When Time Stops Running for Awhile

[Curious George]

What different points of view are there?

.

Well there is the flowers point of view, the is a point of view from outside the flower but inside the universe, and there is a point of view from outside the universe. There is at least three probably many more. The point of view from the flower would not register time because that would necssitate change. The other points of view are not limited by this.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Theoretically you could have an asynchronous parallel universe which can somehow measure entropic time of their neighbors, but it would be from the asynchronous universe's perspective, not the in-universe stuck without/absent time reference.

Also:

 

[Polymath257]

Could space exist without time? Are not the two inextricably linked? In which case the question is irrelevant. As long as there is space there is time, it doesn't matter if everything is frozen on a molecular level, just means there is nobody to witness or experience the phenomenon. Change is not time is it? I'm not making a statement, I don't think I have it straight in my head to be honest. If anyone does please share!

The OP sounds a bit like a rephrasing of the old "if a tree falls in a forest when nobody is around, does it make a noise?" question. The answer to that is easy; yes! Just stick a microphone in a forest and sooner or later you will probably hear a tree falling without being there!

And this is one of the difficulties of such thought experiments. To stop *everything* requires being at a temperature of absolute zero (actually, some quantum activity is present even then), and that requires an infinite amount of energy to be extracted.

So even the scenario violates the possibilities of the laws of physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Does time require measurement to pass? Does time require a reference?

As described below, space and time are part of a single geometry. Time doesn't really 'pass', but entropy increases along the direction of increasing time. Our memories are determined by the direction of entry increase.

 

[DavidFirth]

Why would I? In as much as you chose to ignore me, I chose to remind you.

.

I'm just trying to get along with you, as difficult as that may be to do.

 

[Erebus]

To the best of my knowledge, nobody's entirely sure what time actually is.

It appears to be at least partially a construct of individual perception. The passage of time as experienced by somebody sleeping is different to that experienced by somebody who's awake for example. The other part is the flow of time in terms of movement regardless of perception, as has been mentioned already regarding movement down to the atomic level.

So if all movement were to freeze and nothing capable of perceiving time existed, we could certainly argue that time has stopped, at least insofar as we fallible mortal creatures are able to interpret it.

What I don't know is whether this interpretation of time is complete or whether time has a quality (or qualities) that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend.

 

[Polymath257]

To the best of my knowledge, nobody's entirely sure what time actually is.

It appears to be at least partially a construct of individual perception. The passage of time as experienced by somebody sleeping is different to that experienced by somebody who's awake for example. The other part is the flow of time in terms of movement regardless of perception, as has been mentioned already regarding movement down to the atomic level.

So if all movement were to freeze and nothing capable of perceiving time existed, we could certainly argue that time has stopped, at least insofar as we fallible mortal creatures are able to interpret it.

What I don't know is whether this interpretation of time is complete or whether time has a quality (or qualities) that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend.

No, time is NOT just a matter of our personal perception. For example, when you watch a movie, the pictures are flashed up sequentially, but you see the action as continuous. But there is a time between frames that is actually fairly long, but below your ability to perceive.

The same happens in computer screens. There is a slight period of time between updates to your computer screen that is part of the engineering of your computer. You don't perceive it, but it is definitely there, measurable, controllable, and part of how the universe works.

 

[Nakosis]

How do you know it's irrelevant? Fact is, this particular flower, the Timeless Tulip of Tralee needs to go completely motionless for three minutes in order to survive.

In your scenario, everything stops. In which case there's be no detectable passage of time.

It's like say, our universe had to completely stop and remain unchanged for "three minutes" between each second. It could be 3 minutes, 3 years, 3 million years. Our universe would have no knowledge of that because during that period nothing changed. It could be happening right now but as far as this universe is concerned no time passed during that period of inactivity.

It's only a figure of speech.

Sorry, posting out loud.y

 

[Erebus]

No, time is NOT just a matter of our personal perception.

Erm, how did you get that from what I posted?

 

[Polymath257]

Erm, how did you get that from what I posted?

From your focus on dreams and other aspects of our perception of time flow.

 

[Erebus]

From your focus on dreams and other aspects of our perception of time flow.

Right...

It appears to be at least partially a construct of individual perception. The passage of time as experienced by somebody sleeping is different to that experienced by somebody who's awake for example. The other part is the flow of time in terms of movement regardless of perception, as has been mentioned already regarding movement down to the atomic level.

The first part of this focused on perception of time, something that hadn't been touched on as much (I also didn't mention dreams at all but okay). The underlined part focuses on time as it occurs regardless of perception. The bold part was my way of trying to avoid repeating what had already been said.

Look, I get that conversation online doesn't always translate well but it honestly threw me a bit that what I said could be taken to mean that time is only a matter of perception.

 

[Polymath257]

Right...




The first part of this focused on perception of time, something that hadn't been touched on as much (I also didn't mention dreams at all but okay). The underlined part focuses on time as it occurs regardless of perception. The bold part was my way of trying to avoid repeating what had already been said.

Look, I get that conversation online doesn't always translate well but it honestly threw me a bit that what I said could be taken to mean that time is only a matter of perception.

OK, fair enough. I have seen that claimed often enough to make that mistake.

I am sorry for misunderstanding your intent.

 

[Erebus]

OK, fair enough. I have seen that claimed often enough to make that mistake.

I am sorry for misunderstanding your intent.

Hey, no problem!

It just caught me off guard a little is all

 

[Skwim]

In your scenario, everything stops. In which case there's be no detectable passage of time.

It's like say, our universe had to completely stop and remain unchanged for "three minutes" between each second. It could be 3 minutes, 3 years, 3 million years.

Yes it is like saying our universe had to completely stop and remain unchanged for "three minutes" between each second. The only difference being the complexity of the universes. Our universe is exceedingly complex while the universe of the single flower is exceedingly simple.

Our universe would have no knowledge of that because during that period nothing changed. It could be happening right now but as far as this universe is concerned no time passed during that period of inactivity.
y

In what sense would our universe have knowledge? And correspondingly, in what sense would the flower have knowledge?

.

 

[Nakosis]

In what sense would our universe have knowledge? And correspondingly, in what sense would the flower have knowledge?.

In the sense of time passage.
In a completely external system. As an observer from this external system (assuming Earth since a minute is only relative to the rotation of the Earth) where change is still happening. Time would have stopped in the system you were observing.

That's why time is relative. Not because time slows down but because change slows down.

As you move faster relatively, since all change is occurring slower, whatever change you are using to measure time occurs slower.

 

[Skwim]

In the sense of time passage.

No! No! No! That's only the subject of the knowing, not the sense (manner) of knowing.

.

 

[Nakosis]

No! No! No! That's only the subject of the knowing, not the sense (manner) of knowing.

.

There no manner of knowing without change.
I think this was all pretty much succinctly pointed out by Polymath257 back in post #4

 

[VioletVortex]

Time can't "stop running" as it is relative to nothing but itself...think about it. Dimensional concepts like space and time are purely self-defined, they have nothing to be relative to. A cease in anything would entail the existence of time, so theoretically, if time were to stop, we would face total annihilation, having never been. It's a paradox that would be impossible, though.

 

[Skwim]

Time can't "stop running" as it is relative to nothing but itself...think about it.

Hmmm. Most here argue that time is defined by change, and would say it's indeed relative to change. No change: no time. However, if I understand you, change is not at all necessary for time to exist. So what's the nature of time if there's no change?

Dimensional concepts like space and time are purely self-defined, they have nothing to be relative to.

And what's your definition of time?

.

 

[idav]

The reference would be the immediate past wherein the flower is known to have gone motionless for three minutes in its growth cycle.

.

Timeless is not the same as motionless, there is no motionless just a difference reference frame from an observer point of view. For intents and purposes, to the observer, the flower is motionless but it can't be the case, it just seems like it.