It is believed that the shortest possible amount of time would be the interaction between the smallest particles at the closest measurable distance between them, transferring the smallest amount of energy. It is estimated that this would be on the order of ten to the minus 40th power seconds, but there is no agreed-upon name for that brief period. It is also as yet unknown whether all events are synchronized or whether some are out of step with others; in other words, it is not known whether this shortest length of time is the natural quantized unit of time or whether it is just the shortest (theoretically) measurable lapse or interval.
For more details, please refer to my previous Best Answers on this same topic.
2006-07-06 05:23:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by cdf-rom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Planck time or a single quantum of time: a fuller understanding reveals this to be the present moment and not time at all! It's a bit like portraying the other side of a black hole, or the moment prior to the "beginning of time," a ridiculous reflection if ever there was one.
It would be well to comprehend first what is meant by time. Few seem to understand the deeper meaning of time. When speaking of such aspects of time as are concerned with in your inquiry, it is advisable to refer to Kant and Schopenhauer.
Time must sooner or later be defined as the subjective experiential measure it is. By avoiding the usual practical regard for time, but utilizing the transcendental point of view, we see that time is a mental attitude for the ever-present NOW. As Kant told us, time is the awareness and "marking" of the succession of conscious experience. Outside this experiential frame of reference, time has no meaning whatsoever.
While this is the simplest of attitudes towards time we may describe, it is also the most counter-intuitive. Since your inquiry seeks to grasp the shortest duration of time, it also proposes to stop time. In other words, finding an answer to your question requires that you entertain an absurdity.
This is not the "pat" answer you would probably like, I will wager. There is a condition of nonsense embedded in your question. Having a full comprehension of the true conditions surrounding your inquiry would preclude your asking the question.
There's a word for this condition of understanding but at the moment it escapes me. However, your insight into time exposed by your search is very near the threshhold of mystical understanding. I wish you the best of luck. Seek out a primitive society (read or study them) and allow them to teach you their meaning of time.
2006-07-06 11:36:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by R. Hike light 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
As far as we can percieve, you can always split a given measure of time into shorter units. At no point that we know of does time occur in non-continuous increments.
A little trivia... A second is defined as the amount of time it takes a cesium 133 atom to oscillate 9,192,631,770 times.
2006-07-06 05:33:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by hyperhealer3 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
femto second = 10^-15 sec
peco sec =10^-12 sec = 1 trillionth of sec
nanosec = 10^-9 sec = 1 billionth of sec
They get smaller: see here:http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/units.htm
2006-07-06 05:08:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Respondent cdf-rom has it about right, but that shortest inverval of time has a name: the Planck time.
2006-07-06 07:17:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
famto sec
2006-07-06 05:05:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by want to know 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
nanosecond-ns
2006-07-06 05:02:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋