0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm not a physicist, but I suspect that one reason why physicists are reluctant to talk of a moment in time is that it is not an exact term. Another is that, in physics, "moment" has its own definition that is not quite the same.When you talk of a moment in time, do you mean "that infinitesimal point of time that is the present", or were you thinking of a definable period of time, as in: that was the moment at which it happened?
The Greek philospher Zeno effectively argued that there must be some smallest unit of time, and since nothing can change in this time, motion is impossible(!)Given the speed of human neurones, the shortest perceptible "moment in time" must be in the region of 10ms to 100ms.Physicists can measure and control events that are in the order of femtoseconds, or 10-15 seconds.But this is still far larger than what some theories suggest is the smallest unit of time, at around 10-44 seconds.
"A moment in time" can be defined for any set of observers sharing a single reference frame... a static system with no movement or acceleration. Einstein proved that there is no such meaningful concept for the physical universe, this is called "non-simultaneity".
Before our universe emerged out of the primordial singularity, time did not exist,
After all if time did not flow, then, the primordial singularity, was stuck in a "moment"
The expression "A moment in time" does it exist in physics?