It depends on how you define "time", right? ^_^
If time to you is a continuous entity that is just there and keeps "marching on" regardless of reality, then it has no clear opposite. Or more precisely, it's clear opposite would be time *moving the other way*, backwards, which likely only happens in anti-matter universes or when things move faster than "c" (light speed in a vacuum, generally speaking), both of which aren't accessible to *us* currently.
But...I doubt that is how most folks look at time. ^_^ Most people, ordinary people and physicists alike, see time in terms of *measured* time....ticks on a clock of some sort.
In that case, you do get a clear opposite.
With measured time, generally speaking, "time" happens when "things" happen. It doesn't really have relevance outside of some manner of cause and effect, even if the cause is a "tick" and the effect is a "tock".
And the opposite of this would be the unmeasured *spaces between* ticks, or what happens when there's no cause or effect to act as a measuring rod. In this sense, time happens when you *prepare* a pot to boil water by filling it with water and putting it on a stove....and it happens again when the pot boils. But the interval in between, where you wait for the pot to boil, "time" per se doesn't happen there (until or unless you have something else to do, or some way to mark the time otherwise). It's slack. It is an un-measured interval, a beat between the measured ticks.
Of course, these days some physicists will insist this is all hogwash anyway, that in order to have a Theory of Everything, you basically *have to* balance your equations so that *time references* cancel out to zero. That in other words, to make everything *else* make sense, you have to assume that "time" doesn't exist and that it is an imaginary construct, a calculus we use *as animals* to make sense of cause and effect, of moments "now" and "not now".
But that's only one group of them. Another insists that our universe is holograhpic instead and that this "third dimension" is in fact what's imaginary. o_o
That, however, is a whole other can of worms.
Thanks for your time....good question! ^_^
2007-07-15 00:09:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bradley P 7
·
0⤊
0⤋