Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mxplxxx on 08/03/2019 03:58:06
-
I think there exists perceived time, related to awareness and rate of change of reality systems, and absolute time, related to the absolute speed of light. At the same time, I think reality only exists in an eternal present and time is the awareness the rate of change of the eternally existing components of reality (as per conservation of energy). Let me explain.
I like to think of reality as a set of systems fitted inside each other like the Russian dolls. Each system has the same basic type, being a central object surrounded by a variable number of peripheral subsystems. The central object contains the state of the system. So, for example, we have a solar system consisting of the Sun as the central object surrounded by planetary sub systems. And a galaxy system is a central galactic black hole object surrounded by solar system subsystems. This is actually an abstraction hierarchy and each system in the hierarchy is less abstract than its parent. So, for example, a galaxy is more abstract than a particle. I theorize that each system has awareness of itself and each system experiences time in exactly the same way i.e as "normal" time for itself and as (possibly) Einsteinian relative time for all other systems.
This happens because the speed of light is a constant for all systems but the distances between the component systems in each system vary, getting longer the farther up the hierarchy we travel. This means, for example, that the rate of change for a particle is much, much quicker that that of of a galaxy but both perceive time as passing at the same "normal" rate. So, we experience galaxies for example as being ancient, but a galaxy experiences itself as being much younger than this.
Note the perception of time is very closely linked to awareness and we cannot really answer fully what time is because we don't know what awareness is or what has it.
BTW The central object of all systems (including particles) is likely to have a center (of gravity) itself that is outside of time (i.e. a black hole). This is a likely location for awareness/consciousness especially considering that all events (photons) affecting the top-level state of the system end up here. It is also here that imperative events adjusting the state of the system as a result of received events are sent from. :) i.e. receive top-level event; system needs adjusting?, yes - send top level adjusting event (Hawking radiation?).
It is likely a black hole either has no time or has time that proceeds infinitely quickly. It seem to me the whole purpose of a black hole is to hold the top-level state of the system that the black hole belongs to. Events (photons) enter the black hole and cause an immediate change of state. Events exit the black hole and are immediately subject to time. Time in the black hole is not required for this mechanism.
-
Time is a fundamental concept. Without it you would have no energy equations. Time is implicit in the units of the gravitational constant and so underpins gravity. If it wasn't fundamental we would have ignored it. A snapshot of events does not require time but our universe is not a static snapshot.
-
Time is a fundamental concept. Without it you would have no energy equations. Time is implicit in the units of the gravitational constant and so underpins gravity. If it wasn't fundamental we would have ignored it. A snapshot of events does not require time but our universe is not a static snapshot.
But no time before the big bang and no time at the entrance to a black hole and, possibly, no time at the point of a point particle and no time experienced by a photon. https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/time-changed-inside-a-black-hole/. Our universe is static in the sense that energy is conserved. Things change but it is only the composition of things that change, not the total energy.
-
So provide your evidence that there was no time before the big bang. That should be interesting.
-
So provide your evidence that there was no time before the big bang. That should be interesting.
Well noted:) I should have said no time at the start of the big bang (although time passing infinitely quickly is also a possibility). As usual, I rely on the theories of learned physicists such as Stephen Hawking (http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/time-and-the-big-bang/). My point is that time may not be a fundamental concept. As far as I can see, the universe is a learning/teaching environment and time is necessary for cause and effect to occur.
-
If time were passing infinitely quickly then everything would be happening all at once. What was it Einstein said about that?
As for time not being fundamental try ignoring it. See how far that gets you.
-
What was it Einstein said about that?
Not sure Einstein was aware of black holes.
-
As for time not being fundamental try ignoring it. See how far that gets you.
We do this when we daydream and lo-and-behold time vanishes.
-
If time were passing infinitely quickly then everything would be happening all at once. What was it Einstein said about that
Not sure he said anything about everything happening all at once, but see no reason why this could not occur. A photon observing the universe would likely see the result of everything happening at once (probably nothing, literally?). Basically, the smaller a system is the shorter the distances in it and the faster the reactions (and therefore the faster time is perceived to pass). A black hole would likely compress a system so much that all the possible reactions in it happen simultaneously.
-
As for time not being fundamental try ignoring it. See how far that gets you.
We do this when we daydream and lo-and-behold time vanishes.
I think you'd be better served if you stopped daydreaming and started learning.
-
If time were passing infinitely quickly then everything would be happening all at once. What was it Einstein said about that?
Time only passes infinitely quickly where the the distance between objects is zero. "Everything" happening at once would only happen if all objects in the universe were compressed to the point where distance no longer existed in the universe. A universal black hole? (from which a big bang could possibly happen containing the state of the universe at the time it stopped evolving?). Note that a black hole can/will continue to evolve before it reached this point by the fact that it is interacting with a universe that is still evolving (i.e. in which time exists). An object entering a black hole will likely change its state (even though no time passes in the process).
-
Time only passes infinitely quickly where the the distance between objects is zero.
If you think about this carefully you will realise it is untrue.
-
Einstein's theory of SpaceTime (I think) postulates that the past, present and future all exist at once. How this can occur is not part of the theory (I think). Some of our current theory may come to the rescue. Black holes give us a chance to interact with the past as they, possibly, contain all past states of the universe (and, maybe, even past universes). How to do this seems to be something for the future, although it can be surmised that we can somehow send a request for information into a black hole and receive a reply via Hawking radiation. Photons deal with the future via possibility waves. Also Electromagnetic waves (which seem closely related to photons) have electro and magnetic wave components that travel faster than light, thus allowing for the possibility that they originate in the future.
-
Time only passes infinitely quickly where the the distance between objects is zero.
If you think about this carefully you will realise it is untrue.
It is not immediately obvious what you say. Why do you say it? With zero distance, most of physics theorem would seem to break down (as per the big bang singularity).
-
What Einstein meant was that an object in the future has to be at a particular coordinate in order to interact with a photon emitted 'now'. This object has a fixed past and so, due to determinism, it must also have a fixed future. It's worldline can always be calculated. This excludes indeterminacy. 'God does not play dice with the universe'.
This certainly does not mean that past, present and future all exist at once. This is precisely why you have a very limited understanding of the subject.
-
Homework: What is the connection between the increase in entropy and indeterminacy?
-
This certainly does not mean that past, present and future all exist at once.
Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists. See
-
Homework: What is the connection between the increase in entropy and indeterminacy?
Will do.
Question for you. Parts of the universe appears to be expanding and contracting at the same time. Black holes getting bigger and space expanding. Is this a contradiction in physics. Or are we, unless this situation changes, going to end up with near infinite space (and a consequent huge increase in entropy (think)) plus a single, enormously massive, point that is in fact a black hole .
Note that although we have an expanding universe, the rate at which time flows stays the same (as determined by the speed of light). A photon that travels a certain distance in a certain time will take longer to travel the same distance in the future.
-
This certainly does not mean that past, present and future all exist at once.
Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists. See
Well you are wrong again. You do not understand the concepts of past and future light cones. The video discusses time dilation and not that the past, present and future all exist at once.
-
Homework: What is the connection between the increase in entropy and indeterminacy?
Will do.
Question for you. Parts of the universe appears to be expanding and contracting at the same time. Black holes getting bigger and space expanding. Is this a contradiction in physics. Or are we, unless this situation changes, going to end up with near infinite space (and a consequent huge increase in entropy (think)) plus a single, enormously massive, point that is in fact a black hole .
Note that although we have an expanding universe, the rate at which time flows stays the same (as determined by the speed of light). A photon that travels a certain distance in a certain time will take longer to travel the same distance in the future.
Well you completely avoided any discussion of indeterminacy. Anyone would think that you didn't know what it was. You threw in the word entropy without actually connecting it with anything. Other that space is 'near' infinite. Care to elaborate and at the same time make some sense.
-
This certainly does not mean that past, present and future all exist at once.
Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists. See
Well you are wrong again. You do not understand the concepts of past and future light cones. The video discusses time dilation and not that the past, present and future all exist at once.
Pretty sure I understand light cones, at least at a Pop level. .
Wrong is a word I would hesitate to use in physics, given many eminent physics in the past have used it and been proved without doubt wrong.:)
I have come across the theory that the past present and future exist at once many many times in my extensive travels in physics. It is a common explanation of quantum probability where a future alternative state is selected. I gave the reference expecting the video would have backed up the first comment which goes:
http://www.artofspirit.ca/ (not my video) Albert Einstein was very clear in his day. Physicists are very clear now. Time is not absolute, despite what common sense tells you and me. Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion". So reality is ultimately TIMELESS. This sounds pretty bizarre from the view of classical physics, but from the view of consciousness theory and spirituality, it fits in perfectly.
See also https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/a-controversial-theory-claims-present-past-and-future-exist-at-the-same-time.
In any case, SpaceTime is a continuum which I would have thought implied a continuously existing past, present and future. Theoretically time travel is possible.
-
Well then you are absolutely wrong. If you have "a future alternate state" this implies that the future is not predetermined. Which destroys your own argument. You should stop watching YouTube videos and start studying the subject. That way you won't make yourself look foolish. I am on your side. Although it might not sound like it. You want to understand physics. You are just going about it the wrong way.
-
Oh, and by the way, you are certainly not an eminent physicist. You are just wrong.
-
Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion". So reality is ultimately TIMELESS.
By this logic, since there is no objective 'here' dividing all points in 'the east' from 'the west', reality must be LOCATIONLESS and Singapore and Ecuador are in the same place. (Apparently the caps are necessary, so I'm following form)
-
Oh, and by the way, you are certainly not an eminent physicist. You are just wrong.
You are the eminent physicist. Wrong is SO absolute. Things are rarely completely right or wrong in this universe. This seems to apply more so in physics where so many conflicting theories abound. Instead of stating "you are wrong", something like "I am a great fan of such and such theory. According to this what you are saying re ... cannot happen" is much preferable.
I am not trying to learn physics. I have studied physics for a long time now. I am trying to understand it and drawing a blank a lot of the time. It just don't hang together real well. I find being a software developer allows me to have a different perspective on physics that I am bouncing off you guys (no gals!) in this forum. Especially when it comes to state machines (of which the universe seems to be one type) which require decades of study to master.
-
Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion". So reality is ultimately TIMELESS.
By this logic, since there is no objective 'here' dividing all points in 'the east' from 'the west', reality must be LOCATIONLESS and Singapore and Ecuador are in the same place. (Apparently the caps are necessary, so I'm following form)
A state machine contains concurrent states (as many as you like) that are also separate entities that react with events that are pertinent to them. It is possible to simulate a universe using a hierarchical state machine.
-
By a state machine I believe you mean a switch statement. These are not complicated.
-
By a state machine I believe you mean a switch statement. These are not complicated.
Nup, see https://barrgroup.com/Embedded-Systems/How-To/Introduction-Hierarchical-State-Machines. They are just about the most complicated things to learn in computer science. A state machine deals in objects and states and events and transitions. For example a door is in a closed state. Then someone opens it (a transition). Then it is in an open state. A HSM is a hierarchical state machine that deals in abstractions. For example, in my gambling software I have a very abstract meeting object and subordinate, more concrete, race objects. If the meeting is in a running state and it receives an abandoned event notification, it will change state to abandoned and send an abandoned event to all subordinate race objects.
-
I am not an eminent physicist. I do however understand embedded systems being a software engineer. Using objects in programming is pretty standard. I have been developing with them since the 1990s. This is very off topic. How does this in any way relate to the fundamental nature of time? If you need to retreat to your comfort zone then feel free.
-
Oh and by the way physics hangs together very well if you understand the principles. Maybe your concept of it is a bit faulty
-
I am not an eminent physicist. I do however understand embedded systems being a software engineer. Using objects in programming is pretty standard. I have been developing with them since the 1990s. This is very off topic. How does this in any way relate to the fundamental nature of time? If you need to retreat to your comfort zone then feel free.
See my first post on this topic. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73163.msg569592#msg569592. This is describing my software which is based on a hierarchical state machine. It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time. I agree recent posts have been getting off-topic.
-
It is not immediately obvious what you say. Why do you say it? With zero distance, most of physics theorem would seem to break down (as per the big bang singularity).
The theorems only break down if you try to misuse them.
One problem with reading physics ‘cold’ is that physicists use a lot of shorthand phrases and ideas. Most physics models have a lot of caveats and assumptions that are not usually repeated in detail in papers and articles, it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the basic assumptions and understands the background to the theory.
I will expand on some of the things @jeffreyH has said:
Einstein's theory of SpaceTime (I think) postulates that the past, present and future all exist at once. How this can occur is not part of the theory (I think).
Yes, it is part of the theory, but often misquoted and misunderstood, because it doesn’t postulate that they all exist at once.
What Einstein said was that our concept of simultaneous is only valid locally ie at our location. So if we take the example of your 2 objects which are zero distance apart then they will progress through time at the same rate and their measurement of each other’s progress will be the same. They will agree that events in their locality happen at the same time for each of them.
However, if these objects are separated by distance or are moving relative to each other they will no longer agree on when certain events happen; their measurements of events might suggest to one that the event was in the past and to the other that it is now (the greater the distance or relative speed the greater the degree of disagreement). So the concept of now, past and future can be difficult to decide in any absolute sense for all objects.
However, each object will experience the passage of time in the same way as the other, but will consider it’s own timeline to be the proper one - and this is how physics treats it. Also, the spacetime interval between events is invariant and will be agreed on by all the objects.
All this in no way suggests that “Time only passes infinitely quickly where the distance between objects is zero.“
-
So if we take the example of your 2 objects which are zero distance apart then they will progress through time at the same rate and their measurement of each other’s progress will be the same.
I thought the smallest distance allowed in the universe is the Planck length? https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae281.cfm.
Sure the objects will proceed according to Einsteins theory of relativity, but if they were able to measure the interactions WITH EACH OTHER they would find what ... we don't know. Could a photon be emitted and absorbed in 0 time?
-
A state machine contains concurrent states (as many as you like) that are also separate entities that react with events that are pertinent to them. It is possible to simulate a universe using a hierarchical state machine.
I am desperately trying to figure out how this response was in any way related to the post to which it replied, but it was crash and burn all the way.
I think you have to be able to work with hierarchical state machines to be able to understand how all possible states of the Cosmos can exist concurrently.
-
Planck length and planck time are often considered to be the shortest measurable quantities but there is no lower limit to the shortest calculable values. For instance unit Planck time is about 5 x 10-44 seconds, but the is no reason why I can't discuss a period of 10-45 s elapsing between events: I just won't perceive them as sequential.
-
@alancalverd beat me to it on Planck length ;D
Sure the objects will proceed according to Einsteins theory of relativity, but if they were able to measure the interactions WITH EACH OTHER they would find what ... we don't know. Could a photon be emitted and absorbed in 0 time?
You are just reworking Zeno’s paradox. Clearly, it takes 0 time to travel 0 distance, but that is meaningless as nothing has interacted with anything else.
I’m afraid you are moving into philosophy which has little to do with physics.
-
Zeno's paradox is a rabbit hole that no one should dive down. It is a distraction. Things move from point a to point b covering the infinite sequence of intervals in between. That's just how things work. Observation is a wonderful thing. It overcomes all such obstacles.
-
I am not an eminent physicist. I do however understand embedded systems being a software engineer. Using objects in programming is pretty standard. I have been developing with them since the 1990s. This is very off topic. How does this in any way relate to the fundamental nature of time? If you need to retreat to your comfort zone then feel free.
Suggest you bone up on UML Statecharts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML_state_machine. IMHO, more and more, physics will solve the hard problems via computer simulations and Statecharts (or Hierarchical State Machines) are the way to go for simulations. This is where I am heading.
BTW a statechart model of a hydrogen atom includes no time. It is like as if a photon of a certain energy is encountered and the atom "decides" to promote the electron to a higher orbit. Very computer-like!
-
You appear to be attributing a personality to an atom. Your time would be better spent studying linear algebra.
-
mxplxxx;
#140
Not sure he said anything about everything happening all at once, but see no reason why this could not occur. A photon observing the universe would likely see the result of everything happening at once (probably nothing, literally?).
[Photons don't observe, they are observed as messenger particles.
The first postulate states, 'physics is the same in all inertial frames'.
Observers in inertial frames, with relative motion, measure a remote process running slower than the same local process. Increasing or decreasing rates in passive observations, are instances of doppler effects. An observer moving at c would be dead, and not aware of anything.]
#144
Einstein's theory of SpaceTime (I think) postulates that the past, present and future all exist at once.
[Spacetime is Minkowski's generalization of Einstein's theory. Einstein made a distinction between space and time.]
Also Electromagnetic waves (which seem closely related to photons) have electro and magnetic wave components that travel faster than light, thus allowing for the possibility that they originate in the future.
[Photons are the objectification (model) of EM energy. They move in space at light speed as predicted by Maxwell. Future events are only known when you become aware of them.]
#148
Pretty sure this is what is believed by lots of physicists
[You are referring to the '4D block universe', where all events exist simultaneously, and each observer experiences their own 'now' as they journey through space. Paul Davies is one advocate for this theory. One critical fact when considering this idea. There is one occurrence for each event, but many perceptions of that event.]
#162
It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.
[There are programs that do require 'time'. GPS, traffic control, security, utilities, astronomy, etc., depending on the purpose.]
-
It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.
I know nothing about computer programming, and it’s too late to start on that now. However, I’m intrigued by this statement. What does “without any reference to time” mean?
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
Could it mean that the program completes its task without making any reference to time?
-
It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.
I know nothing about computer programming, and it’s too late to start on that now. However, I’m intrigued by this statement. What does “without any reference to time” mean?
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
Could it mean that the program completes its task without making any reference to time?
Yes.
Many statements in programming are conditional like 'if', 'if-then'.Eg. sorting a list for all people named "Smith". Manipulation of data, operations that are independent of time. The operating system requires a clock but primarily for internal sequencing of operations. If you need time measurements for your purpose, it's available. If your work is air traffic control, then you need 'time' in your computer system.
-
It is interesting that most of the computer programs I have worked on, work without any reference to time.
[There are programs that do require 'time'. GPS, traffic control, security, utilities, astronomy, etc., depending on the purpose.]
The time in these situations is usually processed as "Timer" objects that send "happened" events to the main part of the program at predetermined intervals or via the program "polling" the system clock. It is built on top of the program, not like reality which, seemingly, has time built into the fabric of the universe.
If reality were to process time in a computer-like fashion it would possibly have a timestamp incorporated into photons which seem to be the "timer" events of reality. ... or maybe it does somehow via the "shift" mechanism.
-
I know nothing about computer programming, and it’s too late to start on that now
Challenge yourself:) It is fun. You have a head start with maths which has a whole computer language devoted to it (Fortran).
-
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
The time a computer takes to complete a task is very dependent on the speed of the computer's processor(s). This closely parallels an EM wave in Reality.
-
You are in that group that interprets 'time' as a causal entity.
Absolutely not! I don't see time as causal, in any way. However, it does seem to be essential if anything is to change. It must have time in which the change can take place.
Water does not cause boats, but it is somewhat important for their ability to function adequately.
-
Many statements in programming are conditional like 'if', 'if-then'.Eg. sorting a list for all people named "Smith". Manipulation of data, operations that are independent of time. The operating system requires a clock but primarily for internal sequencing of operations. If you need time measurements for your purpose, it's available. If your work is air traffic control, then you need 'time' in your computer system. /quote]
I’m OK with that. I was just trying to be sure that mxplxxx was not identifying a situation in which a computer could perform a function in zero time.
-
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
The time a computer takes to complete a task is very dependent on the speed of the computer's processor(s). This closely parallels an EM wave in Reality.
Does this mean that my suspicion is correct?
-
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
The time a computer takes to complete a task is very dependent on the speed of the computer's processor(s). This closely parallels an EM wave in Reality.
Does this mean that my suspicion is correct?
It means the computer program can function without any reference to time. In computer programs, if time needs to be referenced, it is done via a special time-based object. A computer program will always take time to complete.
-
A computer program will always take time to complete.
We got there, thanks.
-
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
The time a computer takes to complete a task is very dependent on the speed of the computer's processor(s). This closely parallels an EM wave in Reality.
How? Please elaborate on the parallels between an electromagnetic wave and the operation of a processor.
-
I suspect it cannot mean that you and/or the computer, and/or the relevant program complete any “work” in zero time.
The time a computer takes to complete a task is very dependent on the speed of the computer's processor(s). This closely parallels an EM wave in Reality.
How? Please elaborate on the parallels between an electromagnetic wave and the operation of a processor.
See https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/g/ghz.htm. Both are used for processing information.
-
No. An EM wave is information
-
No. An EM wave is information
I would say an EM wave is energy that can be used to transmit information. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/communications/1-how-is-data-put-on-radio-waves.html
-
the connection between the increase in entropy and indeterminacy
It would help if you gave me a lesson. Homework is all about reinforcing lessons given during class:).
On my travels I discovered an intriguing possible relationship between entropy and quantum entanglement which seems to have great relevance for the current topic.
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/
"The backdrop for the steady growth of entanglement throughout the universe is, of course, time itself. The physicists stress that despite great advances in understanding how changes in time occur, they have made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space. Popescu calls this “one of the greatest unknowns in physics.”
-
You appear to be attributing a personality to an atom.
I happen to believe that all objects in the universe that have a black hole as their center (which I suspect includes basic particles) also have awareness. I thank all stuff that goes into my rubbish bin each night:).
-
[You are referring to the '4D block universe', where all events exist simultaneously, and each observer experiences their own 'now' as they journey through space. Paul Davies is one advocate for this theory. One critical fact when considering this idea. There is one occurrence for each event, but many perceptions of that event.]
I did provide a reference for this https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/a-controversial-theory-claims-present-past-and-future-exist-at-the-same-time
-
From Phys.org. Physicists reverse time using quantum computer. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reverse-quantum.html
-
"The backdrop for the steady growth of entanglement throughout the universe is, of course, time itself. The physicists stress that despite great advances in understanding how changes in time occur, they have made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space. Popescu calls this “one of the greatest unknowns in physics.”
Could they be looking for something that isn’t there?
A metre measures the distance between two objects. Without objects; what is a metre?
Time measures the interval between two events. Without events; what is time?
In a non-technical way, this brings us back towards the OP. Was time created with the Universe, or was it necessary to permit the “creation” to take place? Logically, I would say that neither of these possibilities could provide the complete answer, but that’s not for this thread.
-
"The backdrop for the steady growth of entanglement throughout the universe is, of course, time itself. The physicists stress that despite great advances in understanding how changes in time occur, they have made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space. Popescu calls this “one of the greatest unknowns in physics.”
Could they be looking for something that isn’t there?
A metre measures the distance between two objects. Without objects; what is a metre?
Time measures the interval between two events. Without events; what is time?
In a non-technical way, this brings us back towards the OP. Was time created with the Universe, or was it necessary to permit the “creation” to take place? Logically, I would say that neither of these possibilities could provide the complete answer, but that’s not for this thread.
Actually that is EXACTLY for this thread.
-
time?
Maybe you should print up your thesis and throw it in the bin. It will thank you for putting it out of its misery.
-
Actually that is EXACTLY for this thread.
Perhaps I should have said "not yet". There are some points I need to clarify, in my own mind, first. The most important of those link to https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76446.0 and possible responses there.
-
From Phys.org. Physicists reverse time using quantum computer. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reverse-quantum.html
from the article"
"What makes the latter look so absurd is our intuitive understanding of the second law of thermodynamics—an isolated system either remains static or evolves toward a state of chaos rather than order."
There are star and galaxy formations, plant growth, various life forms, continuously occurring organized systems which contradict that understanding.
It's possible to reverse a process without reversing time.
-
I agree Phyti. Can't use that one, it's filled with holes.
-
From the Phys.org article:
"The physicist explains that the evolution of the electron state is governed by Schrödinger's equation. Although it makes no distinction between the future and the past, the region of space containing the electron will spread out very quickly. That is, the system tends to become more chaotic. The uncertainty of the electron's position is growing."
______________
How does a single object (electron) have an order?
Why is the system of one particle labeled as chaotic because of an uncertain position?
It seems more likely to be lack of knowledge for the observer, than a property of the particle, or any physical process.
_______________
A criminal leaves a crime scene and goes into hiding. A search is started. His possible location expands with time. When a sighting is reported, the search party focuses on a smaller area.
The example is not about time, but the knowledge of the criminals location.
It's also a random dynamic process with a high degree of unpredictability.
If the 'arrow of time' is a fiction, then their report is fluff.
There were many interesting comments for this article.
______________________
An object, with or without a structure, typically has many positions, if it has extent in space. The earth has all the positions within a sphere of radius 4000 miles. Not one, as defined by the abstract center of mass. I.e. the position of an object is a volume, not a point.
This is another example of the consequences of excessive abstraction. If time is line representing a dimension, then motion can also occur in time. Then science should experiment to see if there is a reverse gear!
-
Given that energy is derived Planck's Quantum of Action which is a constant, it is possible that time is the only variable in the universe. Everything we see and experience may just be due to variations in time causing variations in the energy/power of objects in the universe.
-
Given that energy is derived Planck's Quantum of Action which is a constant, it is possible that time is the only variable in the universe.
I can think of a counterexample, so this isn't true. The air pressure on this mountain changes with altitude. That's a variable (altitude) in the universe that isn't time.
Air pressure, related to energy which is determined by time E=h/t.
-
Air pressure, related to energy which is determined by time E=h/t.
Wrong formula. E=h/t sounds like a formula for pressure in a leaky tire. The pressure doesn't change over time. It will still be thinner at the summit tomorrow, even if the weather does make some fluctuations.
The formula is
P=Pb • exp [ -g0 M (h-hb)} / (R* Tb)]
where:
Pb = static pressure (Pa)
Tb = temperature (K)
h = height above sea level (m)
hb = height at bottom of layer b
R* = universal gas constant: 8.3144598 J/mol/K
g0 = gravitational acceleration: 9.80665 m/s2
M = molar mass of Earth's air: 0.0289644 kg/mol
That's from wiki barometric formula, and it is not a function of time.
E=h/t, the basic equation of quantum physics. Your equation is at a pretty high level, As you dig down, it seems Energy comes into it more and more (e.g temperature is a function of kinetic energy, see https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/describe-relationship-between-temperature-kinetic-553925.) And according to E=h/t energy is a function of time.
-
I think there exists perceived time, related to awareness
Perceived time seems to be the cause of the weird slow motion feeling we get when slowing down after a long drive. It is probably related to the frequency with which we "sample" our surroundings. This would increase as we go faster and decrease as we go slower, but do so gradually as the "sampling" becomes incorporated into our circadian rhythms.
We perceive time via our ability to perceive the world in frames, as if in a movie.
Champion sportspeople seem to have the ability to perceive time in slow motion.
.
-
Actually that is EXACTLY for this thread.
There are some points I need to clarify, in my own mind….
This arose from attempts at clarification.
Do we know what the nature of time is? Probably not.
Do we need to know what the nature of time is, in order to do physics or understand the Universe? Apparently not.
Time figures prominently in St Augustine’s works, Newton’s laws of motion, relativity and quantum physics, but none of these requires a knowledge of the nature of time. Even clockmakers do not need this knowledge.
Clocks can give us a glimpse of what we should be looking for. As far as I am aware, all clocks involve some sort of movement. It may be the leisurely swinging of a large pendulum or the almost unthinkably rapid transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, but all these movements, in common with every other movement in the Universe, involve change.
This is some progress; time, it seems, is inextricably linked to change, but can we go further? It looks as though we can, but there is a fork in the path.
To Newton, it made sense to treat time as though it were a fundamental property of the Universe. He treated space in the same way. Both were fixed and immutable; they had to be in order to quantify motion. It would be pointless to say that it takes “x” seconds to travel “y” distance if either “x” or “y" could, for no apparent reason, change its value. This path leads to “real” time that is as “concrete” a feature of the Universe as space or mass.
Einstein threw a spanner in the works when he brought to general notice that time passes at different rates depending on an observer’s relative motion, or the local strength of the gravitational field. He produced some clever maths to show how this worked. When he said: “Time is nothing but a stubbornly persistent illusion”, one might be forgiven for thinking that time was on its way out. However, illusion or not, it continues to be stubbornly persistent.
Possibly one reason for the persistence was the fact that Minkowski created a four-dimensional manifold which he called “spacetime”. Time became the fourth dimension. It might seem as though we are moving back towards the Newtonian view of fundamental time, but we have to ask if spacetime is “concrete”. Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos) says: “spacetime is a something”. The next question must be: Is that “something” more than just a mathematical concept? If it is just a mathematical concept, it is certainly a useful one, but so is the curvature of spacetime with respect to the force of gravity.
This second path leads, surely, to the view that change is the fundamental property of the Universe, and that time emerges from our need to understand the changing Universe around us. Here we hit a stumbling block. What do we mean by “time emerges”? First there was no time, then time manifested? If there were no time, nothing could happen, so time could not emerge. What it must mean is that change was always a possibility, but could not be measured, or even recognised, without some measuring process. This process is an illusion which our minds create in order to make sense of our Universe.
-
Hi all,
In my admit offer, I see this phrase "Tuition Scholarship for a full-time schedule of coursework". Does it mean, I dont have to pay any tuition fee?
-
Hi all,
In my admit offer, I see this phrase "Tuition Scholarship for a full-time schedule of coursework". Does it mean, I dont have to pay any tuition fee?
@Frankwopsy
I don't understand why you have posted this in “Re: Split from "How fundamental is time?". What are you referring to?
Also, we do not allow spam so have removed your website reference. Further spam will mean a ban.
-
This second path leads, surely, to the view that change is the fundamental property of the Universe, and that time emerges from our need to understand the changing Universe around us. Here we hit a stumbling block. What do we mean by “time emerges”? First there was no time, then time manifested? If there were no time, nothing could happen, so time could not emerge.
There is no time without distance. This was the case at the "time" of the big bang. As soon as our universe started expanding, so time started affecting it. The more our universe expands the slower time passes and correspondingly the less energy there is per cubic meter in the universe (via Eh/t). Sooner of later, the expansion of the universe will come to a halt as the amount of energy per square meter will not be enough to overcome gravity. It will then, likely, collapse to a singularity again and then go "bang" for a repeat of the cycle.
-
There is no time without distance. This was the case at the "time" of the big bang.
Actually physics postulates that the big bang started from a singularity which probably contains a small "amount" of distance. According to quantum theory the singularity will have an Action of h (Planck's constant) and will "contain" energy of E=h/t where t = wavelength (of singularity) / SOL. If wavelength (a distance) = 0 then an infinite amount of energy is involved, which is impossible. But an extremely small amount of time will give rise to an extremely large amount of energy which makes sense.
Actually, distance is interesting. It is, seemingly, continuous. This gives it an infinite aspect. If the singularity discussed above has even the tiniest amount of distance, a new universe can be created from it, ad infinitum. The new universe can be created in a top-down fashion much like a computer program creating a database. i.e Universe object created first, then galaxy cluster objects then galaxy objects and so on. Distance and therefore time (Distance /SOL) in this scenario is "perceived" by the "aware" entities in these universes as a percentage of the total universe, rather than absolute distances/times. More about this later in New Theories.
Actually, when I say "tiniest" amount of distance, I am talking relatively. There only needs to be the existence of a single continuous entity for it to "contain" an infinite amount of "anything" that can be described as a concept, including time. What we experience as our reality is a digital universe which is one of the "things" contained in the continuous entity that we are part of, that approximates the continuous entity. Phew!:)
-
This process is an illusion which our minds create in order to make sense of our Universe.
And different types of minds create different types of illusions, but who knows whether their experience of time varies?
-
The new universe can be created in a top-down fashion much like a computer program creating a database. i.e Universe object created first, then galaxy cluster objects then galaxy objects and so on.
Before each new object is created, the universe must be expanded so as to be able to fit the new object. Hence the expanding universe with, simultaneously, the dilution of the "amount" of time per unit area of the universe. In other words, the universe steadily loses power as it expands and at some point in time (about now!) has just the right amount of power to support life.
-
Einstein threw a spanner in the works when he brought to general notice that time passes at different rates depending on an observer’s relative motion, or the local strength of the gravitational field. He produced some clever maths to show how this worked. When he said: “Time is nothing but a stubbornly persistent illusion”, one might be forgiven for thinking that time was on its way out. However, illusion or not, it continues to be stubbornly persistent.
But his theories have never been proven (https://www.quora.com/Has-Einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-been-proven-1/answer/I-P-K-R-Hirwani), and after a century of trying. Given the theories are so weird, we could be forgiven for thinking that they never will be.
-
My understanding is that, in science, theories are not proven correct. The best one can do is keep trying to prove them wrong. “After a century of trying”, success is singularly lacking, as far as SR and GR are concerned. Einstein made mistakes. Hans Ohanian filled a book with them. Don’t read it if you have a glowing opinion of Einstein as a person, which you want to preserve. :)
-
My understanding is that, in science, theories are not proven correct. The best one can do is keep trying to prove them wrong. “After a century of trying”, success is singularly lacking, as far as SR and GR are concerned. Einstein made mistakes. Hans Ohanian filled a book with them. Don’t read it if you have a glowing opinion of Einstein as a person, which you want to preserve. :)
In an attempt to understand time, I bought a book "The Order of Time" by Carlo Rovelli. I had an isssue with the book and emailed him with:
"I am reading your interesting new book “The Order of Time”. On page 12, you say “If things fall, it is due to this slowing down of time”, but you give no reasons why this might be so. Is this just an unsubstantiated statement? Is Relativity based on this unsubstantiated statement?"
I got the following reply:
"No, it is because according to classical mechanics things move following the path that extremes the traveling time between the initial and the final point. In flat spacetime, this path is a straight line. When time is slowed down by a mass, this path happens to curve towards the mass, and a sort mathematical calculation shows that it is precisely the path followed by the falling bodies."
Mumbo, jumbo to me I am afraid. If a supposed expert cannot lucidly explain Einsteinian gravity, what hope is there for the theory.
-
Rovelli has just described the Principle of Least Action, but since you believe that Action is a mystery beyond the comprehnson of mere mortals you have to reject it as mumbo jumbo
-
Rovelli has just described the Principle of Least Action, but since you believe that Action is a mystery beyond the comprehnson of mere mortals you have to reject it as mumbo jumbo
You are jumping to conclusions:)
-
Actually physics postulates that the big bang started from a singularity which probably contains a small "amount" of distance. According to quantum theory the singularity will have an Action of h (Planck's constant) and will "contain" energy of E=h/t where t = wavelength (of singularity) / SOL.
You seem to have arrogated several ideas without justification or authority.
Physics postulates nothing. It is the means by which humans describe and examine some of their own postulates.
The equation E = hf describes photons, not singularities.
I am sure you will one day unlock the secret of creation, but I doubt that it can be done by shoving every stick-like object into anything that looks like a keyhole.
-
Actually physics postulates that the big bang started from a singularity which probably contains a small "amount" of distance. According to quantum theory the singularity will have an Action of h (Planck's constant) and will "contain" energy of E=h/t where t = wavelength (of singularity) / SOL.
You seem to have arrogated several ideas without justification or authority.
Physics postulates nothing. It is the means by which humans describe and examine some of their own postulates.
The equation E = hf describes photons, not singularities.
I am sure you will one day unlock the secret of creation, but I doubt that it can be done by shoving every stick-like object into anything that looks like a keyhole.
From Urban Dictionary, Arrogate. Someone who is not actually a person, but a being of pure arrogance, asshole-ness, and ignorance. ... Really:). I am a life coach. I don't do anything arrogately. Are you sure you aren't confusing impact and intent?
"Physics postulates" is a short form way of saying "it is generally accepted in physics that".
Pretty sure E=h/t describes the energy of a quantum of energy (see https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_quanta.html) . A photon "contains" 1 quantum of energy. But so does an electron (in addition to its rest energy, I think). In fact , it seems to me that fact anything that absorbs a photon is will be quantized on top of its rest energy.
But you are right, I have no evidence that a singularity contains a quantum of energy. But you have no evidence to the contrary. It is as good a guess as any of the myriad guesses that abound in physics re the big bang theory. Basically it means that the power that drove the big bang would have been truly gargantuan.
We are not in New Theories so I am very careful that what I postulate builds on current physics theory.
-
Time is change. Then take a perfect vacuum, does it have a time? Related to what? Your observation?
Its intrinsic properties then, do they change?
If you connect time to a clock, then the clock to 'c', then as long as 'c' exist a clock must exist and with that 'time'. But if light doesn't propagate the way we observe it to behave, then the 'clock' we defined becomes a secondary expression related to where we exist. And 'time' in itself a cause. As a property of the universe more or less.
=
Spelling
-
What it means is that you in this case have to differ between a 'clock' and 'time'. Just as a 'particle spin' will exist even when not measured, as a 'property'. So you get it both ways, the clock may stop but time still exist.
=
If you consider the double slit experiment one of the possible explanations for the wave particle duality is thought to exist in its 'fuzziness', described as the state of uncertainty (as in time and place) it gives you until observed. That one shouldn't be read as if 'nothing exist until observed' though. We can agree on locations times and somethings existence even without being there to observe it, macroscopically. Which tells us that something has to be there even when 'unlocalised', the 'property' of the 'particle' as it might be.
-
Actually, when I say "tiniest" amount of distance, I am talking relatively. There only needs to be the existence of a single continuous entity for it to "contain" an infinite amount of "anything" that can be described as a concept, including time. What we experience as our reality is a digital universe which is one of the "things" contained in the continuous entity that we are part of, that approximates the continuous entity. Phew!:)
This possibility is backed up by the latest research on continuous/discrete time events using Markov processes. https://scienceblog.com/507276/the-discrete-time-physics-hiding-inside-our-continuous-time-world/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29
It is possible we live in a continuous universe. There is no place for discrete time events in such a universe. But the concept of them can exist in such a universe. That concept may be what awareness works on. Horribly wishy washy I know, but I thought it was worth while including in a discussion on the fundamental nature of time.
-
This happens because the speed of light is a constant for all systems but the distances between the component systems in each system vary, getting longer the farther up the hierarchy we travel.
-
Then take a perfect vacuum
No such beast as far as I can see. See https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae290.cfm.
-
Of course, according to relativity, time stops for a particle when it reaches the speed of light (i.e. the particle stops aging). This can only occur for Bosons. The likely reason for this is that Bosons record past events. Changing a Boson would basically change the past.
-
Time is a fundamental concept. Without it you would have no energy equations. Time is implicit in the units of the gravitational constant and so underpins gravity. If it wasn't fundamental we would have ignored it. A snapshot of events does not require time but our universe is not a static snapshot.
In my opinion time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the recording of age . The fundamental of time being the aging process of matter and dependent to matter . Time itself as explained being independent of space because space itself cannot age, therefore time is irrelevant to space .
-
Einstein's theory of relativity postulates that time is a dimension and that absolute motion and position do not exist. This is now being challenged by many people e.g. http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-einsteins-physics-is-crap-part-i.html.
Relativity is unlikely; to the point where really irrefutable evidence is needed to back it up. This has never been forthcoming. An alternative explanation follows.
The universe consists of systems of a basic system type (e.g. solar system, galaxy, atom etc.). The universe itself is a single (god?) system. Each system is a scaled up (quantized?) version of the basic system type. Time is absolute. What varies between systems are distances. Distances in a galaxy are much longer than distances in an atom. Hence the larger a system is, the slower it ages. It is longer distance, rather than slower time that governs the aging of systems i.e the longer distances mean the time between events is longer. This contrasts with relativity that postulates that time itself, and hence aging, slows down the faster a system moves.
-
It means the computer program can function without any reference to time. In computer programs, if time needs to be referenced, it is done via a special time-based object. A computer program will always take time to complete.
Or via the "Wait" method. The point is that time is handled via computer programming. It is not part of the basic functions of a computer. It is very likely that the universe works in a similar fashion. So, what is the equivalent of computer programming in the universe? The neural network that is driven by our brains would be one candidate. So time is therefore linked to our consciousness/awareness (assuming these are brain functions). Lets face it when we switch off every day (go to sleep), time stops for us, much like switching off a computer.
-
In one respect, it seems obvious that time doesn't exist.
The energy of a cycle of an EM wave is give by the equation E=hf where h is a constant of Action and f is the frequency of the wave, or E=h/t where t is the time of once cycle of the wave or E = hC/λ where C is the speed of light and λ is the wavelength of the wave. The equations are all equivalent. The last one is interesting. Basically, because h and C are both constants, it is saying E is a function of wavelength.
There is no time in this final equation. Meaning what? Beats me but it seems to make time irrelevant in a way.
-
The universe consists of systems of a basic system type (e.g. solar system, galaxy, atom etc.). The universe itself is a single (god?) system. Each system is a scaled up (quantized?) version of the basic system type. Time is absolute. What varies between systems are distances. Distances in a galaxy are much longer than distances in an atom. Hence the larger a system is, the slower it ages. It is longer distance, rather than slower time that governs the aging of systems i.e the longer distances mean the time between events is longer. This contrasts with relativity that postulates that time itself, and hence aging, slows down the faster a system moves.
It may be the difference in aging between systems that causes death. The aging difference is likely to cause synchronization problems between systems leading to mistakes. It would seem that life has the means to overcome these mistakes (e.g. bad/old cell replaced by a new one) but this takes energy and eventually the mistakes overcome life's ability to manufacture the required energy.
Differences in aging appears to be an inherent aspect of reality. That is, aging has to happen at different rates given the design of reality.
-
The universe consists of systems of a basic system type (e.g. solar system, galaxy, atom etc.). The universe itself is a single (god?) system. Each system is a scaled up (quantized?) version of the basic system type. Time is absolute. What varies between systems are distances. Distances in a galaxy are much longer than distances in an atom. Hence the larger a system is, the slower it ages. It is longer distance, rather than slower time that governs the aging of systems i.e the longer distances mean the time between events is longer. This contrasts with relativity that postulates that time itself, and hence aging, slows down the faster a system moves.
The universe would experience light moving from one side of the universe to the other as doing so almost instantaneously. An observer on earth would experience the same light as taking billions of light year to move the same distance. The paradoxes inherent in this situation appear to be insurmountable meaning that reality cannot exist in the way we experience it. These paradoxes may account for some of the weirdness of quantum physics.
We seem forced to take into account the systems involved in our calculations and adjust the calculations to account for how the originating system of an event experiences it. i.e the only "real" version of an event is that experienced by the system in which the event originated.
It seems the universe is ALL about perception, meaning that it exists only in the mind of the perceiver (or observer in quantum physics). This also means that time is possibly just a perception (it may be experienced as an emotion, i.e. via peptide chains).
-
It seems the universe is ALL about perception, meaning that it exists only in the mind of the perceiver (or observer in quantum physics).
How perception of time occurs in humans is beautifully explained in this article linking biology, physics and computer science. (https://horizon.scienceblog.com/899/link-between-music-and-speech-rhythm-in-brain-could-provide-language-insight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29)
-
If you have a system that loops waiting for an event and does something on receipt of it, where is time in this scenario. Answer, there is none. The system is not aware of the time between events be it 1 second or a billion years. Nor does it need this awareness to work. if we add a timer to the system so that it can consult the timer each time an event occurs, then we have a time-aware system but the time involved is an artificial concept derived from the mind of the timer creator.
In other words, it is very easy to demonstrate that time:
a. is a concept i.e. not "real"
b. is not a fundamental concept.
c. is relative.
d. requires an "observer" to be at all meaningful.
Rather than time we should be concerned with sequences of events.
-
I think there exists perceived time, related to awareness
Actually, I think perceived time is an emotion. A feeling of "being alive" is likely to be a a result of a time hormone interacting with a receptor in the brain. Possibly the hormone could originate from the pineal gland which is known to regulate our circadian rhythms. The more "aware" we are, the more the time hormone is generated. This accounts for the fact that we "lose" time when e.g. we daydream and "lose track of time".
In a computer program, a "Timer" object generates "Timer.Tick" events at predetermined intervals. These "Tick" events are used by other objects in the program to handle functions involving time.
-
I think there exists perceived time, related to awareness and rate of change of reality systems, and absolute time, related to the absolute speed of light.
Actually, I think rate of change is time related to the absolute speed of light, not awareness.
The universe is composed of systems that interact to handle time-dependent states (see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.msg575784#msg575784). Systems exist within systems like a set of Russian dolls. As a result, the distances involved in typical functions can vary from system to system. The lower in the set a system appears, the smaller are the distances it has to traverse to carry out its functions. But, the speed of light is a constant for all systems, so the rate of change of a system increases the smaller the system gets. This is how time works at higher and lower scales. The rate of change of e.g. an atom is much greater than that of e.g. a galaxy.
-
It is interesting to note that state changes in this universe happen immediately. Which means time is the stillness between events. But what is stillness if not nothing.
-
Of course, time and memories are inextricably linked. Without memories there can be no time, just an eternal present. Memories in the brain allow us to process the past and predict the future.
Because of this, it is very likely that all of the objects/systems in the universe are memories, especially given that state changes in the universe are instantaneous. This is especially true of bosons which appear to be recordings of state change events from the past. Bosons (except for Higgs) can be considered to be temporary memories and fermions to be (semi-)permanent memories. Temporary memories are likely not "visible", leading to the possibility that they constitute dark matter. Tachyons can be considered to be future/imaginary memories.
Thus it could be considered that all systems in the universe are, in effect, brains with memories. Networks of galactic clusters are brain-like in appearance. In this way, it could be considered that time is just a a concept in a brain. It is very likely that past memories also exist (somehow) in the universe as spacetime systems, as predicted by Einstein.
Maybe the Higgs Boson/system is a record of all the state changes a system has undergone. This could be achieved if multiple state changes are associated with a Higgs boson/system as subsystems. These events could record energy gain or loss and the total energy of a system is the total of all events/subsystems associated with the Higgs system. Throw in a timestamp on these events and we have the basis for time travel.
.
See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.msg575784#msg575784 for more information on universal systems.