Say all motion came to a complete stop for 5 minutes. Would it automatically mean time has stopped for 5 minutes? Or would time continue to “march on” during those 5 minutes?
Time is a fictitious and abstract concept that really is a measurement of motion; so no.
How can time stop ‘for 5 minutes’?
All motion did stop just then. Time had no meaning.
It’s really a philosophical question, like a tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it.
If all motion were to stop, then time wouldn’t, but it wouldn’t much matter because you couldn’t tell the difference.
Of course, the problem with this kind of “thought experiment” is that when you’re premise is false (in this case not merely untrue at the moment but impossible), then according to the rules of logic, you can draw any conclusion you want.
Good point. I think. Well, maybe not. I dunno. :o
How could anything “march” if all motion came to a stop? By its very definition, marching is motion.
Was this a trick question? I hope so, because my answer was a trick answer.
No, in fact time would have less meaning, relatively speaking of course.
Got to thinking… wouldn’t an EM field that was moving *before *motion stopped… still be moving while all motion was stopped? If so, could we still say time exists in its normal fashion?
This assumes I meant the motion of all *matter *stopped. Which I guess is what I meant. Since am EM field is not comprised of matter, I would think it would be unaffected…
The question seems to hinge on what we declare to be the definition of time is the physics sense.
Is time a dimension that exists orthoganally and therefore independently of the spatial dimensions just as the x axis would theoretically exist independently of y, z, and any of a number of hypothesized extra dimensions be they curled up tiny or extended?
Or is a time a feature emergent of change within the spatial dimensions, even if that change is the movement of light through it alone?
It is hard to reconcile. Still I think that we need to defer to the concept that time is defined by being a dimension of spacetime in which events occur, and that without the occurrence of events (and events occurring requires motion) there is no time. Einstein seemed to endorse this view even as he popularized the conceptualization of time as a geometric dimension.
Does all metabolic activity stop? Do plants continue to absorb nutrients? Does your heart continue to beat? For that matter, do the sun and stars continue to burn?
Would you like to rephrase the question?
Metabolic activity stops. Plants stop absorbing. Hearts stop beating. Stars don’t burn. Events do not occur.
Is time stopped? And if so how could it be even theoretically described as for “how long”? Or does time still exist but is just without meaning?
Again, define time.
If time actually stopped, there would be no difference between a 5-minute interruption and a trillion-year interruption and a whatever-the-shortest-possible-unit-of-time interruption. It’s all equally meaningless.
Also, if it stopped, it would be impossible to measure that it had done so, nor would anyone be able to try.
Movies that show time stopping (often while one or more of the characters remains unaffected) usually get one thing (well, at least one thing) really badly wrong. If time stopped, but you were magically isolated from the phenomenon, how would you be able to see people frozen in the moment, unless photons were also unaffected?
And how would you be able to breathe?
Come on guys, you know how science works. We’ve got a hypothesis, all we need now is to run an experiment. I’ve got one right here all ready to r
The last time I renewed my car license I needed a shave afterwards so the answer is no. Time marches on.
When molecules stop moving, I’m not sure gas is gas anymore. Not that that needs to disturb us, just saying.
Lunchtime doubly so.
I have to disagree with this point. Since sound is a transmission of vibrations from an object to an auditory receptor, in this case the human ear+brain, if there is nobody in the forest to receive the sound waves, there can honestly said to be no sound.