Time's topological structure might be like a straight line, or like a circle. This latter possibility conflicts with the manifest image of time.
An instantaneous event at one place is said to be a "point" event. If we add a reference system, then we can name the point event; usually numbers or sets of numbers are used for names. A reference system is basically just an applied coordinate system. A typical coordinate system used in contemporary physics is a continuous labeling of events with an ordered set of four real numbers. In this way, we can say a specific point event has just one temporal coordinate t 1 , with t 1 being some real number with a unit, such as a second; and we can say that at t 1 the event has just one ordered set of spatial location coordinates x 1 , y 1 , z 1 , which is an ordered triple of real numbers, all having units such as meters.
A Cartesian coordinate system has mutually perpendicular axes. If space or spacetime curve, then a Cartesian coordinate system will not be applicable, and more exotic coordinate systems must be used. Choosing a Cartesian coordinate system is a matter of convenience, but only a Euclidean space can have a Cartesian coordinate system. Spaces satisfying Newton's mechanics or special relativity are Euclidean, but spaces requiring the general theory of relativity are usually Euclidean only in their infinitesimal regions.
In all spaces satisfying either Newtonian mechanics, special relativity or general relativity, time is normally assigned real-valued coordinates. This assignment implies time's instants are gap-free and that they are so densely packed that there is no next coordinate to any coordinate.
Also, it implies that between any two different temporal coordinates, there is an aleph-one infinite number of other coordinates. No sciences have found a need to model time more densely than this, with, say, the hyperreal numbers or surreal numbers. Nor is there any need to model time with two dimensions instead of one. There is disagreement about whether time needs to be quantized.
Advocates of some speculative theories of quantum gravity require time to be quantized. With the acceptance of relativity theory, and its implication that there are many valid perspectives or reference frames and so no one frame is the correct frame, scientists have accepted that any objective description of the world can be made only with statements that are invariant under changes of the reference frame. So, saying you are standing still at 8: You are probably not standing still as measured in a frame fixed to a spinning carousel.
Let's explore this last point in more detail. Isaac Newton did not actually use the concept of a reference frame, but it is helpful to use it to succinctly describe his beliefs. Newton assumed that if event 1 lasts just as long as event 2 in one frame, then it does so in other frames. Newton also assumed that, if you are five feet tall in one reference frame, then you are that tall in other frames. Einstein undermined these two Newtonian assumptions. Einstein's theory of relativity is the scientific theory that has had the biggest impact upon our understanding of time.
Einstein said, "Time is relative. Relative to, in the sense of depending upon. Newton would say that if you are seated in a moving vehicle, then your speed relative to the vehicle is zero, but your speed relative to the road is not zero. However, he would surprise Newton by saying the length of your vehicle is slightly different in the two reference frames. Equally surprising to Newton, the duration of your drinking a cup of coffee while in the vehicle is slightly different in those two reference frames.
These effects are called space contraction and time dilation , respectively. So, both length and duration are frame dependent and not objectively real characteristics of things unless some reference frame is being assumed at least implicitly. Using a stationary clock, suppose you correctly measure an event to have lasted t seconds.
Physics of Time
If the same event is measured correctly to have lasted t' seconds by a clock moving at constant speed v relative to a frame in which you are stationary, then regardless of the moving clock's direction of motion,. That is, the time of the moving clock always reads less because its time is dilated or stretched. Can two different people be correct in saying, "Your clock is running slow compared to mine. With space contraction and time dilation, namely with the relativity of length and of duration, Einstein's special theory is requiring a mixing of space and time. Spacetime divides into its space part and its time part differently for two reference frames that move relative to each other.
Because there are an infinite number of frames that could be chosen, to claim that an event lasted three minutes without giving even an implicit indication of the reference frame is to make a very ambiguous claim. Because there is no single correct frame to use for specifying which events are present and which are past, one philosophical implication of the relativity of time is that it seems to be more difficult to defend McTaggart's A-theory that says temporal properties of events such as "is happening now" or "happened in the past" are frame-free properties of those events.
Another profound implication of relativity theory is that two accurate clocks do not usually stay synchronized that is, tick the same after the clocks are initially synchronized. Each clock has its own proper time. So does any other physical object. Proper time for an object is the physical time that would be shown by a very small clock if it were attached to the object as the object travels around.
In the technical terminology of relativity theory, we adopt the "clock hypothesis" that any correct clock gives the elapsed proper time along its own world line. A clock's proper time depends on the clock's history, its history of speed and gravitational influence. We notice this influence when we see that synchronized clocks will not stay synchronized if they either move relative to each other or undergo different gravitational forces.
Other forces, such as electromagnetic forces, are irrelevant to this. Relative to clocks that are stationary in the reference frame, clocks in motion in the frame run slower, as do clocks in stronger gravitational fields. So, a clock in a car parked near your apartment building runs slower than the stationary clock in your upper floor apartment. Effects on time by speed and gravitation are called "time dilation effects. Because every object has its own proper time, which usually does not stay in synchrony with another object's proper time, there are as many proper time lines as there are objects.
This idea is sometimes expressed by saying time is not universal. Because every person has his or her own proper time, two persons undergoing different motions or different gravitational fields will correctly assign different times to the same event and so be time travelers relative to each other. This difference for an event is not just for events the persons themselves are involved in.
For example, if I am walking along the road and you drive by me toward the traffic signal ahead, then we will very nearly agree on the time at which the traffic signal changed color, but if we want to know what event on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy is simultaneous with the traffic signal's color change, we will correctly choose Andromeda events that differ from each other by several weeks. This is yet another example of how relativistic effects usually do not arise in our everyday experience but only in extreme situations involving very high speeds, extremely large masses, high-strength gravitational fields, or, in this example, extreme distances.
This situation with the Andromeda Galaxy is an example of how, for some pairs of events that are extremely distant from each other so that neither event could have had a causal effect upon the other, the theory of relativity does not put any time order structure on the pair; one could happen first, the other could happen first, or they could be simultaneous, and only the imposition of a reference frame on the universe will force a decision on their temporal order.
But since this order depends on the reference frame, the time order of the pair is not objective. According to special relativity, spacetime does not curve and space also does not curve. According to general relativity they do, and the curvature is not relative to the chosen reference frame. Spacetime is dynamic in the sense that any change in the amount and distribution of matter-energy will change the curvature.
This change is propagated at the speed of light, not instantaneously. The curvature of time can be detected by noticing the synchronized clocks become unsynchronized.
An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.
In a world obeying special relativity, spacetime is required to have a Minkowskian structure everywhere, and the intended space aspect of spacetime is Euclidean. Deviations from a more general Minkowskian structure are usually due to the presence of matter-energy; think of a Minkowski diagram being twisted in the presence of matter or energy. One noteworthy philosophical point here is that, according to general relativity, although the presence of gravity arising from a mass or energy implies spacetime's having intrinsic curvature, not all spacetime curvature implies the presence of mass or energy.
Spacetime containing no mass-energy can still have curvature; therefore, the geometry of spacetime is influenced by, but not always determined by, the behavior of its matter-energy. This point has been interpreted by many philosophers as a good reason to reject Leibniz's classical relationism. The point was first discovered by Arthur Eddington in his analysis of the de Sitter solution to Einstein's equations in his relativity theory. There are many kinds of universes that are models of the equations of general relativity.
For example, the theory of relativity does not say whether the universe is finite or infinite in volume, nor what its overall curvature is, nor whether it has a multi-connected or a disconnected topology. Physicists generally agree that our universe is some model of the theory, or very nearly.
One other limitation of the theory is that it, given the applicability of quantum theory, too, it fails for features involving distances less than 10 centimeters, and for durations less than 10 seconds. This is the tiny Planck scale. A major goal of the field of physics is to find a new theory, called a theory of quantum gravity, that provides an understanding of what happens at or below the Planck scale. Many believe time disappears at this small scale. There is great uncertainty among professional cosmologists about whether the past is infinite. The cosmologists' currently accepted theory of past time requires an explosion of all space when the universe had a very small volume.
This caused all material in the space to expand, too. Many theories that imply this phenomenon are called Big Bang Theories, the classical version of which says time began from a singularity a finite time ago. The controversy is whether there were times before tht. The mathematical physicist Stephen Hawking once famously quipped that asking for what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. He later retracted that remark and said it is an open question whether there was time before the big bang. For a brief discussion of this controversy, see Ijjas, et.
There has been much speculation over the centuries about the extent of the past and the future, although almost all remarks have contained serious ambiguities. For example, regarding the end of time, is this end a the end of humanity, or b the end of life, or c the end of the world that was created by God, but not counting God, or d the end of all natural and supernatural change?
Intimately related to these questions are two others: Is it being assumed that time exists without change, and just what is meant by the term "change"? With these cautions in mind, here is a brief summary of speculations throughout the centuries about whether time has a beginning or end. Regarding the beginning of time, the Greek atomist Lucretius in about 50 B. For surely the atoms did not hold council, assigning order to each, flexing their keen minds with questions of place and motion and who goes where.
But shuffled and jumbled in many ways, in the course of endless time they are buffeted, driven along chancing upon all motions, combinations. At last they fall into such an arrangement as would create this universe. The implication is that time has always existed, but that an organized universe began a finite time ago with a random fluctuation. Plato and Aristotle, both of whom were opponents of the atomists, agreed that the past is infinite eternal. Aristotle offered two reasons. Time had no beginning because, for any time, we always can imagine an earlier time. In addition, time had no beginning because everything in the world has a prior, efficient cause.
In the fifth century, Augustine disagreed with Aristotle and said the past is finite because time came into existence by an act of God. Martin Luther estimated the universe to have begun in 4, B. Then Johannes Kepler estimated that it began in 4, B. In the early seventeenth century, the Calvinist James Ussher calculated from the Bible that the world began in 4, B.
In about , Isaac Newton claimed future time is infinite and that, although God created the material world some finite time ago, there was an infinite period of past time before that. His position was accepted for many centuries in the West. Advances in geology eventually refuted the low estimates that the universe was created in about 4, B. The classical big bang theories assume time began approximately It is also difficult to understand St.
This nothingness is the philosopher's nothing, not the physicist's vacuum; it is the absence of all time, as well as all fields, matter, and space. If that is correct, and if the universe obeys laws, then there would be fundamental laws of physics prior to the existence of anything else. However, no one has any good idea of what those most fundamental laws are. Let's focus now on the future of time. Time ends for any object that falls into a black hole. For us and other objects not inside a black hole, the future is probably infinite, but there is uncertainty about this among the experts in cosmology.
Here is a summary of some serious suggestions by twenty-first century cosmologists about our universe's future or, if the multiverse theory is correct, our particular universe's future. For more details about the big bang and fixing the limits on future time and past time, see What Else Science Requires of Time. Is physical time a basic feature of nature, or does it emerge from more basic timeless features? Emergence is about new components or properties appearing from in the technical sense of being at least supervenient upon more basic components or properties that do not have the emergent features.
For example, heat emerges from molecular motion, but no molecule is hot. The classical relationists such as Leibniz argued that time emerges from events, and if there were no events, then there would be no time. This metaphysical position is called relationism. The substantivalists such as Newton said time is basic and not emergent, and this position was the majority position among scientists until the confirmation of the theory of relativity.
Relativity theory suggested to most researchers in the first half of the 20th century that spacetime emerges from events, and that time is a particular feature or dimension of spacetime. Many physicists working in the field of quantum gravity suspect that resolving the contradiction between quantum theory and gravitational theory will require forcing spacetime and thus time to emerge from some more basic timeless substrate at or below the level of the Planck length and the Planck time.
However, there is no empirical evidence yet to back up this suspicion, nor any agreed-upon theory of what the substrate is. The relation of this substrate to the spacetime itself cannot be analogous to the relation of a brick to a brick wall because the brick's having a definite size would violate special relativity's requirement that any "brick" of time has a size that may change with whichever reference frame is chosen. Thus the emphasis on "covariant" entities, namely entities that are reference-frame independent. For example, advocates of the theory of loop quantum gravity say that everything in the universe emerges from a single type of entity: For these advocates, time emerges with continuity and an arrow only at scales significantly greater than the Planck scale.
Some physicists at the turn of the twenty-first century claimed space is fundamental, but time is not. Other physicists speculated that time is fundamental but space is not. In , after winning the Nobel Prize in physics, David Gross expressed that viewpoint. String theory is his favored theory for reconciling the conflicts between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.
- The Brandful Workforce: How Employees Can Make, Not Break Your Brand;
- Les Portes de Québec T1: Faubourg Saint-Roch (French Edition).
- BecomingMom.com?
- Follow the Fader.
- What the heck is time-series data (and why do I need a time-series database)?.
- Stalins Barber: A Novel;
Everyone in string theory is convinced…that spacetime is doomed. We have an enormous amount of evidence that space is doomed. We even have examples, mathematically well-defined examples, where space is an emergent concept They have emergent space but not time. It is very hard for me to imagine a formulation of physics without time as a primary concept because physics is typically thought of as predicting the future given the past. We have unitary time evolution.
How could we have a theory of physics where we start with something in which time is never mentioned? I now believe that time does not exist at all, and that motion itself is pure illusion Barbour , p. The here and now arises not from a past, but from the totality of things He then offered an exotic explanation which won't be described here of how nature creates the false impression that time exists. He argued that, although there does exist objectively an infinity of individual, instantaneous moments, nevertheless there is no objective happens-before ordering of them, no objective time order.
There is just a vast, jumbled heap of moments p. Each moment is an instantaneous configuration relative to one observer's reference frame of all the objects in space. If the universe is as Barbour describes, then space the relative spatial relationships within a configuration is ontologically fundamental, but time is not, and neither is spacetime.
In this way, time is removed from the foundations of physics and emerges as some measure of the differences among the existing spatial configurations. The physicist Carlo Rovelli said: For a description of six different, detailed speculations on what the ultimate constituents of spacetime are, see Merali, Time has both conventional and non-conventional aspects. There are many non-conventional aspects of time that are mentioned throughout this article.
If event 1 happens before event 2, and event 2 happens before event 3, then event 1 also happens before event 3. This transitivity is a general feature of time, not a convention. The second is conventional in that our society could have chosen to make the second be longer or shorter than it now is. It is a convention that there are sixty-seconds in a minute rather than sixty-six, that there are twenty-four hours in a day instead of twenty-three, and that no week fails to contain a Tuesday.
The issue here is conventional vs. Although the term "convention" is somewhat vague, conventions are up to us to freely adopt and are not objective features of the external world that we are forced to accept if we seek the truth. Conventions are invented or are artificial as opposed to being natural or mandatory or factual.
It is a fact that the color of normal, healthy leaves is green; it is not up to us to declare that leaves shall be green. It is up to us to declare that leaves shall be referred to with the simple word "leaves" as opposed to a ten-million-letter word. Conventions need not be arbitrary; they can be useful or have other pragmatic virtues.
Nevertheless, if a feature is conventional, then there must in some sense be reasonable alternative conventions that could have been adopted. Also, conventions can be explicit or implicit. For one last caution, conventions can turn into facts. The assumption that matter is composed of atoms was a useful convention in late 19th century physics; but, after Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion in terms of atoms, the convention became a fact. It is also a useful convention that, in order to keep future noons from occuring during the night, clocks are re-set by one hour as one moves across a time-zone on the Earth's surface, and that leap days and leap seconds are used.
The minor adjustments with leap seconds are required because the Earth's rotations and revolutions are not exactly regular. For political reasons, time zones do not always have longitudes for boundaries. For similar reasons, some geographical regions use daylight savings time instead of standard time. Consider the ordinary way a clock is used to measure how long an event lasts. We adopt the following metric ; or method: Take the time at which the event ends, and subtract the time it starts.
For example, to find how long an event lasts that starts at 3: Is the use of this method merely a convention, or in some objective sense is it the only way that a clock should be used? That is, is there an objective metric, or is time "metrically amorphous"? Perhaps the duration between instants x and y could be. However, the log metric does not have this property. Our civilization designs a clock to count up to higher numbers rather than down to lower numbers as time elapses. Is that a convention? Could the second hand just as well go counterclockwise to lower numbers instead of clockwise?
In fact, when Westerners talk about past centuries, they agree to use both A. A clock measuring B. The laws of physics involving time t are unchanged regardless of whether the t is measured in B. The clock on today's wall always counts up, but that is merely because it is agreed we are in the A. Choice of the origin of the time coordinate is conventional; it might be a Muhammed event or a Jesus event or a Temple event or the big bang event. It is an interesting fact and not a convention that our universe is even capable of having a standard clock that measures both electromagnetic events and gravitational events and that "electromagnetic time" stays in synchrony with "gravitational time.
It is a fact and not a convention that our universe contains a wide variety of phenomena that are sufficiently regular in their ticking to serve as clocks for special purposes. They are sufficiently regular because they tick in adequate synchrony with the standard clock. The word "adequate" here means successful for the purposes we have for using a clock, for example for measuring lifetimes of mountain ranges or for measuring the duration of a photon interacting with another photon.
Simultaneity of two distant events is conventional because of the relativity of simultaneity to reference frame. Physicists generally consider statements that are factual and so not conventional to be invariant under change of reference frame. According to the special theory of relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference will be sequential in a different reference frame moving with respect to the first frame.
It is only by convention that we fix on one frame and, for it, declare which pairs of events are simultaneous. To make this point another way, given two events A and B that occur so far enough from each other that neither could have had a causal effect on the other, then the duration between them is conventional in the sense that physicists can always choose a reference frame in which A and B are simultaneous, making the duration between them be zero.
Durations are not frame-independent. Relativity theory and quantum theory imply time is continuous. So, physicists regularly use the concept of a point of continuous time. They might say some event happened the square root of three seconds after another event. Physicists usually uncritically accept a point of time as being real, but philosophers of physics disagree with each other about whether the points of time are real or, instead, merely useful. Is this continuity of time a fact or just a convention that should be eliminated in a better approximation to the nature of time?
Our society's standard clock tells everyone what time it really is. Can our standard clock be inaccurate? Yes, say the objectivists about the standard clock. No, say the conventionalists who claim the standard clock is accurate by convention; if it acts strangely, then all other clocks must act equally strangely in order to stay in synchrony with the standard clock. For an example of strangeness, suppose our standard clock used the periodic rotations of the Earth relative to the background stars.
In that case, if a comet struck Earth and affected the rotational speed of the Earth as judged by, say, a pendulum clock , then we would be forced to say the rotation speed of the Earth did not really change but rather the other periodic clock-like phenomena such as swinging pendulums and quartz crystal oscillations all changed in unison because of the comet strike. That would be a strange conclusion to draw, and in fact for just this reason, physicists have rejected the standard clock based on Earth rotations and chosen a newer standard clock that is based on atomic phenomena that are unaffected by comet strikes.
A closely related philosophical question about choice of standard clock is whether, when we change our standard clock, we are merely adopting constitutive conventions for our convenience, or in some objective sense we are making a more correct choice. For more on this point, see this article's Supplement.
It would be very helpful in doing physics if there were a convention to adopt that allows for a single reference frame in which any two events are forced either to be simultaneous or to be such that one of them happens before the other. In general relativity, simultaneity frequently does not make sense globally even though it always does make sense in any infinitesimally small region; these are regions where the special theory of relativity is true. Nevertheless, if the convention is adopted of using a very special coordinate system, then sense can be made of fixing the time of any event globally.
This special coordinate system needs to be very curvilinear as opposed to rectilinear and to be "patched" in analogy to a quilt made of patches of cloth. Geodesics in spacetime are the free-fall world lines. The bumps are due to curvature associated with the presence of matter and energy. Using one of these special coordinate systems, all the events in each, single sheet throughout the universe happen simultaneously.
This sort of reference system is usually adopted by cosmologists. Among the possible patchwork of frames one might adopt, some are much better choices than others. As Davies , pp. In fact, it isn't quite true that the cosmic background heat radiation is completely uniform across the sky. It is very slightly hotter i.
Although the view from Earth is of a slightly skewed cosmic heat bath, there must exist a motion, a frame of reference, which would make the bath appear exactly the same in every direction. It would in fact seem perfectly uniform from an imaginary spacecraft traveling at km per second in a direction away from Leo towards Pisces, as it happens …. We can use this special clock to define a cosmic time…. Fortunately, the Earth is moving at only km per second relative to this hypothetical special clock.
This is about 0.
What a Time to Be Alive | Know Your Meme
Similar hypothetical clocks could be located everywhere in the universe, in each case in a reference frame where the cosmic background heat radiation looks uniform. Notice I say "hypothetical"; we can imagine the clocks out there, and legions of sentient beings dutifully inspecting them. This set of imaginary observers will agree on a common time scale and a common set of dates for major events in the universe, even though they are moving relative to each other as a result of the general expansion of the universe So cosmic time as measured by this special set of observers constitutes a type of universal time So, time is both cosmic and not cosmic.
Although time is not cosmic that is, universal because which pairs of events throughout the cosmos are simultaneous is different in different frames, time also is cosmic in another sense, the sense in which there exists a special set of reference frames in which there would be universal agreement for stationary observers in those frames about the dates of major events of cosmic history. It is a convention that cosmologists agree to use the cosmic time of these special reference frames, but it is a fact and not a convention that the universe is so organized that there is such a useful cosmic time available to be adopted by the cosmologists.
The philosopher Hans Reichenbach said that, in order to define distant simultaneity in a single reference frame in special relativity, we must in principle send a light signal to and from the distant event, and in doing this we must adopt a convention about how fast light travels going one way as opposed to coming back or going any other direction. He recommended adopting the convention that light travels the same speed in all directions in a vacuum free of the influence of gravity.
He claimed it must be a convention because there is no way to measure whether the speed is really the same in opposite directions since any measurement of the two speeds between two locations requires first having synchronized clocks at those two locations, yet the synchronization process will presuppose whether the speed is the same in both directions. Bowman in , and D. Malament in , gave different reasons why Reichenbach is mistaken about this. For an introduction to this dispute, see the Frequently Asked Questions.
For more discussion, see Callender and Hoefer The question, "What is Time? Consider the latter route. We can see a clock, but we cannot see time, so how do we know whether time is real? You might think that time is real because it is what clocks are designed to measure, and because there certainly are clocks.
- More By Drake.
- Suspense and Resolution;
- Navigation menu;
- We see that you're using an ad-blocker!.
- THE BOOK — THE SLUMFLOWER;
- List of 50+ Songs With Time in the Title?
The trouble with this reasoning is that it is analogous to saying that unicorns are real because unicorn hunters intend to find unicorns, and because there certainly are unicorn hunters. Is time merely a concept that makes the mathematical equations easier to solve? Is there more to time than this? What are the signs that the word "time" refers to a real or existing entity? The brief answer is that the reference helps to explain phenomena, understand it, and perhaps predict it, plus there do not exist alternative, better ways of doing this.
The logical positivist Rudolf Carnap said, "The external questions of the reality of physical space and physical time are pseudo-questions" "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology," He meant these two questions are meaningless because there is no way to empirically verify their answer one way or the other.
Subsequent philosophers have generally disagreed with Carnap and have taken these questions seriously. Nobody doubts that the concept of time has immense practical value, but there are serious reasons to believe time itself is not real. The major reasons are that time is unreal because i it is emergent, or ii it is subjective, or iii it is merely conventional, or iv it is denoted by an inconsistent concept, or v its scientific image deviates too much from its manifest image.
All these reasons are explored below in order below. The previous section of this article introduced many reasons to believe time is emergent, and some philosophers of time argue that an emergent time is therefore not a real time. It has been claimed that time is not real because it is merely subjective or anthropecentric. Psychological time is clearly subjective, but the focus now is on physical time. Well, first what does "subjective" mean? This is a notoriously controversial term in philosophy, but here it means that a phenomenon is subjective if it is a mind-dependent phenomenon, something that depends upon being represented by a mind.
A secondary quality such as "being red" is a subjective quality; being capable of reflecting light of a certain wavelength is not subjective. The point can be made by asking whether time comes just from us or instead is wholly out there in the external world independent of us. Throughout history, philosophers of time have disagreed on the answer.
Without minds, nothing in the world would be surprising or beautiful or interesting. Can we add that nothing would be in time? If so, time is not objective, and so is not objectively real. Aristotle envisioned time to be a counting of motions Physics , IV. He does not answer his own question because he says it depends on whether time is the conscious numbering of movement or instead is just the capability of movements to be numbered were consciousness to exist. One might argue that time is not real because the concept of time is just a mathematical artifact in our fundamental theories of mathematical physics.
It is merely playing an auxiliary mathematical role. Know Your Meme is an advertising supported site and we noticed that you're using an ad-blocking solution. By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy. No thanks, take me back to the meme zone! Like us on Facebook! About "What a Time to be Alive" is a memorable quote from the animated television series The Simpsons which can be used to sarcastically express awe at a very minor technological advance, or alternatively, disapprove something that is without a precedence, similar to the use of the phrase "I don't want to live on this planet anymore".
Origin In Season 9 Episode 17 of The Simpsons , originally aired on March 8th, , Abe Simpson's best friend Jasper places himself in a grocery store freezer in a misunderstood attempt at cryogenic hibernation spanning over several decades. What a time to be alive. Homer Backs Into Things. View All Related Entries. Remember the Time Michael Jackson. Child in Time Deep Purple. Time Stand Still Rush. Comes a Time Neil Young. Bad Time Grand Funk Railroad. Time Is Running Out Muse. Please only add items that are relevant to this list topic.