On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?How would people tell time if it was always day?How would...
Why does the Sun have different day lengths, but not the gas giants?
Strong empirical falsification of quantum mechanics based on vacuum energy density
What is the highest possible scrabble score for placing a single tile
What are the advantages of simplicial model categories over non-simplicial ones?
Is there a way to get `mathscr' with lower case letters in pdfLaTeX?
Temporarily disable WLAN internet access for children, but allow it for adults
What is the evidence for the "tyranny of the majority problem" in a direct democracy context?
Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?
How do I delete all blank lines in a buffer?
Yosemite Fire Rings - What to Expect?
Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?
What should you do when eye contact makes your subordinate uncomfortable?
Probability that THHT occurs in a sequence of 10 coin tosses
Unexpected behavior of the procedure `Area` on the object 'Polygon'
Quoting Keynes in a lecture
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?
Why "had" in "[something] we would have made had we used [something]"?
Fear of getting stuck on one programming language / technology that is not used in my country
Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?
Redundant comparison & "if" before assignment
Can a College of Swords bard use a Blade Flourish option on an opportunity attack provoked by their own Dissonant Whispers spell?
Plot of a tornado-shaped surface
Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?
On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?
How would people tell time if it was always day?How would rogue planet civilization track the passage of time?On a planet without seasons, how would people track years?Do different star systems experience time differently?Would it be possible for there to be a life form that has a time symmetric life cycle?How survivors should measure time on tidal locked planet?What would be the possiblity of galaxy sized planet of sorts for a table top roleplaying gameWhat's the timeline for developing a broader view of time?Communicating unknown length of time without measurementsThe perception of time in a tidally-locked planetHow to integrate magic with nature, avoid the “our world with magic tacked on” problem?
$begingroup$
Assume a planet that always presents one side to the sun. No moons. The orbit of the planet around the star is essentially spherical, very minor and undetectable aberrations. The orbital period of the planet around the star is in multiples of the lifetimes of the sentient beings. That is, no sentient being lives long enough to go through one complete rotation.
NOTE: this question is not about HOW this would happen, it is to be taken as a given that it DID happen.
A sentient species evolves on this planet.
There are no day/night cycles, no seasons, and no cyclical changes in the sky - it would be constantly different throughout one's lifespan. No repeats. Life evolved without any natural circadian rhythm. Plants grew and died independently of any cycle. No defined growing season. A plant could sprout at any time, and die at any time. No menstrual cycles, no estrus cycles in animals. There would be no biological basis on which to establish any. Life would have evolved without any concept of cyclical time passage. As far as life was concerned, everything was eternally homogenous, time wise. Nothing happened in unison.
To these sentient beings, the passage of time is irrelevant. They have no way to compare the passage of time between people. Heart beats are different, respiration is different, one's pace in walking is different. The interval to travel from one point to another is different. It is human experience that what seems like a long period of time to one person is a short period of time for another person. The beings get to where they are going when they get there, without reference to anyone else's travels. They eat when they need to, irrespective of how long it has taken between meals (think of a snake, that can go for very long periods between meals, depending on how big the last meal was). Gestations are never the same length, so even if two beings got pregnant at the same time, the deliveries would never likely be at the same time. Two objects released from a height at the same moment would be observed to arrive at the ground at the same moment, but there would be no indication that if dropped at some other moment they would arrive at the ground in the same time as these two, without some form of quantized time.
Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized. Humans, of course, had to quantize time before we could develop any theories based on the quantization of time. This is a straightforward 'chicken or egg' thing.
It seems to me that if Galileo had no preconceived idea of the measure of the passage of time (through the passage of seasons, day/night cycles, etc) he would not have been able to discover that the periodicity of a pendulum was constant. Depending on his state of mind, sometimes the swing would appear to take forever, sometimes it would appear to be shorter.
It also seems to me that Newton relied on a distinct concept of the passage of quantized time before hand, in order to develop many of his Laws. (The action/reaction thing, and gravitational attraction thing, would be valid, just not quantized as to the passage of time).
Building structural integrity and engineering calculations for stresses have no time component to them, if built by 'Rule of Thumb' (We built the last one this thick, and it is still standing. The other one was built thinner, and it collapsed.)
If this sentient species had no experience that the passage of time was measurable and periodic, would they ever develop a method to quantize it? Would they ever TRY to quantize it, if there was nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic, that they needed to or even that they could consistently measure? What would that quantization look like?
I submit that this question is NOT the same as this, as many of the answers pertain to some form of naturally occurring cycle observable by humans, and /or are based on human circadian rhythms, which are not experienced by this species. This life form evolved without any ability to determine periodic time spans. Also, that question asks what would they use to quantize time, this asks what would their method of quantizing time look like? Would they even understand that time could be quantized into absolute divisions, that were equivalent between people and between events?
A further corollary question will be something along the lines of 'What would the Laws of Physics look like without time being quantized in the same constant periodic way that humans have quantized it?' But that is NOT in the scope of this question.
physics xenobiology time
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Assume a planet that always presents one side to the sun. No moons. The orbit of the planet around the star is essentially spherical, very minor and undetectable aberrations. The orbital period of the planet around the star is in multiples of the lifetimes of the sentient beings. That is, no sentient being lives long enough to go through one complete rotation.
NOTE: this question is not about HOW this would happen, it is to be taken as a given that it DID happen.
A sentient species evolves on this planet.
There are no day/night cycles, no seasons, and no cyclical changes in the sky - it would be constantly different throughout one's lifespan. No repeats. Life evolved without any natural circadian rhythm. Plants grew and died independently of any cycle. No defined growing season. A plant could sprout at any time, and die at any time. No menstrual cycles, no estrus cycles in animals. There would be no biological basis on which to establish any. Life would have evolved without any concept of cyclical time passage. As far as life was concerned, everything was eternally homogenous, time wise. Nothing happened in unison.
To these sentient beings, the passage of time is irrelevant. They have no way to compare the passage of time between people. Heart beats are different, respiration is different, one's pace in walking is different. The interval to travel from one point to another is different. It is human experience that what seems like a long period of time to one person is a short period of time for another person. The beings get to where they are going when they get there, without reference to anyone else's travels. They eat when they need to, irrespective of how long it has taken between meals (think of a snake, that can go for very long periods between meals, depending on how big the last meal was). Gestations are never the same length, so even if two beings got pregnant at the same time, the deliveries would never likely be at the same time. Two objects released from a height at the same moment would be observed to arrive at the ground at the same moment, but there would be no indication that if dropped at some other moment they would arrive at the ground in the same time as these two, without some form of quantized time.
Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized. Humans, of course, had to quantize time before we could develop any theories based on the quantization of time. This is a straightforward 'chicken or egg' thing.
It seems to me that if Galileo had no preconceived idea of the measure of the passage of time (through the passage of seasons, day/night cycles, etc) he would not have been able to discover that the periodicity of a pendulum was constant. Depending on his state of mind, sometimes the swing would appear to take forever, sometimes it would appear to be shorter.
It also seems to me that Newton relied on a distinct concept of the passage of quantized time before hand, in order to develop many of his Laws. (The action/reaction thing, and gravitational attraction thing, would be valid, just not quantized as to the passage of time).
Building structural integrity and engineering calculations for stresses have no time component to them, if built by 'Rule of Thumb' (We built the last one this thick, and it is still standing. The other one was built thinner, and it collapsed.)
If this sentient species had no experience that the passage of time was measurable and periodic, would they ever develop a method to quantize it? Would they ever TRY to quantize it, if there was nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic, that they needed to or even that they could consistently measure? What would that quantization look like?
I submit that this question is NOT the same as this, as many of the answers pertain to some form of naturally occurring cycle observable by humans, and /or are based on human circadian rhythms, which are not experienced by this species. This life form evolved without any ability to determine periodic time spans. Also, that question asks what would they use to quantize time, this asks what would their method of quantizing time look like? Would they even understand that time could be quantized into absolute divisions, that were equivalent between people and between events?
A further corollary question will be something along the lines of 'What would the Laws of Physics look like without time being quantized in the same constant periodic way that humans have quantized it?' But that is NOT in the scope of this question.
physics xenobiology time
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
"Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized": actually, as far as we know time is not quantized. (Neither are space and energy.) Action, electric charge, spin etc. are quantized. I suppose that you mean "measured". But quantization and measurement are two very different things. For example, why wouldn't they use sandglasses? As for "nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic", don't they have pendulums? Or even hearts for that matter?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexP I mean quantized, as in assigned a quantity, as in time is measured in seconds. As in 'verb (used with object), quan·tized, quan·tiz·ing. Mathematics , Physics . to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.' from dictionary.com/browse/quantized As in the thing you have to do BEFORE you can measure it.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is exactly my point: as far as we know, time does not consist of an integer number of indivisible moments. It does have a continuous set of values. 1 second, 1.2 seconds, 1.23 seconds, 1.234 seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say that a second is a second is a second. An integer number. Used to calculate speed, velocity. and even pay checks. The concept of quantization time came a long time before the concept of quantum mechanics and quantum theory.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, and? A meter is a meter is a meter. An ampere is an ampere is an ampere. Those are units of measurement, essentially arbitrary. We have nothing in our environment suggesting that space is quantized (and as far as we know, it isn't), but that has not stopped us from chosing an arbitrary stick and calling it one foot, one one pace, or one meter and then measuring lengths with it. It usually happens that lengths are not an integer number of feet (or paces, or meters). Same with time. There is nothing in nature which takes an integer number of seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Assume a planet that always presents one side to the sun. No moons. The orbit of the planet around the star is essentially spherical, very minor and undetectable aberrations. The orbital period of the planet around the star is in multiples of the lifetimes of the sentient beings. That is, no sentient being lives long enough to go through one complete rotation.
NOTE: this question is not about HOW this would happen, it is to be taken as a given that it DID happen.
A sentient species evolves on this planet.
There are no day/night cycles, no seasons, and no cyclical changes in the sky - it would be constantly different throughout one's lifespan. No repeats. Life evolved without any natural circadian rhythm. Plants grew and died independently of any cycle. No defined growing season. A plant could sprout at any time, and die at any time. No menstrual cycles, no estrus cycles in animals. There would be no biological basis on which to establish any. Life would have evolved without any concept of cyclical time passage. As far as life was concerned, everything was eternally homogenous, time wise. Nothing happened in unison.
To these sentient beings, the passage of time is irrelevant. They have no way to compare the passage of time between people. Heart beats are different, respiration is different, one's pace in walking is different. The interval to travel from one point to another is different. It is human experience that what seems like a long period of time to one person is a short period of time for another person. The beings get to where they are going when they get there, without reference to anyone else's travels. They eat when they need to, irrespective of how long it has taken between meals (think of a snake, that can go for very long periods between meals, depending on how big the last meal was). Gestations are never the same length, so even if two beings got pregnant at the same time, the deliveries would never likely be at the same time. Two objects released from a height at the same moment would be observed to arrive at the ground at the same moment, but there would be no indication that if dropped at some other moment they would arrive at the ground in the same time as these two, without some form of quantized time.
Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized. Humans, of course, had to quantize time before we could develop any theories based on the quantization of time. This is a straightforward 'chicken or egg' thing.
It seems to me that if Galileo had no preconceived idea of the measure of the passage of time (through the passage of seasons, day/night cycles, etc) he would not have been able to discover that the periodicity of a pendulum was constant. Depending on his state of mind, sometimes the swing would appear to take forever, sometimes it would appear to be shorter.
It also seems to me that Newton relied on a distinct concept of the passage of quantized time before hand, in order to develop many of his Laws. (The action/reaction thing, and gravitational attraction thing, would be valid, just not quantized as to the passage of time).
Building structural integrity and engineering calculations for stresses have no time component to them, if built by 'Rule of Thumb' (We built the last one this thick, and it is still standing. The other one was built thinner, and it collapsed.)
If this sentient species had no experience that the passage of time was measurable and periodic, would they ever develop a method to quantize it? Would they ever TRY to quantize it, if there was nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic, that they needed to or even that they could consistently measure? What would that quantization look like?
I submit that this question is NOT the same as this, as many of the answers pertain to some form of naturally occurring cycle observable by humans, and /or are based on human circadian rhythms, which are not experienced by this species. This life form evolved without any ability to determine periodic time spans. Also, that question asks what would they use to quantize time, this asks what would their method of quantizing time look like? Would they even understand that time could be quantized into absolute divisions, that were equivalent between people and between events?
A further corollary question will be something along the lines of 'What would the Laws of Physics look like without time being quantized in the same constant periodic way that humans have quantized it?' But that is NOT in the scope of this question.
physics xenobiology time
$endgroup$
Assume a planet that always presents one side to the sun. No moons. The orbit of the planet around the star is essentially spherical, very minor and undetectable aberrations. The orbital period of the planet around the star is in multiples of the lifetimes of the sentient beings. That is, no sentient being lives long enough to go through one complete rotation.
NOTE: this question is not about HOW this would happen, it is to be taken as a given that it DID happen.
A sentient species evolves on this planet.
There are no day/night cycles, no seasons, and no cyclical changes in the sky - it would be constantly different throughout one's lifespan. No repeats. Life evolved without any natural circadian rhythm. Plants grew and died independently of any cycle. No defined growing season. A plant could sprout at any time, and die at any time. No menstrual cycles, no estrus cycles in animals. There would be no biological basis on which to establish any. Life would have evolved without any concept of cyclical time passage. As far as life was concerned, everything was eternally homogenous, time wise. Nothing happened in unison.
To these sentient beings, the passage of time is irrelevant. They have no way to compare the passage of time between people. Heart beats are different, respiration is different, one's pace in walking is different. The interval to travel from one point to another is different. It is human experience that what seems like a long period of time to one person is a short period of time for another person. The beings get to where they are going when they get there, without reference to anyone else's travels. They eat when they need to, irrespective of how long it has taken between meals (think of a snake, that can go for very long periods between meals, depending on how big the last meal was). Gestations are never the same length, so even if two beings got pregnant at the same time, the deliveries would never likely be at the same time. Two objects released from a height at the same moment would be observed to arrive at the ground at the same moment, but there would be no indication that if dropped at some other moment they would arrive at the ground in the same time as these two, without some form of quantized time.
Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized. Humans, of course, had to quantize time before we could develop any theories based on the quantization of time. This is a straightforward 'chicken or egg' thing.
It seems to me that if Galileo had no preconceived idea of the measure of the passage of time (through the passage of seasons, day/night cycles, etc) he would not have been able to discover that the periodicity of a pendulum was constant. Depending on his state of mind, sometimes the swing would appear to take forever, sometimes it would appear to be shorter.
It also seems to me that Newton relied on a distinct concept of the passage of quantized time before hand, in order to develop many of his Laws. (The action/reaction thing, and gravitational attraction thing, would be valid, just not quantized as to the passage of time).
Building structural integrity and engineering calculations for stresses have no time component to them, if built by 'Rule of Thumb' (We built the last one this thick, and it is still standing. The other one was built thinner, and it collapsed.)
If this sentient species had no experience that the passage of time was measurable and periodic, would they ever develop a method to quantize it? Would they ever TRY to quantize it, if there was nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic, that they needed to or even that they could consistently measure? What would that quantization look like?
I submit that this question is NOT the same as this, as many of the answers pertain to some form of naturally occurring cycle observable by humans, and /or are based on human circadian rhythms, which are not experienced by this species. This life form evolved without any ability to determine periodic time spans. Also, that question asks what would they use to quantize time, this asks what would their method of quantizing time look like? Would they even understand that time could be quantized into absolute divisions, that were equivalent between people and between events?
A further corollary question will be something along the lines of 'What would the Laws of Physics look like without time being quantized in the same constant periodic way that humans have quantized it?' But that is NOT in the scope of this question.
physics xenobiology time
physics xenobiology time
edited 3 hours ago
Renan
50.3k13117252
50.3k13117252
asked 4 hours ago
Justin Thyme the SecondJustin Thyme the Second
8757
8757
3
$begingroup$
"Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized": actually, as far as we know time is not quantized. (Neither are space and energy.) Action, electric charge, spin etc. are quantized. I suppose that you mean "measured". But quantization and measurement are two very different things. For example, why wouldn't they use sandglasses? As for "nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic", don't they have pendulums? Or even hearts for that matter?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexP I mean quantized, as in assigned a quantity, as in time is measured in seconds. As in 'verb (used with object), quan·tized, quan·tiz·ing. Mathematics , Physics . to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.' from dictionary.com/browse/quantized As in the thing you have to do BEFORE you can measure it.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is exactly my point: as far as we know, time does not consist of an integer number of indivisible moments. It does have a continuous set of values. 1 second, 1.2 seconds, 1.23 seconds, 1.234 seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say that a second is a second is a second. An integer number. Used to calculate speed, velocity. and even pay checks. The concept of quantization time came a long time before the concept of quantum mechanics and quantum theory.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, and? A meter is a meter is a meter. An ampere is an ampere is an ampere. Those are units of measurement, essentially arbitrary. We have nothing in our environment suggesting that space is quantized (and as far as we know, it isn't), but that has not stopped us from chosing an arbitrary stick and calling it one foot, one one pace, or one meter and then measuring lengths with it. It usually happens that lengths are not an integer number of feet (or paces, or meters). Same with time. There is nothing in nature which takes an integer number of seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
3
$begingroup$
"Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized": actually, as far as we know time is not quantized. (Neither are space and energy.) Action, electric charge, spin etc. are quantized. I suppose that you mean "measured". But quantization and measurement are two very different things. For example, why wouldn't they use sandglasses? As for "nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic", don't they have pendulums? Or even hearts for that matter?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexP I mean quantized, as in assigned a quantity, as in time is measured in seconds. As in 'verb (used with object), quan·tized, quan·tiz·ing. Mathematics , Physics . to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.' from dictionary.com/browse/quantized As in the thing you have to do BEFORE you can measure it.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is exactly my point: as far as we know, time does not consist of an integer number of indivisible moments. It does have a continuous set of values. 1 second, 1.2 seconds, 1.23 seconds, 1.234 seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say that a second is a second is a second. An integer number. Used to calculate speed, velocity. and even pay checks. The concept of quantization time came a long time before the concept of quantum mechanics and quantum theory.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, and? A meter is a meter is a meter. An ampere is an ampere is an ampere. Those are units of measurement, essentially arbitrary. We have nothing in our environment suggesting that space is quantized (and as far as we know, it isn't), but that has not stopped us from chosing an arbitrary stick and calling it one foot, one one pace, or one meter and then measuring lengths with it. It usually happens that lengths are not an integer number of feet (or paces, or meters). Same with time. There is nothing in nature which takes an integer number of seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
"Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized": actually, as far as we know time is not quantized. (Neither are space and energy.) Action, electric charge, spin etc. are quantized. I suppose that you mean "measured". But quantization and measurement are two very different things. For example, why wouldn't they use sandglasses? As for "nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic", don't they have pendulums? Or even hearts for that matter?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized": actually, as far as we know time is not quantized. (Neither are space and energy.) Action, electric charge, spin etc. are quantized. I suppose that you mean "measured". But quantization and measurement are two very different things. For example, why wouldn't they use sandglasses? As for "nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic", don't they have pendulums? Or even hearts for that matter?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@AlexP I mean quantized, as in assigned a quantity, as in time is measured in seconds. As in 'verb (used with object), quan·tized, quan·tiz·ing. Mathematics , Physics . to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.' from dictionary.com/browse/quantized As in the thing you have to do BEFORE you can measure it.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP I mean quantized, as in assigned a quantity, as in time is measured in seconds. As in 'verb (used with object), quan·tized, quan·tiz·ing. Mathematics , Physics . to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.' from dictionary.com/browse/quantized As in the thing you have to do BEFORE you can measure it.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is exactly my point: as far as we know, time does not consist of an integer number of indivisible moments. It does have a continuous set of values. 1 second, 1.2 seconds, 1.23 seconds, 1.234 seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is exactly my point: as far as we know, time does not consist of an integer number of indivisible moments. It does have a continuous set of values. 1 second, 1.2 seconds, 1.23 seconds, 1.234 seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say that a second is a second is a second. An integer number. Used to calculate speed, velocity. and even pay checks. The concept of quantization time came a long time before the concept of quantum mechanics and quantum theory.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say that a second is a second is a second. An integer number. Used to calculate speed, velocity. and even pay checks. The concept of quantization time came a long time before the concept of quantum mechanics and quantum theory.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, and? A meter is a meter is a meter. An ampere is an ampere is an ampere. Those are units of measurement, essentially arbitrary. We have nothing in our environment suggesting that space is quantized (and as far as we know, it isn't), but that has not stopped us from chosing an arbitrary stick and calling it one foot, one one pace, or one meter and then measuring lengths with it. It usually happens that lengths are not an integer number of feet (or paces, or meters). Same with time. There is nothing in nature which takes an integer number of seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, and? A meter is a meter is a meter. An ampere is an ampere is an ampere. Those are units of measurement, essentially arbitrary. We have nothing in our environment suggesting that space is quantized (and as far as we know, it isn't), but that has not stopped us from chosing an arbitrary stick and calling it one foot, one one pace, or one meter and then measuring lengths with it. It usually happens that lengths are not an integer number of feet (or paces, or meters). Same with time. There is nothing in nature which takes an integer number of seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just because the heavens don't tick doesn't mean Earthly stuff won't tick as well.
People are going to count their heart beats, breaths and bowel movements.
Humanity may have used the sky as its sole time piece for millenia, but once we started to pay people by the hour we got creative. The sundial was the last time piece to depend on astronomy. The chinese would count time by seeing how long standardized ropes would take to burn. On this side of the world people would use hourglasses and water clocks. Sand and water take a fixed amount of time to clear a reservoir of a fixed size with a hole at the bottom.
Your people may not have the concept of a day, but they will still have some measure which they can use to make the life of office workers miserable. "How dare you say that the new feature for our app isn't ready yet, Rob? You told us it would take three turns of the hourglass during last scrum meeting!"
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am going to assume that your creatures have a social system. I'm also going to call them humans sense that's easier to say.
There are a lot of different reasons why social systems form, but sense your people are capable of language I am going to assume that it was for trade and to cooperate in hunting, both of which have TIGHT connections to time.
How much do you pay the Sheppard for watching your livestock? By the hour.
How long do you cook bread for? How long do you wait before reaping your fields? When someone says they'll send a shipment to you, how long do you wait before you tell them they're late and in breach of contract?
If your people don't care about answering these questions, they're not intelligent enough to form an understanding of time even in a world with cycles.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would they create concept of time, or especially effective way of measuring it a bit later? Possible. Would it be so shocking for them? No. Reason? Biology. We can't escape it.
- heart beat (escape that)
- circadian rhythm
- menstrual period
- pregnancy length (escape that, also for all major species)
- reproduction seasons of other species (in case of many species there is clear edge in doing it in one big go to overwhelm predators or find mate, example cicadas that perfectly aim their mating season every 13-17 years, yes prime number to make predators live harder)
- time necessary for their crops to mature from seedlings
EDIT: Clarification
How would animals manage? Not sure. Solar (spot) cycles? Star location on twilight zone for migratory animals? There is NO natural cycle taking 13 or 17 years, but because of evolutionary pressure animals managed to get it right. I would consider as highly unlikely if no animal managed anything like that.
Plants do NOT have to be synchronised, even on Earth. However, there are plenty of short lived plants, that have a few months cycle from seed to crops that are harvested. It does not have to be related to any special cycles like seasons. On Earth, in very good climate rice can be harvested 3 times per year.
If they are civilised, they are likely to have agriculture. If they have agriculture, then yield they should have some staple crops, with a few specially productive dominating. Sooner or later they start some big scale monocroping. Whatever is the time it takes from them to produce edible seeds, that period is roughly constant for any specific breed.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If economies of scale still apply here, then they will create growth and harvest cycles by selection (a la Gregor Mendel), tuned to the crop and location, once populations become efficient enough or large enough.
This is sufficient to create a kind of local calendar, quantized into arbitrary units of equal length (it's five units until harvest... time to prepare!). And I suggest those calendars will be based not just on selection-based growth cycles, but also on the level of effort of planting, tending, harvesting, etc by these sophonts. Again, economy of scale.
If they are thoughtful, their calendar will be easily divisible for those lacking mechanical calculators: 12 units, or 60 units, perhaps. They won't be base-ten.
If other crops become aligned, a less finely-tuned calendar could emerge, born from the interactions of multiple cycle times. Or one could win primacy, and the others would have correlations, and calendrics could become a career or an avocation.
These units could then form the basis of a clock: again, economies of scale imply that they will eventually have a schedule and meetings and therefore need to synchronize on an external standard. If units are quite large, then one turn of the clock could be one unit. Otherwise the clock equals the calendar.
And thus they, too, could arrive at modern conceptions of time.
You'll have to remove economies of scale to remove the calendar, and by implication the clock.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they were a hierarchical species, it's likely that time would be measured relative to the length of a founder-equivalent reign. This is how time was traditionally marked in monarchical societies. I'd guess that the most likely to evolve subunit would be either a base related to digits/appendage count (base ten for humans, base 8 for an arachnid species) or based on subunits of 60 - which is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 and a natural subunit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Biological rhythms might be irregular, but chemistry remains the same.
Chemical reactions aren't based on solar cycles, and they're the same everywhere in the universe. As soon as your species starts doing chemistry they're going to need to measure time, and also will have a means to do so.
And what's the granddaddy of all chemical reactions? Fire. As soon as one of your creatures tries to search a cave using a torch or cook an egg, they'll start to figure out this "time" thing.
Even in a tidally locked world has a changing sky.
The world you describe has a constant sun and no moon, but it still has stars. And those stars will change as the planet orbits through the year. When your creatures venture onto the dark side of your world, they will discover the yearly cycle that can't be measured by the non-existant seasons.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142123%2fon-a-tidally-locked-planet-would-time-be-quantized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just because the heavens don't tick doesn't mean Earthly stuff won't tick as well.
People are going to count their heart beats, breaths and bowel movements.
Humanity may have used the sky as its sole time piece for millenia, but once we started to pay people by the hour we got creative. The sundial was the last time piece to depend on astronomy. The chinese would count time by seeing how long standardized ropes would take to burn. On this side of the world people would use hourglasses and water clocks. Sand and water take a fixed amount of time to clear a reservoir of a fixed size with a hole at the bottom.
Your people may not have the concept of a day, but they will still have some measure which they can use to make the life of office workers miserable. "How dare you say that the new feature for our app isn't ready yet, Rob? You told us it would take three turns of the hourglass during last scrum meeting!"
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just because the heavens don't tick doesn't mean Earthly stuff won't tick as well.
People are going to count their heart beats, breaths and bowel movements.
Humanity may have used the sky as its sole time piece for millenia, but once we started to pay people by the hour we got creative. The sundial was the last time piece to depend on astronomy. The chinese would count time by seeing how long standardized ropes would take to burn. On this side of the world people would use hourglasses and water clocks. Sand and water take a fixed amount of time to clear a reservoir of a fixed size with a hole at the bottom.
Your people may not have the concept of a day, but they will still have some measure which they can use to make the life of office workers miserable. "How dare you say that the new feature for our app isn't ready yet, Rob? You told us it would take three turns of the hourglass during last scrum meeting!"
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just because the heavens don't tick doesn't mean Earthly stuff won't tick as well.
People are going to count their heart beats, breaths and bowel movements.
Humanity may have used the sky as its sole time piece for millenia, but once we started to pay people by the hour we got creative. The sundial was the last time piece to depend on astronomy. The chinese would count time by seeing how long standardized ropes would take to burn. On this side of the world people would use hourglasses and water clocks. Sand and water take a fixed amount of time to clear a reservoir of a fixed size with a hole at the bottom.
Your people may not have the concept of a day, but they will still have some measure which they can use to make the life of office workers miserable. "How dare you say that the new feature for our app isn't ready yet, Rob? You told us it would take three turns of the hourglass during last scrum meeting!"
$endgroup$
Just because the heavens don't tick doesn't mean Earthly stuff won't tick as well.
People are going to count their heart beats, breaths and bowel movements.
Humanity may have used the sky as its sole time piece for millenia, but once we started to pay people by the hour we got creative. The sundial was the last time piece to depend on astronomy. The chinese would count time by seeing how long standardized ropes would take to burn. On this side of the world people would use hourglasses and water clocks. Sand and water take a fixed amount of time to clear a reservoir of a fixed size with a hole at the bottom.
Your people may not have the concept of a day, but they will still have some measure which they can use to make the life of office workers miserable. "How dare you say that the new feature for our app isn't ready yet, Rob? You told us it would take three turns of the hourglass during last scrum meeting!"
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
50.3k13117252
50.3k13117252
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am going to assume that your creatures have a social system. I'm also going to call them humans sense that's easier to say.
There are a lot of different reasons why social systems form, but sense your people are capable of language I am going to assume that it was for trade and to cooperate in hunting, both of which have TIGHT connections to time.
How much do you pay the Sheppard for watching your livestock? By the hour.
How long do you cook bread for? How long do you wait before reaping your fields? When someone says they'll send a shipment to you, how long do you wait before you tell them they're late and in breach of contract?
If your people don't care about answering these questions, they're not intelligent enough to form an understanding of time even in a world with cycles.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am going to assume that your creatures have a social system. I'm also going to call them humans sense that's easier to say.
There are a lot of different reasons why social systems form, but sense your people are capable of language I am going to assume that it was for trade and to cooperate in hunting, both of which have TIGHT connections to time.
How much do you pay the Sheppard for watching your livestock? By the hour.
How long do you cook bread for? How long do you wait before reaping your fields? When someone says they'll send a shipment to you, how long do you wait before you tell them they're late and in breach of contract?
If your people don't care about answering these questions, they're not intelligent enough to form an understanding of time even in a world with cycles.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am going to assume that your creatures have a social system. I'm also going to call them humans sense that's easier to say.
There are a lot of different reasons why social systems form, but sense your people are capable of language I am going to assume that it was for trade and to cooperate in hunting, both of which have TIGHT connections to time.
How much do you pay the Sheppard for watching your livestock? By the hour.
How long do you cook bread for? How long do you wait before reaping your fields? When someone says they'll send a shipment to you, how long do you wait before you tell them they're late and in breach of contract?
If your people don't care about answering these questions, they're not intelligent enough to form an understanding of time even in a world with cycles.
$endgroup$
I am going to assume that your creatures have a social system. I'm also going to call them humans sense that's easier to say.
There are a lot of different reasons why social systems form, but sense your people are capable of language I am going to assume that it was for trade and to cooperate in hunting, both of which have TIGHT connections to time.
How much do you pay the Sheppard for watching your livestock? By the hour.
How long do you cook bread for? How long do you wait before reaping your fields? When someone says they'll send a shipment to you, how long do you wait before you tell them they're late and in breach of contract?
If your people don't care about answering these questions, they're not intelligent enough to form an understanding of time even in a world with cycles.
answered 2 hours ago
MuuskiMuuski
33817
33817
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would they create concept of time, or especially effective way of measuring it a bit later? Possible. Would it be so shocking for them? No. Reason? Biology. We can't escape it.
- heart beat (escape that)
- circadian rhythm
- menstrual period
- pregnancy length (escape that, also for all major species)
- reproduction seasons of other species (in case of many species there is clear edge in doing it in one big go to overwhelm predators or find mate, example cicadas that perfectly aim their mating season every 13-17 years, yes prime number to make predators live harder)
- time necessary for their crops to mature from seedlings
EDIT: Clarification
How would animals manage? Not sure. Solar (spot) cycles? Star location on twilight zone for migratory animals? There is NO natural cycle taking 13 or 17 years, but because of evolutionary pressure animals managed to get it right. I would consider as highly unlikely if no animal managed anything like that.
Plants do NOT have to be synchronised, even on Earth. However, there are plenty of short lived plants, that have a few months cycle from seed to crops that are harvested. It does not have to be related to any special cycles like seasons. On Earth, in very good climate rice can be harvested 3 times per year.
If they are civilised, they are likely to have agriculture. If they have agriculture, then yield they should have some staple crops, with a few specially productive dominating. Sooner or later they start some big scale monocroping. Whatever is the time it takes from them to produce edible seeds, that period is roughly constant for any specific breed.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would they create concept of time, or especially effective way of measuring it a bit later? Possible. Would it be so shocking for them? No. Reason? Biology. We can't escape it.
- heart beat (escape that)
- circadian rhythm
- menstrual period
- pregnancy length (escape that, also for all major species)
- reproduction seasons of other species (in case of many species there is clear edge in doing it in one big go to overwhelm predators or find mate, example cicadas that perfectly aim their mating season every 13-17 years, yes prime number to make predators live harder)
- time necessary for their crops to mature from seedlings
EDIT: Clarification
How would animals manage? Not sure. Solar (spot) cycles? Star location on twilight zone for migratory animals? There is NO natural cycle taking 13 or 17 years, but because of evolutionary pressure animals managed to get it right. I would consider as highly unlikely if no animal managed anything like that.
Plants do NOT have to be synchronised, even on Earth. However, there are plenty of short lived plants, that have a few months cycle from seed to crops that are harvested. It does not have to be related to any special cycles like seasons. On Earth, in very good climate rice can be harvested 3 times per year.
If they are civilised, they are likely to have agriculture. If they have agriculture, then yield they should have some staple crops, with a few specially productive dominating. Sooner or later they start some big scale monocroping. Whatever is the time it takes from them to produce edible seeds, that period is roughly constant for any specific breed.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would they create concept of time, or especially effective way of measuring it a bit later? Possible. Would it be so shocking for them? No. Reason? Biology. We can't escape it.
- heart beat (escape that)
- circadian rhythm
- menstrual period
- pregnancy length (escape that, also for all major species)
- reproduction seasons of other species (in case of many species there is clear edge in doing it in one big go to overwhelm predators or find mate, example cicadas that perfectly aim their mating season every 13-17 years, yes prime number to make predators live harder)
- time necessary for their crops to mature from seedlings
EDIT: Clarification
How would animals manage? Not sure. Solar (spot) cycles? Star location on twilight zone for migratory animals? There is NO natural cycle taking 13 or 17 years, but because of evolutionary pressure animals managed to get it right. I would consider as highly unlikely if no animal managed anything like that.
Plants do NOT have to be synchronised, even on Earth. However, there are plenty of short lived plants, that have a few months cycle from seed to crops that are harvested. It does not have to be related to any special cycles like seasons. On Earth, in very good climate rice can be harvested 3 times per year.
If they are civilised, they are likely to have agriculture. If they have agriculture, then yield they should have some staple crops, with a few specially productive dominating. Sooner or later they start some big scale monocroping. Whatever is the time it takes from them to produce edible seeds, that period is roughly constant for any specific breed.
$endgroup$
Would they create concept of time, or especially effective way of measuring it a bit later? Possible. Would it be so shocking for them? No. Reason? Biology. We can't escape it.
- heart beat (escape that)
- circadian rhythm
- menstrual period
- pregnancy length (escape that, also for all major species)
- reproduction seasons of other species (in case of many species there is clear edge in doing it in one big go to overwhelm predators or find mate, example cicadas that perfectly aim their mating season every 13-17 years, yes prime number to make predators live harder)
- time necessary for their crops to mature from seedlings
EDIT: Clarification
How would animals manage? Not sure. Solar (spot) cycles? Star location on twilight zone for migratory animals? There is NO natural cycle taking 13 or 17 years, but because of evolutionary pressure animals managed to get it right. I would consider as highly unlikely if no animal managed anything like that.
Plants do NOT have to be synchronised, even on Earth. However, there are plenty of short lived plants, that have a few months cycle from seed to crops that are harvested. It does not have to be related to any special cycles like seasons. On Earth, in very good climate rice can be harvested 3 times per year.
If they are civilised, they are likely to have agriculture. If they have agriculture, then yield they should have some staple crops, with a few specially productive dominating. Sooner or later they start some big scale monocroping. Whatever is the time it takes from them to produce edible seeds, that period is roughly constant for any specific breed.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Shadow1024Shadow1024
4,903933
4,903933
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Most of these are addressed in the question. Some were specifically called out as not existing. For others, without the environmental triggers, how would a species align its breeding? Without seasons, why would the planting of crops be synchronized?
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Corrected. Should work, unless you increase the amount of handwavium even further.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If economies of scale still apply here, then they will create growth and harvest cycles by selection (a la Gregor Mendel), tuned to the crop and location, once populations become efficient enough or large enough.
This is sufficient to create a kind of local calendar, quantized into arbitrary units of equal length (it's five units until harvest... time to prepare!). And I suggest those calendars will be based not just on selection-based growth cycles, but also on the level of effort of planting, tending, harvesting, etc by these sophonts. Again, economy of scale.
If they are thoughtful, their calendar will be easily divisible for those lacking mechanical calculators: 12 units, or 60 units, perhaps. They won't be base-ten.
If other crops become aligned, a less finely-tuned calendar could emerge, born from the interactions of multiple cycle times. Or one could win primacy, and the others would have correlations, and calendrics could become a career or an avocation.
These units could then form the basis of a clock: again, economies of scale imply that they will eventually have a schedule and meetings and therefore need to synchronize on an external standard. If units are quite large, then one turn of the clock could be one unit. Otherwise the clock equals the calendar.
And thus they, too, could arrive at modern conceptions of time.
You'll have to remove economies of scale to remove the calendar, and by implication the clock.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If economies of scale still apply here, then they will create growth and harvest cycles by selection (a la Gregor Mendel), tuned to the crop and location, once populations become efficient enough or large enough.
This is sufficient to create a kind of local calendar, quantized into arbitrary units of equal length (it's five units until harvest... time to prepare!). And I suggest those calendars will be based not just on selection-based growth cycles, but also on the level of effort of planting, tending, harvesting, etc by these sophonts. Again, economy of scale.
If they are thoughtful, their calendar will be easily divisible for those lacking mechanical calculators: 12 units, or 60 units, perhaps. They won't be base-ten.
If other crops become aligned, a less finely-tuned calendar could emerge, born from the interactions of multiple cycle times. Or one could win primacy, and the others would have correlations, and calendrics could become a career or an avocation.
These units could then form the basis of a clock: again, economies of scale imply that they will eventually have a schedule and meetings and therefore need to synchronize on an external standard. If units are quite large, then one turn of the clock could be one unit. Otherwise the clock equals the calendar.
And thus they, too, could arrive at modern conceptions of time.
You'll have to remove economies of scale to remove the calendar, and by implication the clock.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If economies of scale still apply here, then they will create growth and harvest cycles by selection (a la Gregor Mendel), tuned to the crop and location, once populations become efficient enough or large enough.
This is sufficient to create a kind of local calendar, quantized into arbitrary units of equal length (it's five units until harvest... time to prepare!). And I suggest those calendars will be based not just on selection-based growth cycles, but also on the level of effort of planting, tending, harvesting, etc by these sophonts. Again, economy of scale.
If they are thoughtful, their calendar will be easily divisible for those lacking mechanical calculators: 12 units, or 60 units, perhaps. They won't be base-ten.
If other crops become aligned, a less finely-tuned calendar could emerge, born from the interactions of multiple cycle times. Or one could win primacy, and the others would have correlations, and calendrics could become a career or an avocation.
These units could then form the basis of a clock: again, economies of scale imply that they will eventually have a schedule and meetings and therefore need to synchronize on an external standard. If units are quite large, then one turn of the clock could be one unit. Otherwise the clock equals the calendar.
And thus they, too, could arrive at modern conceptions of time.
You'll have to remove economies of scale to remove the calendar, and by implication the clock.
$endgroup$
If economies of scale still apply here, then they will create growth and harvest cycles by selection (a la Gregor Mendel), tuned to the crop and location, once populations become efficient enough or large enough.
This is sufficient to create a kind of local calendar, quantized into arbitrary units of equal length (it's five units until harvest... time to prepare!). And I suggest those calendars will be based not just on selection-based growth cycles, but also on the level of effort of planting, tending, harvesting, etc by these sophonts. Again, economy of scale.
If they are thoughtful, their calendar will be easily divisible for those lacking mechanical calculators: 12 units, or 60 units, perhaps. They won't be base-ten.
If other crops become aligned, a less finely-tuned calendar could emerge, born from the interactions of multiple cycle times. Or one could win primacy, and the others would have correlations, and calendrics could become a career or an avocation.
These units could then form the basis of a clock: again, economies of scale imply that they will eventually have a schedule and meetings and therefore need to synchronize on an external standard. If units are quite large, then one turn of the clock could be one unit. Otherwise the clock equals the calendar.
And thus they, too, could arrive at modern conceptions of time.
You'll have to remove economies of scale to remove the calendar, and by implication the clock.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
rjerje
568210
568210
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they were a hierarchical species, it's likely that time would be measured relative to the length of a founder-equivalent reign. This is how time was traditionally marked in monarchical societies. I'd guess that the most likely to evolve subunit would be either a base related to digits/appendage count (base ten for humans, base 8 for an arachnid species) or based on subunits of 60 - which is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 and a natural subunit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they were a hierarchical species, it's likely that time would be measured relative to the length of a founder-equivalent reign. This is how time was traditionally marked in monarchical societies. I'd guess that the most likely to evolve subunit would be either a base related to digits/appendage count (base ten for humans, base 8 for an arachnid species) or based on subunits of 60 - which is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 and a natural subunit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they were a hierarchical species, it's likely that time would be measured relative to the length of a founder-equivalent reign. This is how time was traditionally marked in monarchical societies. I'd guess that the most likely to evolve subunit would be either a base related to digits/appendage count (base ten for humans, base 8 for an arachnid species) or based on subunits of 60 - which is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 and a natural subunit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
If they were a hierarchical species, it's likely that time would be measured relative to the length of a founder-equivalent reign. This is how time was traditionally marked in monarchical societies. I'd guess that the most likely to evolve subunit would be either a base related to digits/appendage count (base ten for humans, base 8 for an arachnid species) or based on subunits of 60 - which is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 and a natural subunit.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 14 mins ago
Michael MMichael M
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Biological rhythms might be irregular, but chemistry remains the same.
Chemical reactions aren't based on solar cycles, and they're the same everywhere in the universe. As soon as your species starts doing chemistry they're going to need to measure time, and also will have a means to do so.
And what's the granddaddy of all chemical reactions? Fire. As soon as one of your creatures tries to search a cave using a torch or cook an egg, they'll start to figure out this "time" thing.
Even in a tidally locked world has a changing sky.
The world you describe has a constant sun and no moon, but it still has stars. And those stars will change as the planet orbits through the year. When your creatures venture onto the dark side of your world, they will discover the yearly cycle that can't be measured by the non-existant seasons.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Biological rhythms might be irregular, but chemistry remains the same.
Chemical reactions aren't based on solar cycles, and they're the same everywhere in the universe. As soon as your species starts doing chemistry they're going to need to measure time, and also will have a means to do so.
And what's the granddaddy of all chemical reactions? Fire. As soon as one of your creatures tries to search a cave using a torch or cook an egg, they'll start to figure out this "time" thing.
Even in a tidally locked world has a changing sky.
The world you describe has a constant sun and no moon, but it still has stars. And those stars will change as the planet orbits through the year. When your creatures venture onto the dark side of your world, they will discover the yearly cycle that can't be measured by the non-existant seasons.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Biological rhythms might be irregular, but chemistry remains the same.
Chemical reactions aren't based on solar cycles, and they're the same everywhere in the universe. As soon as your species starts doing chemistry they're going to need to measure time, and also will have a means to do so.
And what's the granddaddy of all chemical reactions? Fire. As soon as one of your creatures tries to search a cave using a torch or cook an egg, they'll start to figure out this "time" thing.
Even in a tidally locked world has a changing sky.
The world you describe has a constant sun and no moon, but it still has stars. And those stars will change as the planet orbits through the year. When your creatures venture onto the dark side of your world, they will discover the yearly cycle that can't be measured by the non-existant seasons.
$endgroup$
Biological rhythms might be irregular, but chemistry remains the same.
Chemical reactions aren't based on solar cycles, and they're the same everywhere in the universe. As soon as your species starts doing chemistry they're going to need to measure time, and also will have a means to do so.
And what's the granddaddy of all chemical reactions? Fire. As soon as one of your creatures tries to search a cave using a torch or cook an egg, they'll start to figure out this "time" thing.
Even in a tidally locked world has a changing sky.
The world you describe has a constant sun and no moon, but it still has stars. And those stars will change as the planet orbits through the year. When your creatures venture onto the dark side of your world, they will discover the yearly cycle that can't be measured by the non-existant seasons.
answered 14 mins ago
Arcanist LupusArcanist Lupus
4,9571624
4,9571624
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142123%2fon-a-tidally-locked-planet-would-time-be-quantized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
"Many of our 'Laws of Physics' require time to be quantized": actually, as far as we know time is not quantized. (Neither are space and energy.) Action, electric charge, spin etc. are quantized. I suppose that you mean "measured". But quantization and measurement are two very different things. For example, why wouldn't they use sandglasses? As for "nothing in their environment that was consistently and repeatedly cyclic", don't they have pendulums? Or even hearts for that matter?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexP I mean quantized, as in assigned a quantity, as in time is measured in seconds. As in 'verb (used with object), quan·tized, quan·tiz·ing. Mathematics , Physics . to restrict (a variable quantity) to discrete values rather than to a continuous set of values.' from dictionary.com/browse/quantized As in the thing you have to do BEFORE you can measure it.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is exactly my point: as far as we know, time does not consist of an integer number of indivisible moments. It does have a continuous set of values. 1 second, 1.2 seconds, 1.23 seconds, 1.234 seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say that a second is a second is a second. An integer number. Used to calculate speed, velocity. and even pay checks. The concept of quantization time came a long time before the concept of quantum mechanics and quantum theory.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme the Second
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, and? A meter is a meter is a meter. An ampere is an ampere is an ampere. Those are units of measurement, essentially arbitrary. We have nothing in our environment suggesting that space is quantized (and as far as we know, it isn't), but that has not stopped us from chosing an arbitrary stick and calling it one foot, one one pace, or one meter and then measuring lengths with it. It usually happens that lengths are not an integer number of feet (or paces, or meters). Same with time. There is nothing in nature which takes an integer number of seconds...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago