Talk:Time/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Time

This is one of those controversial subjects that seems to spark heated debates among people, and I know that the third talk page will have a whole bunch of arguments. For those new to the subject but very interested I've written a wikidiary about time. For those who know a little more (than I might), you'll gain an objective perspective. I'm always open to criticism, but please try to be gentle. Dessydes 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The page that you created is quite interesting. I don't have objections to it. --Gray Porpoise 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a third view about time that is interesting and fits the Oxford English definition. It can be described as the understanding that the universe or existance we experience is a process we describe as life. This process iterates without repeating (see the Mandelbrot set etc for the mathmatics of the practicality of an infinite progression of non repeating procession to increasing complexity). This living process progresses towards inceasing complexity creating the illusion we experience and seek to label time. In the West Quantum Elecrodynamics shows that there is no material, its all made of waves or as Buddha said material is an illusion, in the East Buddha said everyone is Buddha, ie its all made out of the same waves and so self is the illusion, its all one living system. This is not easy to understand as it removes god and self at the same logical conclusion, or vishu and self if you wish. There is an interesting side benefit to this outcome that without self there is no death. Buddha would say that the scientists should be taken seriously about climate change, Krishna might add something about peak oil. How much time does our species or life form have before it makes itself extinct or becomes extinct, i.e. runs out of time due to ignorance. Bob Smith, Cilgerran, West Wales.

a 2nd 3rd way, or perhaps a forth way to view time: time is a dimension of mental space that can be traversed as any spacial dimension of mental space. we often travel back and forth on it with our mind's eye. and this is the time we actually know and love because we never ever experience anything other than the contents of mindspace, or do we? so, while units of time are means of cataloguing experiences by reference to other more stable and countable experiences, time itself is a mental dimension which has no actual physical corrolate as the apparent physical realm only exists now. mindspace is actually five dimensional, because it contains space, time and entire spacetime alternative universes otherwise called twilightzones [User:Jiohdi|Jiohdi]] 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of term "realist"

To classify Newton's conception of time (which is widely regarded as being disproven, by Einstein and others) as "realist" is amusing. A more accurate term might be "biblical" since Newton took his inspiration directly from Christian dogma.

I was under the impression that Newton conducted a number of experiments for inspiration in this instance. Why must his opinion necessarily have derived solely from his religious views? "Realism" seems to fit his conception of time, however disproven, as it is still taken for granted by aeronautical engineers.

a very different view

being brought up in the west, the US to be specific, I think I learned to see time inside out. after learning some eastern thought, I suddenly found myself seeing time in a very different way... think of a pool table with 9 balls all in motion... three of these balls are bouncing off the table in a way very different from the others, they make a very easy to see and trace dimond path on the table, over and over again.... but all the rest of the balls are moving so differently from them that you cannot predict with any great ease where they are going next... the balls never grow nor shrink in number, there are always nine of them...yet the pattern they all make in total is never the same... every time you observe the table you see a NOVEL pattern ...if you take a movie of the table, no two images ever look identicle and no current patterns resembles any prior ones...but when you wish to see how far say the black ball has moved in relation to the table as a whole you can very easily count the cycles of the three stable balls whos pattern always remains the same... you can use them as your clock...you have brought time into existance in your pool table universe... yet the key thing to understand is that it is always NOW...the balls ONLY exist NOW, they dont exist in the past the have no existance in the future, they are solid objects only now...which is where my western view I believe now {pun intended} had lead me astray.... the western view, with its sci fi adventures of time travel, had CONviNcED me to see the universe, not as I do...a set of elements in constant motion, being measured by repeating elements..which I can count... but as a series of images on a film, which, I the observer could, perhaps one day, magically travel about and not be stuck on the one that SEEMS to be the present. the biggest problem with the western view of time, is if all times exist from some higher view of geometry, then there is no moment that anyone of that higher plain could point to and say, that one is the present... there would be no means of distinguishing one moment from the next and there would be nothing moving...which violates our very obvious experiences. to say that all times exist and that we are passing through them would imply that we are somehow not in them but something beyond them and passing through them like an observer picking up a film strip and just scanning each frame... but my new view, as indicated above, does not require that I be outside time looking in, but I can be part of the every changing patterns and just able to notice these patterns and gauge their changes by comparison to repeating cycleing countable events.Jiohdi 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


the simplest definition of time which is not self referential is-- a man made system of cataloguing experiences by means of comparisons to countable cycling patterns.Jiohdi 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live", regarding these modes as derivable from a proper theory of reality as idealized functions of an idealized continuum: "We will not feed time into any deep-reaching account of existance. We must derive time-and time only in the continuum idealization-out of it. Likewise with space." Wheeler,"information, Physics, Quantum"Jiohdi 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New Intro Proposal

-- acknowledges disagreement, is less one-sided, and has sources ==

Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time.

  • One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. This is the realist view, to which Isaac Newton subscribed, in which time itself is something that can be measured.
  • A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, in which time, rather than a thing to be measured, is part of the measuring system.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines time as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole." [1] The American Heritage Dictionary defines time as "a nonspatial linear continuum in which events occur in an apparently irreversible succession." Encarta, Microsoft's Digital Multimedia Encyclopedia, gives the definition of time as "System of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events."

Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time. Regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum.

Time has historically been closely related with space, most obviously with spacetime in Einstein's general relativity. According to the scientific theory of special relativity, the concept of time depends on the spatial context, and the human perception is only a local observed quantity which has meaning only in a relative sense — ie. between object and observer.

Time has long been a major subject of science, philosophy and art. The measurement of time has also occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in astronomy. Time is also a matter of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in our lives. This article looks at some of the main philosophical and scientific issues relating to time.

--JimWae 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The existing first paragraph of the intro was inserted with the comment Lede is unacceptable. Write something, anything, then write all the caveats people like. Enough avoiding disclaimers for a separate article. That paragraph takes a specific point of view &, imho anyway, is extremely convoluted language. Absent any disagreement, I intend to insert the above proposed intro, which does not present a one-sided view of time, has sources which indicate it is not purely original research, & uses language more accessible (imho), within 2 days. Then we can work from there --JimWae 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes to Time that I proposed here on its talk page. Perhaps we can incorporate some of the recent additions too. I found the existing intro very convoluted, did not attempt to reference any disagreement over its meaning, and did not identify any elements of itself with the literature on the subject. --JimWae 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Recent addition

Time refers to the universal means of locating a personal or collective experience relative to other experiences.

While this is not untrue, it is not very specific. How is this different from other kinds of location, such as locations in space? How does the word universal help us? What about events that nobody alive has "experienced"? --JimWae 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

what I intended was--universal, anyone can and does use this system, based primarily on sun, moon and seasons. and location refers to the acknowledgement of conscious awareness of relative position in the shared realm of mindspace, without which, time, space and just about any other measure becomes meaningless, often overlooked by some scientists who try to create the myth of objectivity.Jiohdi 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This morning I changed "Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time" to "Two distinct views exist on the nature of time." JimWae changed it back suggesting that my change entails that there is a nature to time. Whether this entails that there is such a nature is up for debate. it is going to depend what you think about definite descriptions and perhaps about empty names. I don't think we need to debate that here. The reason for the change is that there is a use-mention error in the sentence: "Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time." There is a second reason; the two views discussed are not theories about what the word 'time' means. They are theories about the nature of time (if there is such a thing). It seems painfully clear that both Newton (with his substantivalism) and Leibinz (with his relationalism) entail that there is time; the difference is in what they think time is. Another problem that I have with this sentence is that it's false. There are more than two theories of time. There is the McTaggart theory (which is mentioned later on) according to which both substantivalism and relationalsim are false. (Again, whether McTaggart's view is internally consistent is another thing, but inconsistent or not, the theory exists.) I think that there are lots of other ways to make this article better, but I figure it's best to start with the beginning first. --Markgraeme 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Recent change to standards

I corrected a glaring omission... there was no reference to the coordinating system from which the si second arose, namely the tropical year and solar day... a second did not come into existance first, it was derived from a division from the solar day by 24 and then each hour by 60 and each minute by another 60 due to a babylonian bias towards all things 60 Jiohdi 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

New lede and the regressions of excess cookery

Someone once said "there is nothing so absurd that is has not been said before by a philosopher." The new lede is in good keeping with that tradition, as it wanders (again) into the domain of an exclusively philosophical realm, for which the next natural step ( not unlike the economic cycle of capitalism > tyranny > revolution > socialism > tyranny > reformation, etc.) is naturally going to regress into a disclamer intoduction such as "there are lots of debates about the nature of time." (This one basically qualifies as a disclaimer intro anyway.)

So, please (!) lets put back a lede which doesnt start with a disclaimer - such as the one I wrote last month, which actually goes out on a limb and states something. This on the other hand is (again) another... experiment to see how few legs a table needs. -Ste|vertigo 18:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Besides theres no need to pepper this fish as a philosophical dish from the get go: A solid intro - one which states the "realist" concept (ie. "Euclidian", or better yet "absolute") of time was deprecated by special relativity (in science anyway) and the older is therefore only a local perception - is just going to kick it into the philosophical domain anyway. Hense calmeth down thy horse. The philosophy will make a great section 2. -Ste|vertigo 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia policies are to present controversies in intro & avoid original research (going out on a limb with a definition). Are you expecting even an introductory account of time that avoids philosophy? The current one, byw, does not, as you persist in complaining, start with a disclaimer. --JimWae 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Time is a "controversy?" Its not as bad as it was when I found it, this much is true. However I understand that a long journey that uses the slippery slope editing method - one that ultimately reduces something useful to something less so - begins with a first step. Note that flowery language peppered with references to particular philosophers neither equates to "more neutral", nor to "more sourced" writing. -Ste|vertigo 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • How is time Euclidian? Euclid dealt with spatial geometry - not motion & not physics. It is only by analogy that it is considered a "dimension" similar to (but different from) spatial dimensions - due in large part to Newton. And, yes, there are disputes about what time means - look in the archives. Btw, which part do you consider "flowery"? --JimWae 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course I refer to the concept of absolute space and time which was dominant until Einstein. Euclidian was perhaps overstated as that domain is limited to physics, though not exclusively to space (due to the assumption of absolute time.) But then so is a reference to Newton overstated, unless you want to make this about physics. -Ste|vertigo 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Time quanta?

Is there really such thing? AFAIK time is only quantized in very exotic theories like LQG. Planck time is simply a unit (as the Planck Time article correctly states). 206.169.169.1 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronons were once proposed as a particle of time and some sci fi shows such as star trek use Chroniton particles, etc. Jiohdi 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So why not remove the Planck Time reference from the Time Quanta section and move it to Standards or Measurements, and state that time quanta is only a proposed (and a sci-fi) concept? My point is that referencing Planck Time as "main article" on the Time Quanta subject is spreading the misconception. 206.169.169.1 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Measurement & Time dilation need clarification

Time is not directly measured. In the sense that a unit of length can be assigned to an object in the real world as a standard, such as “one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole measured on a meridian from the North Pole through Paris”, and compared to other objects to determine their three dimensions, no such “object” of time is available in the real world with which to compare an interval of time.

This is not a trivial distinction. Misstatements regarding the measurement of time are countless as a consequence, wherein various “clocks” are said to measure time, when in fact they do no such thing. All clocks of whatever form are devices that perform regular movements, at more or less regular intervals depending on the accuracy of the movement, and are linked to some sort of counting mechanism or readout which records the number of movements. Whether a clock counts a quantity of water, clicks of a gear activated by a spring, movements of a pendulum, or resonant frequencies of a cesium atom, it is not directly measuring time.

What Einstein actually said about time was, “Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY, BY ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1916”. This was a derivation from the postulates of the SRT. This theoretical concept, despite the “minuteness” of differences at small velocities as compared to the speed of light, implies that time is a function of velocity and any difference in relative velocities is accompanied by a different rate of time, i.e. minute or not the time on your hand where you wear your watch is running at a different rate with respect to the time where your torso is when you are walking along and swinging your arms, time for torso, time for arms, and time for the sidewalk all move at different rates. Time with respect to a corpuscle of blood in circulation is running at a different rate than the rest of your body. Anything moving relative to something in an inertial frame at rest with respect to it has a different rate of time. Time in this theoretical system is in continual differential flux with respect to every existent object. Imprecise terms such as “showed” being substituted for theoretical consequences and/or explanations of observed phenomena is not helpful.

No people have traveled at different speeds and “measured”, in the sense of directly measuring, different times. No known direct measurement of an interval has been performed, and no confirmed observation of any physical component of time has occurred. This is fundamental to the explanation of time, and is not found in the article. DasV 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Time is not the thing measured, but the system used to measure...it is wholely subjective and always with reference to some local repeating phenomenon.Jiohdi 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the point. Why suggest what "clocks" do time must do? DasV 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An US inventor wrote on the issue of time

There was an US inventor who published a book on the issue of time, 4th dimension etc. Anybody remembers the name? IIRC, he used to work on medical tools or something like that.--Klimov 11:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

absolute motion??

The section on special relativity seems confused. I fixed one thing - the nonsensical idea that a particle moves through its own rest-frame. That's where it is stationary! Also I fixed the concept of the lifetime of a muon to be the mean - a muon has no definite lifetime but suffers exponential decay (in vacuum). But there is still some mess. This part "Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. " seems confused. Who is to say what it meant by "a frame of reference at rest."? This flies in the face of Einstein's concept that all motion is relative. The same was known to Galileo - see Galilean relativity. Einstein incorporated in 1905 time changes keyed to the spatial changes well known to Galileo in 1632. I'll try to fix that part about time "seeming to slow down" maybe when I get time (sic).Carrionluggage 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tesseract?

Does that illustration really help the reader visualize spacetime? The accepted visualization of spacetime is a 2D plane with world lines on it. Also, "...adhering to defined finite bounds, all possibilities for this configuration are conceptually representable." Is that a quote from Heidegger or Husserl? It is so much incomrehensible that it must be from German philosophy. Thanks, --68.7.88.78 04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the illustration is potentially useful, but I agree that the caption is opaque. It should point out that the two 3-d cubes illustrated are two time-snapshots of a cube in 3-space. It is somewhat confusing that they appear to be of different size. The reason is that the illustrator declined to show them displaced laterally, but wanted them embedded. There is an illustration which seems to have equal-size cubes in [1]. That link leads to others that might be considered OK. It could be said in words thusly: "What appears to be a three dimensional cube existing for some period of time is actually four dimensional because it is extended in the time coordinate. An actual 3-dimensional cube would exist only for an infinitesimal time period in its rest frame." The 2-d diagram you refer to is sort of OK, but in some ways it's too simplified. Carrionluggage 07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Religous views on time

Where would be the appropriate place to write about religous views on the concept of time for example those discussed at http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=74335? Would a new section here be best or a new article on the religous aspects of time be better? Would including a link to this site[2] be inappropriate for this article? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This reference seems confused (perhaps just out of date). The Twin paradox for example is discussed ad nauseum in Wikipedia, or more succintly in the book Spacetime Physics by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler (W. H. Freeman 1992). It seems interesting that relativity can be difficult for many people to understand. Indeed, one reason Einstein got the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, not for relativity, was that at least one member of the Nobel committee did not believe relativity. See: [3]. The Nobel committee member was wrong. But it is an interesting psychological question as to why it is so hard for so many people to progress in this part of physics, even today. Perhaps your link belongs somewhere in the area of psychology (??) or the relationship of psychology and religion. The great speed with which light travels no doubt makes it seem as though time is universal. We know it takes about 8 minutes for the Sun's light to reach Earth, but naively, one thinks he/she could compensate for such delays and find a way to set clocks "all over" the solar system so that they'd agree (you set the one at the Sun's surface to read so that an image of it seen at Earth reads 8 minutes behind an earthbound clock). This does not work, however, as, if made the same way (ignoring the heat!) the clocks run at different speeds and cannot be kept in synch. This gets into General Relativity but the point is that such problems actually force specialists who calculate the movements of the planets (e.g. [4]) to include terms from general relativity. Better to accept relativity. Carrionluggage 05:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Official time

Does anyone know if there is a U.S. law that requires people to keep time-of-day according to the time disseminated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the United States Naval Observatory?

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE

CHAPTER 6 - WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND STANDARD TIME

SUBCHAPTER IX - STANDARD TIME

defines legal time. [5] The Department of Transportation is in charge. I believe that they can authorize changes (such as time zone boundaries) without new legislation - you can always ask them.

There is a note on the URL: "Note: Contrary to the exact wording of the above statute, Standard Time does not change with time of year. In practice, the time in effect (the Civil Time) is either Standard Time or Daylight-Saving Time."

I would also note that this section does not seem to set any international definitions. Thus, if a lawsuit in the U.S. dealt with, for example, international trade, the inception or expiration of insurance policies applying outside the U.S., etc., there might be adjudicable issues. Worldwide, the ITU is the recognized authority. Carrionluggage 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ITU, the authority for time? Do you have a source for that? I would point to the International Time Bureau (BIH) instead. Paul Koning 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Past present and future...

Ok, from my understanding, which is totally an opinion unadultered by any science or religion, time is an uptmost illusion. Time is something we have created and quantified to measure a rate in change. It has been created relative to the time an event takes from start to finish, and relative to what we have percieved as this length in time. e/g a day is 24 hours, but really an hour is 1/24th of a day... The universe is one super-massive event, and we feature in it, for now.. Time as we recognise it in our minds, is like a book. There are parts of the book which we have read (the past) and parts of it we have yet to read (future). Now, think of there being no 'now' (I know, irony :P). There is never a 'now', atleast from an objective point of view, since 'now' would be the infinitely divisible segment between experience and anticipation. Infinitely divisible, meaning divide by infinite, which = 0, hence no such thing.

Fluidity of time-consciousness: If time were to be aboslute infinite, then our minds would need to process information at an infinitely fast rate. I believe that time-consciousness (the way the human mind percieves time) is set at a frequency, just like a clock has a quartz crystal that resonates at a particular frequency, the mind has neural pathways in which pulses of information are sent to be stored in the memory (hence make transition from anticipation to experience) which pulse at a frequency unique to the human mind. This rate of pulses can be sped-up, by way of reducing length of intervals between pulses, when say the body is in an adrenaline rush. The reverse is also true, when there isnt so much stimulation, lets say like when sleeping.

I dont think you can refute this concept, as we know the signals the brain uses are electrical impulses, and we know that these signals dont work at an infinite rate.

Relativity: The frequency of our time-conception must be relative to that of other animals, which have more basic minds, and smaller animals with a shorter CNS(central nervous system). If we created a relative scale, and said humans have a relative time conception of 1, then an animal which has a higher information pulse rate, lets say by a factor of 2 (twice as fast, hence half the length of intervals between signals) would percieve time at half the rate we would. This is because it is the relative rate of converting change into memory, and at a faster rate, change would seem less frequent or slowed. Scientifically we could test an animals relative time conception by measuring the amperage from their CNS. (I dunno if itd be directly proportional, there are probably many other variables..I dont even know if itd work, little alone how to do that.)

Time-speed: How can time have speed? Isnt time a factor in speed itself, not vica-versa? True. But there must be a standard unit of time, and there must be an absolute minimum in which time can be observed through change. Lets say, since the metric system is already so neat and tidy, dealing with factors of 10, as opposed to yards and what not in imperical, that a standard unit of time is time measured whilst travelling at the speed of light, the time taken to pass a metre. (in seconds/metre). As time becomes less of a mystery, i believe this is what will be used, as time has a tendancy to slow down/speed up when measured in motion. An aboslute minimum division of time must also exist, that of the smallest noticeable change in a particle travelling at the speed of light.

Creation of time: It was Einstein who proposed that time will speed up or slow down under different circumstances. When travelling at speeds near that of light, time noticabley dilates, so I assume the reverse is true. When the entropy of the universe was at an infinitely ordered state, (i.e could not be ordered any more, no motion existed at this point) time did not exist. Why? Because what change was there for it to be relative to? There was no earth spinning on its axis to give us the length of a day, nor anything for that matter. Going above and beyond the reaches of time, I cannot give even an educated guess as to how the universe was set into motion... There is the big bang theory, the steady state theory, and then ofcourse religion. None of which have been ultimately proven, and none of which explain why there is a universe at all...Im not a big fan of the big bang, because it doesnt answer the question, why? Everyone can believe what they wish, thats their own right..Perhaps no one has come up with the right theory yet? Or Perhaps we are only a few cosmic piece away from understaning the entire universe xD hope you like my theory HeroInTraining 08:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your theory is quite inline with mine ( Time Paradox ) and I think you and I are on the right track. By the way, I think the unit of time you were thinking of was Plancks 'time', the 'time' it takes for the fastest thing (light) to travel the shortest distance, christened the plancks distance. Anonymous Dissident 10^(-23)seconds if I am recalling right.

Time as "unreal" & Psychology

I am checking some of the citations/definitions existing on the current page and so far I couldn't find Ralph Waldo Emerson's and Jean Piaget's. Do you have any idea from where (which book) it came?

(grafare 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Time Paradox

Imagine this: What if time is an illusion? It is not physical, it cannot be detected, it gives out no radiation, it is non-existent. WE believe it is existent because we base our lives upon its so-called pasing. But what exactly is it? Consider this. If every particle, every sub-atomic particle of finite matter ceased moving, could it be said that time would pass? No. Time is said to be the fourth dimension, but without the existence of the other three dimensions, it could not 'exist'. The passing of 'time' would not be possible were it not for the universe it is said to affect, unlike the said other three dimensions, who depend on neither of the others to exist. Clocks do not tick because they detect or are influenced by time, they tick because of their implanted mechanism. WE do not move through time, we simply exist. What if time is not actually something existent, it is just a term used to denote 'pasts' and 'futures', something to make explainations of all descriptions more accurate. Eg - Meet me for lunch at 12:30pm. In line with my theory, 12:30 does not exist, but it will inform a given person that they must be at the given location when their watch or clock, which ticks due to its mechanism, not the detection of 'time', is alligned with the 12:30 position. See what I mean? Please comment.

PS I am unaware of whether this theory previously exists, and if it does, please reference me. Thank you. Anonymous Dissident

The reality of time

There's a long and wide-ranging philosophical literature on this, which uses standard terminology to talk about the central issues. It's best if editors who are unfamiliar with this literature refrain from changing the terminology without at least asking here first. For example, in the absolute/relational debate, as well as in the related debate centring on arguments such as McTaggart's, the notion of time being real isn't expressed in terms of its being an entity. I can't think offhand of anyone who has thought of it in that way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If your refering to my contributions, I don't mean to refer to it as an entity, simply as an illusiary concept, perhapes. So if that was infered, dismiss. Anonymous Dissident

You need to add a jiffy wich is .01 seconds

See The Unreality of Time. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kybenal (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I added an external link which discusses the question of the "unreality" of time - i.e. whether time (and space) is merely an adjunct of cognition (such as e.g. vision) which evolved in tandem with consciousness, rather than a "reality" (which pre-existed consciousness). This question has to be considered together with the idea of probable realities (see Many-Worlds Interpretation} which supposes that time is not linear but multidimensional. I'll try to add something on this at a later time. BobMill 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC) BobMill
  • Aren't you suggesting that time is "really" multidimensional? - --JimWae 04:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what does "...which evolved in tandem with consciousness, rather than a 'reality'..." even *mean*? Evolution is a *temporal process*, and time cannot develop in accordance with it. 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wireless99 (talk • contribs)

Stephen Hawking and the Beginning of Time

The article reads "Stephen Hawking has commented that statements about what happened "before" time began are self-contradictory, and thus without meaning. Other theorists have contended that even if there were another time frame "before" the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us."

What is the source for the first sentence? I am familiar with this quote:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them." http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

This quote seems very consistent with the ideas attributed to "other theorists", and the article seems to imply that these ideas are not shared by Hawking. My understanding is that measurable time began at the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before! It only means that we can't know what happened before, and so we say "time began" at the BB. This interpretation avoids the ridiculous claim that a dimension can be measured in terms of itself, which is what is being done when one says time had a beginning. It's equivalent to saying the concept of height is a certain number of meters high, or that the concept of weight has a specific weight. How can the concept of time exist for a finite time? AThousandYoung 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) time being a mental creation can have a beginning. Since time requires one to notice changes and be able to gauge them by means of other changes that are countable, time has its beginning in the sense that there are events we have no ability to measure in any way.Jiohdi 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Is it not a convention to use contemporary names of works as named by the authors and known by their cultures at the time of composition? Why does this page choose to say "In the Old Testament book Ecclesiastes" when this was not applicable at the time?--59.101.13.133 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The third view has time as the period between events

Well, the 2nd view includes both that AND the duration of events AND how we sequence events, AND compare the motions of objects, So how is this new 3rd view distinct - and who else besides the editor would be a source for this 3rd view? --JimWae 07:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Noether's theorem

"Interesting that indeed nothing physical in our Universe depends on time (nor on space) per se. This in turn mathematically results in all known conservation laws - see Emmy Noether theorem for the proof of this. So, it is quite possibly that time (and space) are not "physical" quantities but rather intermediate mathematical abstracts invented by us to relate various observable phenomena together".

I don't think that is an accurate account of Noether's theorem at all. It does not agree with what is on the NT page. I think someone is sneaking in some OR. 1Z 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph appears to be gibberish as-written. --Christopher Thomas 19:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural Logarithms and time

I am not so sure "it is interesting to note" ever belongs in an encyclopedia - it makes the editor's voice apparent. Is it also interesting to note that multiples of 2 result in a much better match? At best, this is trivia, at worst it is trivia presented as having significance. I think the section needs to be removed. --JimWae 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes Quote

"In the Old Testament book Ecclesiastes, traditionally thought to have been written by King Solomon (970–928 BC), time (as the Hebrew word עת ’êth is often translated, as well as as "season") was regarded as a medium for the passage of predestined events."

I think its generally excepted by most people today that the quote from Ecclesiastes indicates only that there is a time and place for all things, and are not specifically predestined. I think the statement that predestination is specifically meant is POV, and based on other traditional material.--IronMaidenRocks 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if season is the true translation (and most translations seem to say "There is a time and a season"), that only suggests there is a scope of time for which these events are appropriate. If you ask me, even without season, it seems obvious that this is only talking about an appropriate time, and I'm sure the majority will agree with me as this is often quoted in literature, media, by religious leaders, and so on, for that interpretation. I don't think predestination is generally excepted. --IronMaidenRocks 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Are encyclopedia entries allowed to ask philosophical questions in the form of questions? This one does in the second paragraph. I personally think someone should fix that, but I don't know. Shinealight 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as asking the question, just presenting a question in philosophy. A convenient way of explaining the problem in that field. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fundametal quantities

It is true that the SI has time as one of its fundamental quantities (the second is a base unit). But that choice is analogous to the choice of axioms in geometry: given a set of choices you get a particular system, but if you chance your choices you get a different one.

It would have been possible to define velocity as a fundamental quantity, which would have made time a derived quantity. This wasn't done, and such a change will not be made in the future because it would be disruptive, but there is no technical reason why it couldn't be done.

In fact, length is defined indirectly, via the velocity of light. The definition is carefully worded so it defines length, not velocity -- for backward compatibility. Paul Koning 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All known properties of time follow directly from this definition.

The above sentence has been repeatedly reintroduced by one editor. I ask that editor 3 main questions: Which definition is "this definition"? What are some examples of properties of time that follow from "this definition"? Is it not POV to say that time HAS properties? --JimWae 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we compare time intervals?

Unlike measurement of length, time measurement presents a problem. It is not possible to juxtapose two intervals of time and make a comparison. Therefore the only way is to take as self-evident that events that repeat do so in equal intervals of time. We call this a standard time scale. The earliest such scale was perhaps the movement of stars in the firmament. This assumes that earth rotates at constant angular velocity. I think it is necessary that the article on time needs to express this fact. The standards changed progressively to pendulums, balance wheels and now the frequency of the cesium atom. What I do not understand is the statement that the most accurate watch at one time was accurate to 10 seconds in a year. What is the standard used for determining the accuracy? Another important fact is that humans have sense of rhythm and therefore innately able to determine the equality of successive intervals of time, say in a drum beat. Do you not think that this also needs to be mentioned? (ambi 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC))induvasan

Tesseract

Can anyone explain what the tesseract is doing here exactly? And if so, what on earth the caption means? -- SCZenz 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The tesseract is supposed to represent 4-dimensional space-time, with the sides representing the 4D directions of up/down, north/south, east/west, and past/future. A given moment or event in 4D space-time would be a particular point within the tesseract, with coordinates (x,y,z,t). Admittedly, my description is probably more understandable than what's in the article. — Loadmaster 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange wordings

Hi guys, I would probably like to discuss many things about the time here, but my primary concern so far is how the wordings like "SUCK MY BALLS" have been allowed into the body of the article? Is there any kind of moderation here, as I was expecting? Not sure, really, who's to address this issue, but I am quite sure it needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.189.67 (talk) 09:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

RE: Strange wordings

next time you see something like that feel free to change it. Such scribbles are nothing more than random acts of grafetie similar to that on a bathroom stall or some defacement of a public library's encyclopedia. The difference here is that they don't need to buy a new set of encyclopedia. We just need to re-edit the article or roll it back to a previous version. Something even you could do :).

RE: Strange wordings

Oh, it's gone now... Was weird to see such thing on well-respected site... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.189.67 (talk) 09:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the Lede Intelligible to Lay Readers

The lede is the one part of an article that MUST be readily intelligible to lay readers, the primary audience. That would be paticularly true for a word that is used in many ways by so many kinds of users. Hijacking a concept like Time will not do WP any good. Technical language in the body of the article is not desirable, but could be necessary if the authors are deficient in ability to communicate to humans. DCDuring 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is getting less intelligible than ever to lay readers, IMHO. If that's what it takes to be GA, WP is in trouble. I can see a good unified article that covers the time concept from the perspectives of physics (theory and measurement) and philosophy of science. I can see something that covers time perception (psychology, chrnometrics). I can see something about the relationships among changing time technologies and the history of thought about time (from 2500BC-Newton) and prevailing time-related human practices. I don't see them all in the same GA article, though. DCDuring 01:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The recent edits to the lede that begins "Time, in colloquial terms..." does NOT use colloquial terms. THe lede was far more intelligible the way it was just a day or 2 or 3 ago. I recommend a complete revert of the lede.--JimWae 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The current one is absolutely dreadful. It isn't even accurate. Time is not considerd a "force" in physics!1Z 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Echh, I just read the footnote on "force"...revert, revert, revert. 1Z 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The article as written, does not pass the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed. The primary issue is a serious lack of references and some major organizational issues. There are several 'citation needed' tags throughout the article, which must be addressed. Furthermore, there are entire section of the article that don't have any references at all.

The lead section is overall sufficient, although could be tightened up in spots to make it a better and more succinct summary of the article. The prose in the measurement and definitions sections seems to be good, although I would recommend dropping the boxes around the definitions of the second -- these seem to be taking up a lot of space, and look quite awkward next to the long table of units. I would think that the definitions section should also be the first section listed in the article as well, followed by the measurements section.

I'm just not getting the whole 'interpretations' section at all. It seems to be very long, and comprising lots of rather trivial and/or otherwise unsourced information. There seems to be two major topics which information in this section falls under; philosophy & physics. It might help to separate these into two major sections. The multiple and different subsection headers in this section are also very confusing, and the use of subsection headers should overall be minimized to only being used when necessary.

The psychology section is completely unsourced. A lot of its contents seem to be describing very subjective experiences, and the interpretation of them will vary quite wildly among different people. This information could probably be condensed down to about 1/4 of its present size.

The culture section is very short, and doesn't seem to be doing much here. It could probably go. The use of time section is probably better suited for an article on time management than this one. It could most likely be completely removed as well.

The 'see also' and 'external links' sections are very long. These should be pruned back considerably. For starters, the 'special units of time' subsection can be deleted entirely, since there's already mention of units of time previously in the article, and the table there is sufficient. As a general rule, any link that is previously mentioned or used earlier in the text should not be listed in the 'see also' section; the section should only contain links to similar subjects to aid readers in further understanding of the subject, or similar subjects for further research. Editors may also want to review WP:EL for guidelines on including and pruning external links in/from articles as well.

Hope this helps to improve the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Time Dimension To Become Space-like

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0820v1

I found this, I have no qualification to re-solve the equasions, please review this paper. Teardrop onthefire 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

anyone? Teardrop onthefire (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Where are the notes? Goldencako 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing Sources

This needs to be cited: "Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience."

It can be found in Kant's Critique of Pure reason, (under I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS, FIRST PART. TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC, SECTION II. Of Time, SS 5 Metaphysical Exposition of this Conception) the following argument:

"1. Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

2. Time is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions."

I was wondering if anyone can actually put it in correct formatting, for I'm no good with that. Goldencako 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hawking has said Time before the Big Bang is meaningless & does not exist

The Big Bang & its implications is a topic relevant both to physics & philosophy - trying to separate them is suggesting that physics cannot be examined by thinkers in other fields. Also, it makes no sense to criticize Hawking until his views have been introduced. Hawking never said that time was unreal, so Adler could not be criticizing him for that. Adler is specifiaclly criticizing Hawking's idea that what cannot be measured does not exist - which is what Hawking has said about Time before the Big Bang. Other physicists say it DOES make sense to talk about time before the Big Bang - but that all information from that "era" is unalterably inaccessible to us. Adler's criticism of Hawking belongs in the section on "Time and the Big Bang" - it makes no sense in the "Time as unreal" section. Please discuss here before reverting any more. --JimWae 04:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Btw, it seems to me that others would understand what I meant if I said that the North Star (& much of the Northern celestial sky) is roughly north of the North Pole - so, it is not entirely meaningless --JimWae 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hawking could also be criticized for limiting his conception of time to the realist view - as though the word referred to some entity that can "begin to exist" rather than being a fundamental structure of our intellect--JimWae 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have moved the "TIme & the Big Bang" section out from under the physics section, as it is not just a topic for physics alone --JimWae 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:76.170.70.172 moved from article to here:

Stephen Hawking never made any such assertions, as evidenced by Adler's lack of any direct quotes. Hawking's stance is that things which cannot be measured are irrelevant to a physicist[2], not that they don't exist. Adler's inability to produce a single direct quote from Hawking stating that, "the immeasurable is nonexistent," is direct evidence of the preposterousness of his attempt to discredit a hugely respected scientist. How Adler's quote keeps ending up in the section on the incalculability of conditions in the Universe before a Plank Time after the Big Bang is anyone's guess, but it really ought to be under the philosophy heading.

Other Sources for Hawking saying time began with big bang & that it is meaningless to say otherwise. Once he talks about "meaninglessness" he is entering the philosophical arena - not just physics -

I've used up my reverts for the day. Could somebody AT LEAST remove the blogging that reads

"However, Hawking never said any such thing, and I was almost banned for defending science from sophistry."

Thanks--JimWae 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • "Once he talks about "meaninglessness" he is entering the philosophical arena - not just physics" --JimWae 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) ---JimWae 00:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THE THEORY STOPS THERE! Physics depends on testable predictions, not fancy thoughts on maybe or might be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hawking never pretends to confine his remarks to physics - he repeatedly discusses philosophers. This, along with his use of the word meaningless makes comment on his theories by philosophers entirely appropriate. A NPOV encyclopedia cannot take sides in a dispute --JimWae 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What he talks about and what the theory states are two entirely different things. He can talk about his favorite movie but that doesn't take away from the fact that the scope of the big bang theory is limited to this particular space-time and the very nature of the theory is that this space-time began with the big bang and the tools in the theory do not allow any information from before the event to remain after the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • As a leading proponent of the theory, anything he says about the theory will be interpreted as somehow part of the theory - and commentary on & criticism of his explanations is appropriate for scholarly work. --JimWae 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Especially when sophists come along and skew what he said to make themselves look smart. Hawking is currently working on other theories involving TIME BEFORE THIS TIME-FRAME. Quit trying to make it look like Hawking has no idea what he's talking about. WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE BIG BANG we may as well assume that TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG IS MEANINGLESS. Now move along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Move yourself. You are the one inserting WP:OR & WP:POV in article. Hawking has said some things that MANY people have interpreted as part of the theory - perhaps he was just carelessly using language. Inquiry demands that careless language be cleaned up --JimWae 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's a handicapped mathematician not a linguist. We're lucky he took the time to write as much as he did for the lay people and it's too bad that people misunderstand it so badly. Nowhere has Hawking ruled out time before our time, he is only stating that time within the big bang created space-time started at the big bang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • All the more reason for philosophers to chime in & for their commentary on naive notions (traceable to Hawking himself) about "Time and the Big Bang" to be noted in the article --JimWae 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that "time within the big bang created space-time started at the big bang" IS the big bang theory in a nutshell. The only part of that which could be considered a philosophical opinion is whether or not the big bang theory is correct, unless Hawking tried to say that time existed before the big bang, then it might be a matter of philosophy and opinion. The big bang theory, which is what Hawking's misquoted book is about, SAYS NOTHING AND CANNOT SAY ANYTHING about what happened before the big bang or what goes on outside our space-time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree on this wording then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

what on earth does this mean? "the big bang theory edited by Daniel Greagsby contains one such way of the cause in its simplicity. "the big bang was caused by a paradox in time. if time expanded, then was reversed in a stae of the time code, a matter of a paradox would occur where the universe inplodes then restarts like the phoenix. in the matter of quantem matter of time however, one could work out that the state of time was edited and in such state caused the paradox known as the big bang." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.172 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous explanations about space and time

In a nutshell, four different accounts of space and time could be described as follows:

  • Newton—space and time exist independently, apart from all things. They are God's sensations.
  • Leibniz—space and time are mental concepts of relations that are based on properties of things in themselves.
  • Kant—space and time are ways that the mind intuits the juxtaposition and succession of the appearances of objects.
  • 21st century science—space and time are, together, independently existing geometry that exists in yet another space and time. Space can be can be warped, twisted, flattened, curved, and bent within that other space. Time can be sped up or slowed down within that other time.

As believers in progressive development, we ignore the older explanations and wholeheartedly give our assent to the most recent.Lestrade 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade


Ecclesiastes

The article quotes from Ecclesiastes from a modern English translations of the Bible. As far as I know almost all modern translations are copyrighted and at lest require the translation to be cited. The main public domain translations are: King James Version (except in the United Kingdom), Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, American Standard version, English Revised version, Webster Bible, and Young Literal Translation. I know that the quote does not come from any of these. Zginder 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Merger of WP:CFORK

  • Consensus is firmly against including TIME or SECOND in merger.
  • Proposal now is to merge E## articles into Orders of magnitude (time)
  • Talk is kept here for continuity's sake

--JimWae (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The merger request is based on the policy of WP:CFORK. Some of these pages are repeating information. In particular second appears to have the same history as this article time. Another issue is WP:V in terms of references for the information provided in most of these articles. What next... Are we going to have an article that for... 6439 seconds and convert this to minutes or hours, each one of them having there seperate articles? --CyclePat 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List of articles

1 E-44 s (removed as per redirect)
1 E-25 s
1 E-24 s
1 E-21 s
1 E-18 s
1 E-15 s
1 E-12 s
1 E-11 s
1 E-10 s
1 E-9 s
1 E-8 s
1 E-7 s
1 E-6 s
1 E-5 s
1 E-4 s
Millisecond
1 E-2 s
1 E-1 s
1 E0 s
1 E1 s
1 E2 s
Kilosecond
1 E4 s
1 E5 s
1 E6 s
1 E7 s
1 E8 s
1 E9 s
1 E10 s
1 E11 s
1 E12 s
1 E13 s
1 E14 s
1 E15 s
1 E16 s
1 E17 s
1 E18 s
1 E19 s and more
Orders of magnitude (time)
second (per talk consensus)
  • No thanks. The existing articles are good, they give an idea of things of about that magnitude (millisecond for example). But I hate the faux-calculator exponential notation, and I'm not convinced that an uppercase E is right anyway. What's wrong with millisecond? Who calles it 1 E-3 s? We don't call it that in the article. Some should just go. We dn't need one on a hundredth of a second, for example. But nanosecond and picosecond are decent subjects, and once we get to the minutes / hours order of magnitude we should go with the dominant usage and move to year, decade, century and so on. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally think most of these articles should be redirected and merged. The more common ones, as you say "nanosecond", "picosecond", "hour" (clearly a repetition of the article time), "second" (it too) may be able to stay. However, I believe these are content forks. Repetitive information should be removed (i.e: Egyptian history, etc...) and something should be indicated that leads them back to a main article which, again I believe is Time, and will guide users in finding better references. (p.s.: Better references are needed and we could probably use the same ones)
The merger I'm proposing has to deal with the idea that all of these articles are essentially "mathematical" reasoning or "denominators". Is it possible to find the Lowest common denominator? (Rhetorical question) I believe it is and I believe this denominator is the article "time". I believe all of these articles should, if they are not merged, have a reference back to that main article.
To answer your question. I see a bunch of things wrong with millisecond. I slightly suggested this during the merger nomination. The thing is almost all of these articles have no "sources" explaining the "examples." Yes, 1 E-44 s, has one... but what about the rest of them. Take for example:
  • 1 E-18 s which states "130 attoseconds – the shortest pulses of laser light yet created (2007)".[citation needed]
  • 1 E16 s which states "1277 million years—half-life of potassium-40".[citation needed]
  • 1 E18 s which staes "100 billion (1011) years -- If the Universe is closed, the estimated total lifetime of the Universe".[citation needed]
All of this "un-cited" information must be removed.
That leaves us with a table: Which we already have at Orders of magnitude (time). I also believe this table should somehow be merged with the article Time so as to remove any content forking and repetition. (ie.: Time repeats the part of the same history as second). Also, I think we agree for the title being lowercase, but unfortunately, there are no references, otherwise I would be making the name change. ("millisecond" is more commonly used than the 1 E... term)--CyclePat 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The articles Second, Orders of magnitude (time), and possibly Millisecond and Kilosecond should stay. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should the article second be merged into any other article. It has more than sufficient content to justy its existence. All other articles listed, including millisecond, kilosecond, Orders of magnitude (time), and all 1 E… s articles meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Trivia articles and should be deleted, not merged. — Joe Kress 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion of calling these orders of magnitude examples simply "trivia", because they really do help demonstrate why such orders of magnitude are even in conversation. I also disagree with all of these notions being merged into time. Time itself is a huge concept, with a lot of history; the second is a unit of measurement, which is specific and different enough to warrant its own article with its own history and etymology. Now, I do think that all the E-18 etc. is repeating everything that exists in Orders of magnitude (time), and should only be presented in relation to other orders of magnitude anyways. Not to mention, the notation with the capital E is awful! Both Time and second could suggest the reader to See also the Orders of magnitude (time) article, and that's fine. Millisecond and other SI derivatives of the second should redirect to second. Simple as that! ;) --Qrystal 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—these articles illustrate timescales in relation to one another, and should not be merged into the historical, etc. discussion at time. I see no issue with the current organization. Spacepotato (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


There are multiple different merge discussions going on at once here.

  • Time is a thorough and interesting article. It covers the use, history, science, & psychology of the concept of time. There is need to fill it up with a lot of lists.
(Sorry, I meant to say there is no need to merge the lists into time. Typing too fast. Hult041956 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
  • There is enough to say about second to keep that article separate from time. I wouldn't merge second into time any more than I would day, or week, or year.
  • Decent articles about millisecond and microsecond might be written, especially covering their technical importance. (Someone I saw here said they had come looking for help reading their Microsoft manual.)
  • On the other hand, is kilosecond really a term in use anywhere? I doubt it. )Km and Kg yes; but kilosecond? Scientists would just say 103 seconds.)
  • Now finally, all these lists of timing magnitudes (i.e., the capital-E articles), IMO, could be neatly merged into Orders of magnitude (time), thus making one interesting article out of ~40 unattractive stubs. Most of the other "Orders of magnitude" articles are likewise combined rather than busted up. (An exception is distance -- 1 E xx m. We can go beat up on those later.)

I think we could make progress on this lengthy discussion by setting time and second aside for now, and turning our attention just to the lists of magnitudes. I say yes, merge them. What do others say? Hult041956 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you seriously talking about merging things into this article or into second? Oppose but the structure of the orders of magnitude should match that of meters, with one article per three orders of magnitude (and delete 1 E-44 s). Half those articles are viable units. The other half should maybe be orders of magnitude (years). Potatoswatter (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting merging nothing at all into either time or second. Both contain lots of interesting subject matter beyond the lists of various "timings." My suggestion is to merge all the "capital E" lists into Orders of magnitude (time). The result would be like Orders of magnitude (temperature), Orders of magnitude (mass), and Orders of magnitude (speed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hult041956 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Hult041956 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was talking to CyclePat, not you. For my 2¢, I think there are more "critical" times than temperatures, masses, or velocities - we should have a series of articles like orders of magnitude (length)... except the last time I looked, there was only one article per three orders of magnitude. It looks like that's changed. I'd support condensing both time and length (shouldn't that be distance, not length?) into articles for powers of 1000. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: article 1 E-44 s has been made into a redirect. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good redirect. I agree. P.s.: There is no need to delete 1 E-44 s because this article's history may have an importance. --CyclePat (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to Be Bold and remove 1 E-44 s form the merge as per above redirect. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Straw poll on removing 1 E-44 s, time, and second from the merger request and proposing have all the others merge into Orders of magnitude (time). NB This is not a proposal to close this discussion on all the articles just the ones listed above.

Support:

  1. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support merging all the Capital-Es into Orders of magnitude (time). Hult041956 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, merge all the "E" stubs into one article - it's a drag not having more context in each one anyway. Leave time & second alone --JimWae (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm glad to see the warm turn-out and discusion. I Agree with almost everything that has been said : And as Hult said (23:48, 4 December 2007) "The result would be like Orders of magnitude (temperature), Orders of magnitude (mass), and Orders of magnitude (speed). (In particular, I was thinking perhaps of using a "new" "sortable table", which I'd be happy to try and figure out.) Of course we'd leave the big names such as "second", "millisecond", with their respective articles for now. --CyclePat (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Support merging 1 E-18 s, 1 E-17 s, and 1 E-16 s into one, 1 E-15 s, 1 E-14 s, 1 E-13 s into another, etc. For that matter, it would be nice to do that for the series on metres as well. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Every problem has it's solution with time! (Pun was not intended here. meuh!) I'll be happy to help you out after this problem... Unless... (Oh oh!)... (I just took a look at what you're talking about with metre (ie.: 1 E-24 m) and realize that the same problem is happening there as well. Do you think we should try and get some people from the metre article to way-in on this discussion so we could have a uniform "standard"? --CyclePat (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Strongly oppose. This is downright silly, including time and second and the like in this. Make a clean proposal without it, and it might be worth discussing.

Summary

Please correct me if I'm wrong in this summary. (I focused on two key points :

  1. What should we merge?
  2. Should we change the E uppercase to e lowercase?

1. It's my understanding that Guy, Zginder, Joe Kress, Qrystal, Hult and myself (a good community consensus) all agree that we should merge the "1 E... s" articles into "Order of magnitude".

1.1 It also appears that most people oppose merging information from "Second" into the article time. (so these articles, such as nanosecond, kilosecond, etc...) would not be merged into time.
1.2. Despite the opposition found in 1.1's suggestion regarding the merge into the Time article, "nanosecond", "kilosecond", were suggest to be merged into the article "Second"

2. It's also my understanding that Qrystal, Guy and myself believe the E should be lowercase. --CyclePat (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The E notation must be an allusion to a calculator's display. Better (and more universal) notation would be 10-5, 10-4, etc. Again, see Orders of magnitude (temperature) for a nice looking example. Hult041956 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for feedback. Will begin discussed implementations soon. p.s.: found 2nd article. Centisecond. Will do also. end. --CyclePat (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? Why would there be any E or e, uppercase or lowercase, if they were merged? This discussion is nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not nonsense. If all these articles are merged, we still need labels for the various orders. I've proposed 10-4 etc. rather than E-4 etc. That was in reply to CyclePat's summary item number 2. Hult041956 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove template from Time

  • SO, are there any objections to removing the merger templates from the Time article. Barring objections, I move they be removed 48 hours from now --JimWae (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict--yes, it should be removed from Time (does the discussion then still belong here, or maybe better at the orders of magnitude talk page?).

So, what would any of you plan to do with existing links? Has anybody even considered the purposes for which they are used? Including the fact that the links go both ways, and that the "what links here" can be used to get information to flesh out what was on all those 1 E x s pages? Do you know how to use anchored links in redirects? Do you plan to do so? There is really a whole lot missing in this discussion.

What about the fact that most of the existing links are Easter egg links, with no real indication to the reader that clicking them will take them to something about orders of magnitude? Maybe most of them should just be thrown out--but the biggest question here is whether or not there is anybody willing to put in the time to go through them? Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Back on subject. I think you're right we need to still talk a few things. But the most important is to know if we merger or not. Content formating is important, don't get me wrong, but more importantly is to know if these articles should or should not be merged. I've never seen a magnitude with an E in it. (I can't find anything to support that either). I hate trying to make a decision without verifiable information. My recolections seems to say magnitude doesn't have an e? but who am I but an artist that hasn't published this information in a verifiable medium. --CyclePat (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to removing the templates, if you remove them from the time article you need to change the template on every page to merge with Orders of magnitude (time).Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you removing second, too? Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Zginder raises a valid point. Further to that, we would need to move this discussion to the talk page of talk:Orders of magnitude (time). I would like to point out that the documentary exploring time has an interesting subtitle called Introduction to timescales (Test to see if wiki has an article on that: Timescale). (But that's probably another problem for perhaps not a merger but ensuring coherence between the articles: ie: duration, time scale (music), Geologic time scale, period, period (geology).) (Break - 30 minutes research) You know... at this point I looked at Orders of magnitude (length) and then clicked on 1 E+26 m. It is explained that the magnitudes are in E notation. "For example, 6.0221415 E+23 or 6.0221415 e23 is the same as 6.0221415 × 1023(Avogadro's number). I think the editor that started these articles knew Wikipedia wouldn't accept the superscript. Anyways, all of this kind of pisses me off because we still don't seem to explain why the table of Orders of magnitude (time) uses the "e". The table, when I first saw it, lead me and probably "us", wondering what the heck is the "e"? My assumption, though I don't believe I said it, was that the information was non-verified information. What pisses me off with all this is that for the last 3 weeks, I and probably a bunch of other people, have been looking for a source. And sources for the comparative examples! Anyways, before I throw my gloves in the rink or give up. (Head shaking)... I worry and question my merger proposal again. Are we still making the right decision? Do we have all the facts? How many more sources will or can we find to try and fix this problem and could each one of these magnitudes have enough resources to become an article? Then again... I still feel they should be merging as is, right now. --CyclePat (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question: With the information I have right now, I don't think it should be merged to the article time. A simple link to magnitude of time is probably sufficient with something saying see main article. (I think that's already there). Nevertheless, I believe the discussion should remain on the time page to gather more community feedback. --CyclePat (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with keeping the talk here, to keep it intact. But I would like to see those two somewhat unsightly blocks disappear from the top of the article itself. Any objections? And how is the agreed-upon merger going? --JimWae (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The way this is going, It's going to take a while. Does anyone object if I rewrite the orders of magnitude (time) into a list. It would be easier then to edit the article. The table is hard. --CyclePat (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe a series of small lists (like the lists in the "E articles") would be fine. Much of the information in the current table is redundant; e.g., lots of links to more E articles. I'd just do "cut and paste" merges of the E articles into "Magnitudes". I'll help if you'd like. Hult041956 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (small correction made to prior comment Hult041956 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

I've moved the merge block down to the header Time#Definitions and standards, in case this debate is still raging. -- Yamara 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The merge debate again

But the entry 1 E-10 s (for example) isn't a summary; it's a fragment. I don't wish to create "The story of everything" any more than you do. But a more apt analogy to the "Es" would be "First chapter of Moby Dick," "Second chapter of Moby Dick," "Third chapter of Moby Dick," etc. One is left not comprehending anything. This is exactly what's wrong with the current set of "Es". Each is just a tiny bit of randomness; together they might actually convey something interesting. Hult041956 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps they should be merged into a single separate list article, rather than cluttering up this already long article. Dhaluza (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merging these with either Time or Second, as these articles need to be more general overviews/introductions to serve as encyclopedia entries. They might be merged under Orders of magnitude (time), however. -- Yamara 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Partial Support. I think it's a good idea to combine the 10 E-16 etc. articles, maybe by halves. One half for positive exponents and the other half for negative exponents. However, The articles time and second should definately NOT be merged in any way, shape or form. --Superpika66 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections to modified proposal?

The modified proposal is to merge only the E## articles. I don't think there has been ANY disagreement on doing that, has there? - though some envision one article and others more than one. Is there any objection to someone putting all the E## articles into one article, and then seeing if any split is needed? Let's settle this soon, so we can get those 2 unsightly templates out of the article --JimWae (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the volume of cruft up there, doubtful any newcomers will volunteer to catch up & weigh in. Even if nanosecond, microsecond, and millisecond might represent such vastly different universes as to merit separate articles, right now everything is so scattered as to hinder the growth of anything past stupid listcruft and trivia sections. So whatever the best ultimate decision will be, if nobody can improve the existing mess then nobody should stop your WP:BOLDness. If I'm not mistaken the "modified proposal" (which I can't find distinctly) is to merge the "1E+/-X" articles into orders of magnitude (time). Thx much. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Catherine Soanes and Sara Hawker (2005). 'time' in the Oxford English Dictionary. ISBN 0-19-861022-X. Retrieved 2006-06-13. {{cite book}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |ID= at position 1 (help)
  2. ^ http://www.ghandchi.com/312-SpaceEng.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time/Archive_3&oldid=1137253968"