Time; the fourth dimension, inexplicably linked with space and dynamic in nature. According to Einstein and backed up by decades of empirical research, time is a variable phenomenon. This seems contrary to common belief as we often represent time as a pillar of stability, marching inevitably forwards and unwaveringly ticking away. This ‘inevitability’ of time has lead to the attachment of negative connotations, including themes of death and the ‘running out of’ time itself. As our society tends towards briefer periods of meaningful interaction and longer periods of unpleasant activities (work, commuting, queuing) it seems as though attitudes towards time are most favourable when it is ‘running fast’, thus minimising mental stress and anguish (reducing the perceived waiting/unproductive period). To this effect, time has been described as ‘the fire in which we burn’; a finite (at least in terms of human lifecycles) feature of our universe that is personified into some sort of omnipotent adversary. It is my intent, through the medium of a two-part article, to firstly present a condensed and brief history of the physical representations of time followed by the current understanding of this phenomenon and how it relates to everyday experience.
Humankind has been fascinated by time ever since the dawn of consciousness and self-directed thought. Exemplified and measured initially through the patterns and cycles exhibited by nature, time was quickly utilised as both a tool and a catalyst for philosophical thought. Time is the canvas upon which causes and effects occur. Without it, there would be no history, no future, only unconnected moments blended into one almighty chronometric experience. In a timeless universe and provided the intelligent observer was also given the gift of immortality, they would similarly experience both the birth and death of the universe in an instant; non-locality would be universal (time to travel between points would be instantaneous as there would be no reference against which to measure its passing). In short, the agent would be a god. But of course, this is not the case. We tend to think about time in the infintesimally short periods that correspond to the duration of the average human lifespan – 70 to 80 years. Ironically, the thing that we most wish would ‘hurry-up’ is only hastening our own non-existence (in the form of death).
Time fascinated early civilisations (and undoubtedly the groups of nomadic hunter gatherers that preceded them). They constructed vast, complicated monuments and invested much time and effort creating increasingly complex tools to measure the passage of time. Our ancestors realised that in order to measure time, the most important component needed is an objective, regular cycle. Naturally occurring examples of this were plentiful; seasonal changes in foliage signaled the changing of climate and food availability, and tracking the sun and other astronomical bodies in the sky could be used to measure the period of day and night. Water-powered clocks were perhaps the first timepieces that were independent of astronomical intervention (eg the sundial and yardstick). These devices worked by harnessing the regularity of flowing water. Quite complex additions to the basic flow such as gears, weights and threaded screws allowed a constant source of energy (water flow) to power timing components of the clock (filling up containers, raising pointers, turning wheels and gears). Quite quickly, the need for increasingly accurate devices to quantify time acted as a momentum for technological development in this area. Galileo (and Huygens) are credited with creating the first of such devices; a timepiece powered by the harmonic motion of a mass connected to a central pivot point via string. This improvement introduced more accurate timepieces, however they still lacked practicality. Like the water clocks before them, pendulums were bulky, unreliable over long time periods and required stability in order to function. These issues, coupled with a desperate need to improve the accuracy of marine navigation spurred John Harrison on to create the first purely mechanical and portable clock. The problem of nautical accuracy stemmed in part from the lack of a reliable method of keeping time. With an accurate timepiece and heading (provided by the compass) navigators could keep better track of the vessel and utilise the method of longitude/latitude to plot complex courses through the oceans. Designed specifically for the rugged conditions aboard a sailing vessel, Harrison’s device offered unparalleled accuracy on long voyages and a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, Harrison battled for the remainder of his life to claim the prize offered by the British government for creating such a timepiece.
Of course, modern timepieces have advanced rapidly. The next ‘great’ advancement was the wristwatch, or more specifically, the digital wristwatch. Quartz crystal displays the useful property of piezoelectricity. When placed within an electric field (attached to a power source) the crystal will change shape. By sculpting the crystal’s shape into that of a tuning fork, it can be made to resonate at a specific frequency, which in turn, allows for these cycles to keep track of time. In effect, the regularity of the quartz bending and flexing (through electric stimulation) can be specified by shaping the material in a specific way and can be electronically ‘tallied’ and modulated to the base unit of seconds (and, in turn, minutes, hours etc). Even further improvements to the measure of time were introduced with the atomic clock. This method of time-keeping, in a very general sense, works similarly to the oscillating quartz crystal, however the crystal is replaced with radiation. Most commonly, caesium gas is used as the oscillator, and excited by beaming microwaves into the apparatus. The universal ’second’ is thus defined as the number of cycles of radiation emitted by a caesium atom when progressing through two levels of the ground energy state. Basically, the point I am trying to illustrate here is that the measurement of time becomes increasingly accurate as the underlying complexity increases. The concept of a ’second’ has improved from a simple definition (time taken to fill a holding capsule – water clocks) to one involving cycles of radiation as an atom is excited (9 192 631 770 cycles : 1 second). Therefore, with an increase in the inherent complexity of the underlying measurement unit (the second) and the regularity of the cyclic period, we see a direct relationship to overall accuracy of both the device and practical applications that make use of time.
But what does it all mean? What is the point of pushing the development of timepieces towards increasing accuracy? As in Harrison’s time, navigation relies heavily on the use of accurate time keeping. GPS works by establishing communication between orbiting satellites (at least 3) and the ground receiver unit. A timestamped signal and orbital information are transmitted from each satellite (an atomic clock is installed on each orbiter) to the ground. The receiver calculates the delay between transmission and interception, then uses the process of trilateration to determine the object’s ground position on a sphere (centred around the satellite). By combining three of more satellite sphere, the exact location can be pinpointed (at the intersection of each sphere).
Thanks for reading my brief introduction to the history of time measurement. The next part of this article will explore more philosophy-orientated subject matter, and use the knowledge of how we measure time to discuss how we think about time and place ourselves within its boundaries.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
11 January, 2008 at 1:04 am
A brief(er) history of time: Part two « Jotlab
[...] cosmology, CPT symmetry, Hawking, muon, physics, relativity, science, spacetime, time In the first part of this article, I outlined a possible definition of time and (keeping in touch with the [...]
11 January, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
As usual, you get the dialog started with a nice introductory discussion. A minor nip-pick, I think the conventional view is that you need to receive a minimum of four GPS signals at your location to get a full three dimensional position estimation. Three satellites work if one dimension is already constrained (e.g., on a ship). A trivial nit-pick to your otherwise excellent summary.
You emphasize in your discussion the increasing precision with which we can measure the passage of time, culminating in atomic clocks which can now subdivide a second down to 10 to the minus 18th (one attosec). If memory serves, that research frontier is about 4 orders of magnitude better than where the clocks on GPS operate, which is about 10 to the minus 14th sec in precision. GPS is one of the clear manifestations of the malleability of time. The clocks on board have to be corrected for both the orbital speed (Special Relativity) of the satellite (10,000 mph or so), and the slightly weaker gravitational field (General Relativity), at 11,000 nmi altitude compared with earth surface field. The effects go in opposite directions. The motion of the satellite slows time (compared to a clock kept by an observer on the surface of earth), and the weaker gravitational field at GPS altitude causes the clocks on the satellite to speed up, compared to an earth-surface observer deeper in the earth’s gravity well. The effects do not quite offset, so the GPS clocks are corrected. A very practical demonstration that both Special and General Relativity describe the universe accurately, at least in part.
Our subjective sense is that time just flows along, like a wide, smooth river. But the reality seems to be much stranger.
Note:
The passage of time slows at high speed (Special Relativity)
The passage of time slows in strong gravitational fields (General Relativity)
Time may be quantized (at the Planck time boundary: 10 to the minus 44sec). But that is 10 to the minus 25th smaller than the current research frontier, so I don’t see how we will ever get any kind of experimental verification of the ultimate “choppiness” of the flow of time
Quantum “jumps” between different energy levels in an atom appear to take place in zero time (or maybe in a few “Planck time” units, which is almost the same thing)
Transfer of information between entangled properties in subatomic particles appears to take zero time (or some “Planck time units), no matter how far apart they are.
Even our subjective sense of time passage has some unresolved mysteries. People undergoing hypnosis report how the passage of time seems to slow, and everyone is moving in slow motion; maybe their brains are just operating faster in that modified state of awareness (?)
Time drags when we are bored, time flies when we are having fun, and time can seem to stand still when we are in a frightening situation. All demonstrating that our subjective sense of time passage is also malleable, just as the physical reality warps depending on state of motion, etc. Many deep mysteries, both in psychology of how the brain senses time passage, and in how time is intertwined in physical phenomena.
Looking forward to your second installment.
DHQ
11 January, 2008 at 11:58 pm
vulcanis
Hello DHQ,
And then there were two; the master and the apprentice…Your knowledge never ceases to amaze me and I’m humbled that you still take the time to read my ramblings!
Ok enough groveling. Thanks for the nitpick, you are correct 4 signals are needed, I was thinking of 2-dimensional triangulation.
Part two was posted yesterday- I thought that was what you had commented on! It should be under the ‘Chronology’ heading. The second article took me a while to write as I wanted to finish Hawking’s ‘Brief History of Time’. The book wasn’t as focussed on time as I had hoped, and he subscribes to the anthropic principle which I just can’t stomach. But anyway, I digress.
In part two I did discuss most of the points you bring up, including Planck time and its possible interpretation as a quantified theory of time.
I must admit I find the topic intriguing, more so from a psychological perspective. I remember reading a Star Wars novel as a child, and in this short story, and assassin droid is able to manipulate its experience of time, slowing it down or speeding it up at will. It made me think how this would be possible, how it could be done – is the speed of perceived time dependent upon neuronal firings? For example, an electronic being could control time by increasing or decreasing the frequency of crystal resonance (assuming that is the mechanism for cycling operations within the CPU). Or is time actually a physical phenomenon, something that we can grasp and manipulate at will? Relativity seems to indicate that it might be (just increase speed or mass), but personally I struggle with the notion that time could simply be a by-product, an emergent phenomenon that is naturally occurring from the interaction of particles or some deeper foundation.
Looking forward to some more teachings in the mysterious ways of the force.
12 January, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Darth Vader here (or am I Darth Maul this week (?)). Whatever. You live long enough and you wind up reading a lot of strange stuff, like science, philosophy, history, and science fiction. May not have much to do with the way you make a living, but keeps your brain occupied when the TV degenerates into nonsense.
You’re right, I missed your second post until after I had sent my first riposte. No harm done. You commented on most of the things I mentioned. I’ve collected a small library on the subject (time) over the years; none of the books of much help, or much better informed than you and I are on the subject.
The best time travel novel I ever read (excepting Well’s classic, which started the genre, of course), was a short novel by Robert Silverberg. Probably 20-25 years ago, and I don’t even recall the title. But the hero bounces back and forth from future to past, and can never get back to where he started. First he jumps like, 25 years into the future, then when he tries to return, he winds up 50 years in the past, then forward, but not 50 years to the present, but 150 from where he was. So each jump is taking him further away from where he started, and he’s going back and forth, past to future, future to past (Something badly wrong with THAT time machine!).
Silverberg is one of SF’s Grand Masters, so he does a fascinating job describing the societies and situations the hero finds himself dumped in. Finally winds up in the Neolithic trying to figure out a way to survive among the Cro-Magnons. But gives up on the time travel, figures each jump just gets him into deeper trouble.
Re: Anthropic Principle. There are two versions, but I didn’t see that you made a strong distinction. The strong versions says that the universe was created just to allow creatures like us to emerge. That’s pretty depressing. Can’t give too much credit to the super-intelligence behind the creation if we are the best he could conjure up. It is also largely rejected by contemporary cosmologists.
The Weak Anthropic Principle says that in a multiverse, creatures like us could only exist in one of the universes that just happens to have the right combination of parameters (fine structure constant, gravitational constant, etc.) that we observe. So there could be a billion universes popping into existence where life is impossible, and thus there are no sentient observers in those places to measure the different values of the physical constants. Observers (us) can only arise in a place where the constants have values like they have here, but that happens just by chance, once in a billion universes.
The weak Anthropic Principle seems to be better regarded by researchers, especially since nothing else seems to account for the very precise values physical constants have (charge on the electron, nuclear masses, etc.), and the fact that even small changes in those values leads to non-viable universes. However, it is not explanatory, just says you have to have this universe’s set of parameters to generate primitive intelligence (us). Everything else is dead, or maybe filled with Boltzmann Brains.
None of these considerations move us forward in addressing the essence of your essay: the nature of time. All the big questions still are open: is time outside the multiverse, rolling from minus infinity to plus infinity, so that universes pop in and out of existence in time; or is time created within a universe when it emerges from the quantum soup? I vote for that one. That would mean that the stringy quantum substrate of reality exists in a timeless state where there is no past or future (that sounds as reasonable as the “stringy quantum goo” existing in the first place).
But then why do universes need time at all? Weak Anthropy again; we (observers) can only exist in places that have a time dimension. Maybe most of them don’t have time. We postulate the existence of something that rolls along and helps us keep events separated. But in the stringy quantum goo nothing ever happens, and the idea of time is meaningless (?).
We are in that infinite regress again we’ve seen in the religious explanations: God makes the universe, so where did God come from (who/what makes Him?). The language is different, but the regress is the same. We don’t understand the precision with which some 20 constants of the universe are fixed. So we postulate a multiverse, and our particular universe is just the result of a dice throw. Anthropy says we can only arise in the one in a billion where things are just so. But then, where did the quantum stringy goo come from (from which these various billions of viable and nonviable universes arise), and is it eternal (running in time) or timeless, existing outside time?
My, that sounds like someone’s vision of God. A universe-creating power that is everywhere and always. I liked iit better in the old days when God explained everything on stone tablets. Make your head spin.
Where are the super-intelligent Boltzmann Brains when you need one?
Take care,
DHQ (AKA “Darth the Confused”)
12 April, 2008 at 3:08 pm
JP
Great post, one that certainly makes you think.