Thread: Stopping Time

I'm not sure exactly where to put this thread, as it doesn't seem to me to be pseudoscience. Rather, it seems more like a conclusion drawn from various assumed truths about Time. Anyway, here it is.

For the sake of this argument, I have assumed that the definition of Time is simply:

Time is a measure of change.

As Time is a measure of change, to stop Time would be to make nothing change. No movement or transfer of energy in any way.

If Time is started again, i.e. things start to change, there will have been no space of Time between the time that Time was stopped and the time that Time was started again, because Time was stopped between the two events. Therefore to any observer Time did not stop.

My conclusion from this is that Time can only ever stop if it never starts again.

What do you think? Is this wrong, obvious...or enlightening?

Sounds like the heat death of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_de...Current_status

I'll have to dig it up, but there was an interesting experiment done where someone tried firing a laser through cryogenicaly frozen material. Supposedly, they actually got the laser beam to stop for a moment in the material, and then let it start moving again.

Originally Posted by kojax

I'll have to dig it up, but there was an interesting experiment done where someone tried firing a laser through cryogenicaly frozen material. Supposedly, they actually got the laser beam to stop for a moment in the material, and then let it start moving again.

I don't see how that would even be measurable or logical.

kojax, that sounds very interesting. I would appreciate it if you could 'dig it up' for us

But this whole idea does beg the question: Does Time exist? Or is it simply an abstract creation by the observer?

Originally Posted by Hazz

kojax, that sounds very interesting. I would appreciate it if you could 'dig it up' for us

But this whole idea does beg the question: Does Time exist? Or is it simply an abstract creation by the observer?

Yes it exists. Just because nobody recorded it, formally observed it or measured it in the past, doesn't mean it didn't pass. Otherwise you could argue that all the time that passed before a creature came along that measured it happened in the blink of an eye, which mucks with many other hypothesis', theories and laws.

Keep in mind that this discussion is assuming that the statement

Time is simply a measure of change.

is true.

Therefore Time passes if things change. So Time does not have to be 'observed' to be known to have passed, all that is required is a knowledge that things have changed. What seems undefined is the rate of Time, and how to measure it. Does an acceleration in the rate of change mean an acceleration in Time?

well that's more of PERCEPTION of time, isn't it?

Originally Posted by mormoopid

well that's more of PERCEPTION of time, isn't it?

Yes, it is, but how can we be sure that the passing of Time is experienced in anything other than sentient life? The universe doesn't remember things. And if it is not experienced, how can it be proved to exist?

sedimentology, stratigraphy, phylogeny, etc etc do though.

I truely can't answer half the people who post in psueodoscience at this site because half of it to me doesn't make sense, however, this thread begs to be answered properly.

Time is absolutely relative to observers. From a Cosmological Viewpoint, there is no measure of change in the internal energy of the universe (the Wheeler-De Witt Equation) - however, only from within can we have observers who measure energy and it's conjugate time (which is Noethers Theorem) shows us that depending on whether you look at it from a cosmological viewpoint or one from the internal structure of the universe, time takes on different roles.

It is quite enlightening and I beleive this is true, but I also beleive that there are other ways that you could stop time or at least have the illusion that time is stopped. Here are a two of my theorized ways that you could cause the illusion that time is stopped, but it is only oving slowly:

1) Moving extremely fast ( I mean REALLY fast!!! )) so that everything around you has the illusion that it is moving VERY slowly.

2) Being very Very VERY small. This would make it seem that all of the little motions that you make seem normal and your brain react faster and the gigantic movements around you seem slow.

Originally Posted by Schemmy888

It is quite enlightening and I beleive this is true, but I also beleive that there are other ways that you could stop time or at least have the illusion that time is stopped. Here are a two of my theorized ways that you could cause the illusion that time is stopped, but it is only oving slowly:

1) Moving extremely fast ( I mean REALLY fast!!! )) so that everything around you has the illusion that it is moving VERY slowly.

2) Being very Very VERY small. This would make it seem that all of the little motions that you make seem normal and your brain react faster and the gigantic movements around you seem slow.

Well relativity predicts you cannot slow down time completely, but you can come dead close to it around a strong enough gravitational field. If you like, you can look at relativity from a photons point of view, and a photon does not even experience time change at all! It does not even go anywhere, or even do anything!