Definition of Time

Epileptics call it 'absence'.

time is always combine in the memory.when you do not have a memory,you have not time with respect to you.therefore i said we do not have defin only time.but we can defin time and memory.

According to Wikipedia, 5.4 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s – the Planck time, is the earliest time after the Big Bang that theoretical physics can describe. About this time gravity is presumed to have separated from the other three fundamental forces. There are no shorter physically meaningful times according to current theories of physics.

As of 2006, the smallest unit of time that has been measured is on the attosecond (10 ^{− 18}) timescale - or around 10²⁶ Planck times. ^[2][3]

Using today's knowledge: the smallest possible distacnce is the Planck. The fastest possible speed is the speed of light.

Time=dist/speed Plug in the values for these 2 constants.

The smallest unit of time is "minfinitey" (new word? May I own it for at least 1 minfinite)

Absolutely right, as far as I know. I looked this up for a post asking about the "speed of rubber". I believe its called quanta though.

Here's the link where I found it.

http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae598.cfm

Query on #2 and #14 - where does the 5.4 come from? I understand Planck length L_p = 10^-35 m and c = 3*10⁸ m/sec, giving L_p/c ~ 3.33*10^-44 sec.

Wangito asked: "How would you define the "absolute shortest measurable time laps" ?"

The short answer is: "I simply don't know!"

The long answer is: "Ask me again once quantum gravity is understood!" or read this Wikipedia article on Planck units.

The 'neutral' answer is: "It depends on what you mean by "absolute shortest measurable time laps"??

Jorrie wrote: "The 'neutral' answer is: "It depends on what you mean by "absolute shortest measurable time laps"??"

If you think about the question from the perspective of a dyslexic NASCAR driver, it all becomes very clear.

-e

Ok let's say we accept that, a photon moves in steps and length of step is equal to plank length.

And the time taken to cover the plank length is the shortest possible time, this means a photon can not travel half or quarter of plank length.

Now I have a case, let's say I keep an object at a distance of 100.5 plank length from a light source.

What is going to be time taken by photon from light source to object?

Will it strike on object?

If yes then is it violating the said theory?

Where will it go after traveling that 100 plank unit distances.

If time and space are quantized and the shortest distance is a plank then by definition you couldn't be 100.5 planks away from the light source. You would need to be either 100 or 101 planks away.

Thats what My question is.

You say

"You would need to be either 100 or 101 planks away".

this means distance is also quantized.

means dimensions are quantized too. mass is created from certain dimensions. so mass is too quantized. and you keep on thinking its neverending.

isn't it?

Back in post no #8, which due to the vagaries of space and time in CR4 come after this, I asked whether space and time were quantized and if they were how would you be able to prove it and measure the quanta.

Is that like:

Want to see the quickest draw in the West?

Want to see it again?

I think the poster is probably speaking of a definition that applies universally. Regrettably, Quick Draws (and I must say yours was most impressive indeed!) only work in the West.

Don't even think of trying that in New York City.

-e

I agree with jorrie that "we really don't know"

But this question is not only applicable for time.take a meter scale and try to devide it in smallest and it is never ending.

what is smallest particle?

We may know something today but don't know if there is anything else smaller.

I am not sure if Wangito is asking this but its an interesting thought.

Since matter and energy by is correlation with matter exist in defined quanta dose time exist in defined quanta? If this were so is there some way we could prove it and find out what the smallest quanta of time could be?

This could be an extremely daft question but I thought I would ask it anyway.

Masu there was a time when atom was considered a smallest sigle unit that was not divisable.

today we are far ahead.

when we talk about the quantum of energy in terms of photons then it only repersent light and thermal enegry.

what about others.

Someone raises a pc of stone by one meter and its potential energy increases by mgh. now my question is how do you relate it with quantum of enery? I really dont know.

who know may be a quanta of today is made of sub quanta of 2moro.

Even though we know that the atom is not the smallest amount of matter mater is still made up of finite particles. Therefore even though the height you raise the matter through in not quantized the amount of matter you raise is quantized meaning you can only increase the energy by the height times the smallest quanta of matter. This is similar to photons of light having different amounts of energy defined by the frequency which is infinitely variable but light is still quantized. Can we also be sure that distance itself is not quantized?

I'm probarbly wrong, but according to quantum mechnics, - 5.4 × 10⁻⁴⁴ seconds, the minus Planck time, is the shortest theorethical time period?

In those time regions, the cause to a happening can show up after the happening has happened!

Regards,

Jonas

How would you define the "absolute shortest measurable time laps" ?

In the words of the most famous Vulcan of all,

"Your question is illogical".

Or at least wrongly stated or misspelled.

In racing terms, a lap is one circuit around the race track. The shortest time would then depend on the type of race and the length of the circuit.

If you're asking about time lapse, then it's a whole different question...to which I don't know the answer. If it were up to my math teacher, any answer I give is still far too large since the smallest time measureable is infinite.

UUUUPS, Thanks Vulcan, It took me far more than the shortest measurable time to catch that spelling mistake, which I probably would never catch if not for you. You got my ear sir. The real two answers to this thread are coming shortly. Hang on, guys....I won't leave you high and dry.

Wangito.

I have given up on worrying about spelling errors. Most of the threads I read are riddled with them. If I read carefully I can usually get the correct meaning out of them anyway. Besides, I have also read some threads which seem to minimize the importance of said errors to the point where it almost seems rude to point them out. Personally, I think that precision in communication needs to be something to which we should all aspire. Compensating for the perpetual prescence of human error requires constant vigilence, lest we succumb to the forces of apathy upon reaching the point of no return on the journey to intellectual anarchy. That's a trip I don't think any of us want to take.

The universes are perpetual. You start with a blackhole it breaks through to the beginning of the next parallel universe bubble, and goes the circle of life. Start at ZERO then its all reative from there.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 etc........

kcj

which came first

physicists at CERN have recently proposed that exceeding the speed of light is a real possibility, superluminous, I believe was the term. would this mean that time could actually go "backwards". Which would mean that there is no "absolute" in regards to time.

Hi All, Here's a tough one:

How would you define the "absolute shortest measurable time laps" ?

Wangito.

Wangito, that one is no challenge at all. Get smart with a PMS'ing bar maid and see how long it takes for her to snap a reply...george oerther oertg@aol.com

The largest number for which we have a name is a Googleplex, which is 10 to the hundred to the hundred power.The reciprocal of the Googleplex should be the smallest unit for which we have a name, whatever that is, so the smallest unit of measurement that we can attach a name to would be 1 over Googleplex units.That comes out to a decimal point with 9,9999 zeros to the right, followed by a 1.

Any suggestions for the name of this unit?

Xelpelgoog? Can you say (Zel-PEL-GOOG?) sounds like a city in China.

Whoops! I think I sprang a leak in my Jeffry Tubes, and the Tachyon Pulses are bombarding the Dilithiium Crystals.If the magnetic shields are compromised in the matter-antimatter reactor we are all toast.A time-warp has altered our mental states, causing a sense of deja moo.

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."- Groucho Marx

That doesn't sound any more ridiculous than OHM, and MHO.Maybe you can own this term for a little while.

OK guys here we go:

In physics, the shortest time is the time it takes a photon to travel one Planck length, and it is, as several of you correctly said, 5.39X10^-44S. A dumb question will be, if so how long would it take a photon to travel half of one Planck length? (hell, how would I know?). However, this the theoretical expression and it was not measured. The absolute shortest time measured (as of today) is the attosecond (10^-18), which is approximately 10²⁶ Planck.

I had two reasons to start this thread: First one is that I found an interesting definition in an old Greek philosophy book. How about that: "The shortest time would be the time short enough to not let any event, be it of any nature, to start." This simple philosophical definition, supports very well the big-bang theory, that this event happened outside of any time scale, Time, gravity etc, appeared later.

The second reason for this thread is that I know the real answer to it: It starts back in Iran of 1977 where I did some work, and there the Iranians taught me the exact definition of the absolute shortest time lapse: "This is the time the traffic light changes from red to yellow and first Iranian driver who blows his horn." A photon is a snail in comparison.

Wangito

I always thought traffic lights changed from green to yellow...

-e

Not in Iran sir,

Wangito

But of course. My apologies.

-e

I noticed when I was in Germany, that the traffic signals changed from green to yellow to red when signaling for a stop, and then from red to yellow to green when it was time to go again. I presume it's the same in Iran.

I think the New York Second is shorter. This is the time taken from the green light coming on to the New York taxi driver's horn sounding. This is usually slightly before the light is on, and so has a negative time value. This is clearly a case of the future effecting the present.

Answer me this! Why is it that bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of checks?

The bills wanna be there to welcome the checks?

-e

Hey Euroupium,

What happened to your avatar?

Ole redneck dish out more than you could take?, or you getting diaper rash on your neck?

Just curious.

-e has left the building...

Duh!! Time, time,let me see...oh yea, I remember now

"Parsley sage, Rosemary and Time" and somethin about a fair....

Do I get the prize now?

TIME is EMIT spelled backwards.

EMYHT is THYME spelled backwards. Also DROF is FORD spelled backwards and stands for Driver Returns On Foot.

How dare you sir! I insist you take it all back, or it shall be duelling pistols at dawn! Just because on a quite night you can here a Ford rusting.

Someone told me that FORD spelled backwards is FROD. Or am I missing something?

Wangito