To measure time, we use clocks. From sophisticated atomic clocks to everyday wall clocks. When we measure the length of a time interval using a clock, we are really measuring the number of times the clock completes a cycle of events which we assume is periodic. My question is pertaining to how we know a chain of events is periodic. How do we know that a clock, say an atomic clock, is perfectly periodic? All we can do is measure the interval between its repititious cycles with another clock, not knowing whether the second clock is taking the same time to repeat its 'ticking'. Can we ever be truly sure that if some events are being repeated, the time interval required for every repetition is the same? What evidence may we provide for the same? Clocks only measure number of repetitions. Can we be sure they measure time? What could time even mean?
closed as primarily opinion-based by Dale, Jon Custer, Cosmas Zachos, M. Enns, Aaron Stevens Apr 3 at 17:01
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Clocks work according to the laws of physics. For example a caesium atomic clock uses the energy difference between two energy levels of the caesium atom to generate the tick.
Using the laws of physics we can calculate the time evolution of the clock and we find it has a regular tick. You can argue about exactly what we mean by time but as far as we are concerned it is a coordinate like any other coordinate, and calculating the evolution of the system along this coordinate is generally straightforward.
For the clock not to tick at regular time intervals one of two things would have to be true:
the time experienced by the clock isn't the time as the time experienced by the observer reading the time from the clock
the laws of physics change with time
Actually it's fairly easy to make option (1) apply as we can change the relative time of the clock and observer using time dilation due to the velocity of the clock or by placing the clock at a different gravitational potential. But this is easily avoided by requiring that the relative velocity and gravitational potential of the clock and observer remain zero. Provided we do this there is no mechanism known for the times of the clock and observer to differ.
Option (2) is linked to conservation of energy by Noether's theorem. Without going into the gory details the fact the laws of physics don't change with time implies conservation of energy and vice versa. Since no experiment has ever observed non-conservation of energy most of us believe energy is conserved and therefore that the laws of physics do not change with time. This implies the clock ticks regularly.
There is really no such "thing" as time. It is not matter, not energy. It is only really a concept, used to calibrate the period between one event & another. As I assume you are you are saying, clocks only move or count at a precise rate & indicate time. You can't sample time & measure it like you can, pressure or flow, with a meter. To determine the extreme accuracy of atomic clocks, I assume they ran several of them for a year or more & noted that the slowest & fastest were about 2uSec. apart in a year. The resonant frequency of the caesium atoms in the middle one (9192631770Hz) would have been used for the standard second. Seeing as time was made to fit the clock & they only deviate + - 1uS in a year, they are assumed to be accurate to a second in a million years.