here (in my "local time" in Texas, USA) it is 17:32 GMT -6:00, 24 December 2007. In one minute it will be 17:33 GMT -6:00, 24 December 2007. I am physically in existence during both these points, as well as every point in-between. I exist at every point.

Putting all this aside (due to my acceptance that a lot of this is opinion, speculation, and so forth), I still don't believe that freezing time would be possible. One thing I have always found disturbing in Hollywood films (and/or any other films for that matter) on the subject of stopping time is that the subject is often allowed to move other objects around him. Isn't time supposed to be stopped? Meaning that those things shouldn't be moving?

Even if we accept he's simply moving really, really, really fast (faster than the speed of light even), wouldn't he then set anything he touched into motion at really, really, really fast speeds? Meaning that when "normal time" is restored, these things would be moving at those same incredibly fast speeds, causing mass havoc? Even if he brought these things back to a stop again (in his "local time"), by touching it, wouldn't he still have accelerated the speed of the thing itself?

In any case (again accepting the speculation, opinion, non-knowledge, etc. and so forth), it is now "TIME" for dinner. So I'll see you all later...at another time.

[InCreator]

Thinking about it... **shudders** picture is becoming clear...!

I see time as a description of changing positions of of three-dimensional things (atoms, photons, etcetera) in three-dimensional space.

Time describes what happened to all atoms in space.

In other words, time is there only when there is movement. A CHANGE in 3D space. Something to observe.
If no atom, energy, anything, anything would move never ever, we wouldn't have time. Atleast, not sensible one.
Or theoretically, maybe no time at all. How can you describe what happened? Take something abstract, like number one. And tell me what happened to number one in hundred years... nothing. It doesn't have its own time. So maybe nothing would have time.

Therefore, I believe that time cannot be shorter than it takes for ONE, the last moving thing to relocate in space.
This makes time a LOG. A log where every single three-dimensional entities movement is logged.

Isn't that how we feel it? "I breathed, it took time", "earth made its journey across sun, it was a year", "It got darker, day is ending", "My body got another nerve impulse, therefore there must be time and I'm alive" etc?

If time was readable, it would be like
"Atom of your index finger nail number 13291542 changed it's z coordinate by 0,0001 nanometer"?
Then again, all dimensions are infinite. We use only measurable and sensible units. But matter moves in WAY smaller scale.

...Eh, or something? If ALL movement would stop, just one, tiny bit of energy or one atom would move, time had one variable to log and would be still measurable, thus exist. Actually, people try log time, it's called memory and in wider scale, history.

Thinking about this further, if there's FATE, fate should mean that time isn't simply a log, but a program. I mean, whole log and movement is preprogrammed. Or simply a finished log of movements not happened yet.

What's a dimension? A change in space. This is here and this is here. Something to measure and sense.
If time was dimension I guess it would be some kind of uberdimension, a total of previous three.

Aw. Did I just develop a theory, caught up with some other great thinker/physics for kids book or got miserably lost?

[MillsJROSS]

I agree that time is relative, in that my perception of time might be different then yours. Regardless of whether or not time exists or doesn't exist, what time does measure is change. So the question is how to natural forces of the universe deal with something that isn't changing at a normal speed? I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject, but this is how I perceive the ability to move "outside" or normal time.

In a normal universe, assuming everyone was oblivious to me robbing the store, let's say it would take me 2 minutes to rob from the store. Minutes are being measured by a clock on the wall, so assume it's 2 minutes at a global scope to the room and everyone else's normal perceptions. Now, we give ourselves the ability to perform the same actions in 1 second. using the same clock.

So we have a change of 1:120. So lets just look at something simple, like velocity. If we performed the same actions, total distance wouldn't change. Velocity equals change in distance divided by change in time. So normal velocity would be equal to x/120s, x being some constant distance, s being seconds.  You're sped up time would be x/1s. It's fairly obvious, and probably didn't even need to go into math, so see that x > x/120. So we can assume that if we're going to a certain speed we'll be hitting things at a much higher rate. I can speculate that regardless of time, assuming that my atoms are colliding with other atoms rather than just slipping past each other, it would be much harder to move.

Now let's say we look at something else. Force which is equal to mass times acceleration. I am assuming that my mass remains constant in both trials. Now without getting into numbers, I know that I am accelerating, relative to the room, much faster in the second scenario. So there will be much more force involved with every acceleration I make. Now I know gravity is a force, constantly pulling on us at 9.8 meters per second(squared). Now every action I do in the second scenario has much greater force. Since I am assuming my mass is constant, if I jump earth should be pulling me back at the same speed, relative to earth. so I should conceivably be able to leap, since I'm using more force in all of my actions, much higher than normally. So gravity is kind of offset by the amount of force it takes for all my actions.

Then we look at something like heat. Now our body gives of a certain amount of heat per our own relative time. The clock on the wall does not help us here. Our slower selves would be giving off the same amount of heat as our faster selves. And while one might argue you could freeze, assuming internally, your metabolism was moving at the same rate as you, so it's quite possible to avoid being frozen. Relative to the room though, there would be two minutes of your heat entering the room, not considering the heat produced by extra force and collisions of atoms, that would appear in one second. You'd essentially leave a heat wave.

Is any of this accurate? Perhaps. I assume that the universe is not going to change drastically just because your time is relative. You will either be changing things at a faster rate or won't. I think there are certain things that we can come to reasonable conclusions to. Of course, we have to assume certain things. We can go many routes in our assumptions. Maybe we can assume our mass changes. Regardless, we just need to make certain things constants, plug in formula's and take a stance that this is how things would be affected. I assume most things are relative to each other.

I don't think there's any use arguing on the existence of time. Even if time is an object, but for some reason nothing in the universe was moving, time wouldn't really have much meaning. It's only when we consider is purely change that it takes on some scope. We're bound to the earth, that rotates once a day. We see night we see day, we see change. If the earth didn't rotate on it's own axis (let's not consider how that would affect the weather), our perception of time might be vastly different, or at least based on some other regular happenings.

-MillsJROSS

[InCreator]

I think it would be cool if someone wrote a book on debunking all the superpowers like Increator did.

I believe that this is the guy you should be looking for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_I._Perelman

I recall reading some of his books when I was a kid, and he makes physics really interesting, yet extremely simple.
His one of favourite theme seems to be scientific approach at Jules Verne's works, all those travelling in a cannonball and slowing down time stories. He tries to compare science to those crazy stories and most of times, proves Verne wrong.
Look at last paragraph in wiki entry to see what I mean.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

No? Without atom movement your body won't LOSE heat, neither..? Makes somewhat sense to me...

Atom movement causes heat. Perfect stillness of atoms causes absolute zero, which is hundreds of degrees below Celsius.

Even I remember that much from Physics and CHemistry...

[monkey0506]

..considering that "temperature" is simply a measurement of how fast the particles in something are moving...

But then if you've frozen time, everyone else has frozen to death, but you're still moving, right? Of course the air particles around you aren't moving either, so they are freezing cold which would cause you to lose your own temperature very quickly until you too have stopped moving and you have successfully proven Zeno right!

[vict0r]

If you have actually managed to friggin' stop time, there is most likely magic involved and nothing logical and scientifically correct stuff that has been said here matters... If you are able to stop time, you are either mad or magical and you don't have anything to worry about! At least not in the time-stopping department.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

There was a game whose name I disremember in he UNderdogs which made the most sense.

All around you there's a little bubble in which time keeps tickin'. It moves with you.

Made for interesting things, as you passed frozen people and they woke up. One of them was hurling himself from a bridge because of a time-bomb. You saw the guy jumo just as you passed... and anytime you passed the bomb, it ticked closer to the big BOOM.