It seems to me that if "time" was a thing, it would be universal and need to be measured with a system of numbers, other than itself. Duration, on the other hand, seems to be universal, because it needs to be measured using "time". Similar to how distance needs to be measured using some form of system representing distance in numbers...metric, or otherwise.
The whole point of measuring is to have a system of numbers that represents whatever it is we are observing/measuring. We need those numbers to calculate with, which give us through math the ability to understand what we are witnessing. Nothing observable has numbers that we can work with. Well, not that I know of. We need a measuring system to generate those numbers.
I just find it interesting that we use "time" to measure "time", but everything else seems to have a separate measuring system. :)
The quote below is interesting.
"Quantum Gravity" and "Imaginary Time", of that link, also have interesting takes on "time".
Tests have been carried out using sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 10−15 seconds) and at that level time certainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities.
My partner is one of those people who don't necessarily see time (or the course of time) as a linear story. However, it is not possible for me to completely detach myself from this idea. However, I am prepared to understand time as a tool that people have created to name both a concrete point in time and a period of time in such a way that they can be grasped by a counterpart.
It seems to me that if "time" was a thing, it would be universal and need to be measured with a system of numbers, other than itself. Duration, on the other hand, seems to be universal, because it needs to be measured using "time". Similar to how distance needs to be measured using some form of system representing distance in numbers...metric, or otherwise.
The whole point of measuring is to have a system of numbers that represents whatever it is we are observing/measuring. We need those numbers to calculate with, which give us through math the ability to understand what we are witnessing. Nothing observable has numbers that we can work with. Well, not that I know of. We need a measuring system to generate those numbers.
I just find it interesting that we use "time" to measure "time", but everything else seems to have a separate measuring system. :)
The quote below is interesting.
"Quantum Gravity" and "Imaginary Time", of that link, also have interesting takes on "time".
https://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/quantum-time/
Tests have been carried out using sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 10−15 seconds) and at that level time certainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities.
My partner is one of those people who don't necessarily see time (or the course of time) as a linear story. However, it is not possible for me to completely detach myself from this idea. However, I am prepared to understand time as a tool that people have created to name both a concrete point in time and a period of time in such a way that they can be grasped by a counterpart.
I have one question, though. Is this sort of stuff ok for the group. I plan keeping this up and don't want to spam the group. :)
It's most welcome!!