Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: infinityparadox on 23/01/2019 11:06:00
-
Here my question for this question where is the -1?
Trying to look at the problem from outside in, would love to hear what you think about it.
Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0. Although it may be difficult to imagine exactly how that happens it isn’t hard to understand the concept.
Time flowing unevenly makes it conceivable that some places in the universe, time doesn’t flow at all. Anything that exists in that space will be everlasting, will always remain the same.
If space and time had a beginning, it would be logical that whatever they came from didn’t have one. This is where some of our minds stop and it may take great effort to accept the concept of something that has no beginning (at least it took me considerable effort, I got a glimpse for just half a second). We can understand no end, it’s difficult to imagine no beginning. Even harder to imagine somewhere that isn’t a somewhere, space doesn’t exist there. Our thoughts are constrained to space and time in a linear fashion, our languages lack expressions for the concept, it’s totally foreign. Yet, if you say that space and time didn’t exist at one point then where they came from can’t have a beginning or an end since in order to have one, time would have to exist and so would space for time to flow in.
Something that doesn’t have a beginning or end is infinity (or infinite possibilities as some put it), it has always existed, time doesn’t flow on it and it doesn’t reside in space. Then out of it came the universe. The problem as you will see below is that infinity occupies everything that is, there is literally nowhere to put the universe.
There are many theories nowadays that question the very reality of our existence. They may be onto something. With infinity, maybe we do exist, but not as much as infinity itself and it stands to reason we would be suspicious of how tangible our reality is. We exist in a paradox. Instate of looking at the origin of the universe from the inside out, this is more of a view from the outside in.
This concept can be expressed in a simple equation. Before space and time came out of infinity there was no space to put space into and there was nowhere for time to flow.
Infinity should not be confused with infinite. Something that is infinite doesn’t have an end. Infinity has no beginning and no end.
If you take something out of infinite, whatever you took doesn’t affect the source that it was taken from, there is still an infinite amount. Doesn’t matter what you take out, it remains the same. For example, if you have an infinite amount of energy, you could take out enough to supply the whole world, but your source will remain the same, infinite. Same goes for infinity. When this universe came out of infinity, infinity remained the same. And since it didn’t change, it isn’t possible for the universe to exist outside of it.
The equation would then be:
∞ - 1 = ∞
Where does the 1 exist on the other side of the equation?
Math says infinity is not a number, it’s undefined. The result though would have to be equal to infinity or infinity something since infinity can’t change.
The single logical explanation I can think of is the 1 can only be inside of infinity, it can’t be taken out of it, that goes with the above, meaning infinity -1 is still infinity.
This leads to think the universe is growing inside of infinity and it doesn’t matter how much it grows, infinity doesn't change. The universe is in a paradox inside infinity.
In order for the universe to exist, it would have to be shielded from infinity. Without a shield, the universe would just collapse into infinity, it would disappear like it never existed.
Imagine taking a drop of water out of the ocean. If that drop was given an existence and put back into the ocean, there is no way it will keep its identity, it just mixes back with the ocean. In order for the universe to exist, there has to be a barrier that shields it from mixing back into infinity.
This barrier could be the actual constant growing of the universe. Space and time fool us and the universe itself into keeping an identity inside of infinity.
For the barrier, you could say ∞ - 1 = ∞ - 1 at least it’s logical, kind of like a mirror, only not a mirror, like one side hiding in it’s own reflection. From our perspective, from inside the - 1, it would be very hard to glimpse the ∞ since it would appear as a moving target, and somehow it feels like we were looking at it all along. Could it be that the constant movement of space and time is the shield that protects this reality from collapsing back into infinity? It’s like trying to make a hole in water, as long as you keep it spinning you can maintain the hole, as soon as you stop, the hole goes away. Maybe space and time are spinning to maintain a hole inside of infinity so we could exist in it.
-
Hi Infinityparadox. Welcome to TNS, and to the ranks of those who try to think beyond the purely mathematical interpretations of infinity.
Your post echoes many of the lines of thought I have wrestled with for a long time. There are several points to which I hope to return when time permits, and when others have had a say.
Something that doesn’t have a beginning or end is infinity (or infinite possibilities as some put it), it has always existed, time doesn’t flow on it and it doesn’t reside in space. Then out of it came the universe. The problem as you will see below is that infinity occupies everything that is, there is literally nowhere to put the universe.
There are two thoughts I would proffer for your consideration.
1. If “time doesn’t flow” (i.e. there is no time) in infinity, there can be no change; so how could the Universe, or anything else, “come out” of infinity?
2. If “infinity occupies everything that is, [and] there is literally nowhere to put the universe”; doesn't it follow that the Universe is still included in infinity?
BTW; good luck with this one. It’s the subject that earned me my first “crackpot certificate”. :)
-
Thanks Bill for the warm welcome. So happy there are other people who think along the same lines. If that's what it takes, give me 100 crackpot certificates.
Thank you for pointing out the first issue. The thought didn't cross my mind because infinity isn't in space and time. In this universe we observe that nothing can happen if there is no time. We haven't discovered the properties of infinity yet, it must be a very different set of rules that may allow change.
Yes, it flows that the universe is inside infinity. I'm paranoiac about not being understood, I copied pasted an essay I wrote a few days ago. I should have revised it before posting here since everyone is accustomed to thinking about these things.
One question, did you ever get the impression we've been staring at infinity all along and just don't know how to look at it?
-
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52368.0
JeffreyH started this thread a few years ago. It might be worth a look when time permits.
-
Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0. Although it may be difficult to imagine exactly how that happens it isn’t hard to understand the concept.
I understand that time passes in exactly the same way everywhere. What you are probably referring to is the observed (and predicted) result that the rate of time as observed from another moving frame of reference depends on the relative rate of motion between the two frames.
In each individual frame the normal description (inadequate but perhaps helpful) is that time ticks at one second per second
Unless I have misunderstood and you were aware of (and accounting for) that.
-
In each individual frame the normal description (inadequate but perhaps helpful) is that time ticks at one second per second.
If this were not the case, wouldn’t we need some sort of “absolute measure” of time that was independent of all RFs?
BTW. I’ve started reading the thread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52368.0
I’m not far into it, but I recommend it as having some interesting/informative stuff in it. Also, Donette (my wife) thinks I should read old threads more often. She says she has not heard me laugh so much for a long time. :)
-
If this were not the case, wouldn’t we need some sort of “absolute measure” of time that was independent of all RFs?
Not sure .
(I have really had any problem with infinity as a mathematical process and never a number .Not that I am versed with all the "bigger/smaller infinities" concepts whose validity I have no competence to question. Nor can I comment on the meanings of infinities appearing in formulas and what it is that that indicates; I understand there is also a process called "renormalization" in quantum physics but I know nothing about that )
-
Something out of Nothing - Quantum Physics!
-
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52368.0
JeffreyH started this thread a few years ago. It might be worth a look when time permits.
Read some of it, interesting stuff. It's about geometry though. For me infinity isn't in space so there isn't any geometry. My definition of infinite is something that has a beginning and no end or something that never runs out. Infinity for me means where space and time came from, It has no beginning and no end, completely outside of space and time.
Probably I don't know how to explain properly. I've been thinking about infinite (not infinity) since 6yo. Sometimes I would stay awake half the night running after the edge of the universe, trying to figure out what infinite means. In the beginning it was something that was always growing. I couldn't figure out what it was growing into but had to accept it. My thoughts were always directed towards the end of infinite because well, it had a beginning, a fixed point attaching it to reality that was actually wrongfully ignored. My mind (would suspect most of us) is linear with space and time, everything has a beginning. I kept meditating on infinite in every form I could imagine. Still the question of what the universe is growing into remained. In my 40's I started thinking about the beginning and one day I thought something that doesn't have an end, what if it didn't have a beginning? The representation of the universe in my mind collapsed, that usually means dead end or progress. So there I was chasing the beginning of infinite. If it's ever growing, it has to have a start, but what if something doesn't have a beginning? The universe has a beginning so something beyond the universe. One day I understood it for a split second, that whatever the universe came from doesn't have a beginning. That's what I call infinity. It's outside of space and time, no beginning, was always there (see, there is no word for it). Guess someone would have to meditate on that to really understand, it's way more than the meaning of the words to really imagine something that was always there.
-
understand that time passes in exactly the same way everywhere. What you are probably referring to is the observed (and predicted) result that the rate of time as observed from another moving frame of reference depends on the relative rate of motion between the two frames.
You got me a little confused. So for example, if you synchronize 2 atomic clocks, leave one on the ground and send the other in the space shuttle, when it comes back from space will the 2 clocks show the same time?
-
understand that time passes in exactly the same way everywhere. What you are probably referring to is the observed (and predicted) result that the rate of time as observed from another moving frame of reference depends on the relative rate of motion between the two frames.
You got me a little confused. So for example, if you synchronize 2 atomic clocks, leave one on the ground and send the other in the space shuttle, when it comes back from space will the 2 clocks show the same time?
No,certainly not.
I was just attempting to address what may be a popular misconception that time will appear to go slow if one accelerates to a relativistic speed.
(I am not sure whether it is possible to "slow time" if one uses acceleration or extreme gravitation but I do not think it is either.)
The (real) slowing of time only occurs from the perspective of another moving frame of reference and never from one's own frame of reference.
Hope that was clear (I am not very skilled in the subject and well prepared to be contradicted by others if necessary)
-
I’ve still not read all of the thread, but from what I have seen, so far, one quote stands out as touching on the underlying difficulties that beset discussion.
......better minds than anyone of us conclude that flat space defines an infinite universe. Either way, you seem to have missed my points JD. I think I'll have to agree with Pete about things here. When ever I hear someone use the term: "it seems to me", that usually means they are not bright enough to understand or they simply refuse to consider the facts. Which ever case is true concerning this debate is something we will all have to decide at the personal level.
Whether material space is infinite or whether nothingness is infinite, the fact is, that infinity is inescapable
“….flat space defines an infinite universe”. Of course it does! Mathematically. Even I can see that.
I never use the term “it seems to me”, for personal reasons. However, from where I look at this debate; the stumbling block appears to be that we are talking about two different interpretations of infinity. It’s like talking in two different languages.
An analogy might be the question: “is light a wave or a particle”. The answer might be that it is both, but which you observe depends on what you are measuring; which language you are using. The real trouble comes when one side refuses to acknowledge that the language of the other side has any meaning.
Unless those of who look for an interpretation of infinity that transcends our current mathematical “range”, are willing to accept that a mathematical interpretation of infinity implies that a flat universe is an infinite universe, we will never get anywhere presenting our arguments to scientists/mathematicians in general.
Conversely, unless these scientists/mathematicians are willing to risk stepping outside their self-imposed “Sonderlager” and acknowledging that maths is the best tool we have for the study and understanding of our Universe, but it is not, actually, the Universe; then both sides of the debate are doomed to stalemate.
-
Unless those of who look for an interpretation of infinity that transcends our current mathematical “range”, are willing to accept that a mathematical interpretation of infinity implies that a flat universe is an infinite universe, we will never get anywhere presenting our arguments to scientists/mathematicians in general.
Thank you for those wise words.
Infinity in this case doesn't refer to the universe, rather what the universe is growing into.
Everything we see and think is confined in space and time. How can we understand what the universe came from if our minds can't go there? We can't think outside of time and can't even imagine no space. Whatever the universe came from is outside of space and time, that is what I call infinity.
-
Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0
this stuff makes my head spin, but i still like it.
so the idea that there could be a space that exists where time is 0, doesnt that mean that 'nothing' can happen? for any action to happen, even on an atomic level, wouldnt time have to pass?
so another thing i wonder, if something is moving faster it feels time slower. ISS to earth for example.
does that also mean if something is moving slower, it would feel time faster.
is "our measurement of time" based loosly on the speed of sun orbit? or speed of milky way spin? or what?
so lets say for example if we had a way to make the earth orbit the sun slower, so 1 year equalled 1000 days,( forget about the whole gravity sucking us in thing). would we age faster?
if we could slow it down even more, so the milky way didnt spin, would time pass even faster again?
if so, if something in the universe did not move at all, what does that do to time?
i get that the concept of movement in space has to be relative to another object. if we could stop miky way from spinning, would that mayby be measured from a point of the movement of the other galaxys?
i better stop now cause my head hurts.
-
No Jfoldbar. Your proper time never change. the 'clocks' you compare it do though so you can, relative those, define yourself to be 'slower' or 'faster' if you like. But you have a lifespan, and according to your 'black box' measurement 'proper time' never deviate. If it did repeatable experiments doesn't exist as 'time rates' for them differ depending on mass, relative motion and elevation from said mass. And without a repeatable experiment the foundations of physics will wobble.
-
That's what Einstein probably meant, suggesting that 'time' is a illusion. But looked at locally it's not 'proper time' that becomes a 'illusion'. That one will hold relative your local considerations, the 'illusion' becomes the seamlessness we find looking out, knowing that we all see the same thing. But we don't, the universe you see is also 'observer dependent' meaning that it is defined relative your clock and your ruler. That would be cool if that too was a 'illusion', but it's not.
=
There is one additional difficulty to the idea of a 'variant' 'c'. because 'c' as a constant is what defines 'time dilations' and LorentsFitzGerald contractions'. 'c' was what forced Einstein to introduce them, and it is also the foundation of relativity. Questioning 'c' as a constant leaves physics without a definition.
One can always point out that we don't have a golden standard for what would be 'lowest energy state/time rate', unless? That's actually interesting :)
will have to think about that one.
That as we do define energy states in physics. Also 'lowest energy states', as defined by HUP. Then one just have to decide how one would like to define that in form of 'clocks', globally so or locally defined. Locally defined proper time is invariant, globally defined using this idea of energy states/'clocks' we have to redefine physics as 'clocks' now become 'discrete', as well as 'variant'. Which of course must include 'c' no longer being a constant as it can have different energy states.
-
One can always point out that we don't have a golden standard for what would be 'lowest energy state/time rate', unless? That's actually interesting :)
will have to think about that one.
That as we do define energy states in physics. Also 'lowest energy states', as defined by HUP. Then one just have to decide how one would like to define that in form of 'clocks', globally so or locally defined. Locally defined proper time is invariant, globally defined using this idea of energy states/'clocks' we have to redefine physics as 'clocks' now become 'discrete', as well as 'variant'. Which of course must include 'c' no longer being a constant as it can have different energy states.
Would you be happy with " Objective "time" is descriptive of physical processes and is not a "thing" as such"?
If those physical processes are fundamentally discrete then so will "time" be.
-
yor_on
would you mind translating all that for a dumb ass?
-
+ 1
🐒
-
Only Yor_on can provide an explanation, but, as an exercise, for my own benefit, I’ve tried to say what my understanding is. If Yor_on then puts me right, that might help others, as well.
That's what Einstein probably meant, suggesting that 'time' is a illusion. But looked at locally it's not 'proper time' that becomes a 'illusion'. That one will hold relative your local considerations, the 'illusion' becomes the seamlessness we find looking out, knowing that we all see the same thing. But we don't, the universe you see is also 'observer dependent' meaning that it is defined relative your clock and your ruler. That would be cool if that too was a 'illusion', but it's not.
Proper time is not an illusion, and when considered locally, there is no apparent illusion. If there is an illusion, it is that we might think that our perception of time holds good for all other observers, irrespective of differences of speed, gravity etc, which is not the case.
There is one additional difficulty to the idea of a 'variant' 'c'. because 'c' as a constant is what defines 'time dilations' and LorentsFitzGerald contractions'. 'c' was what forced Einstein to introduce them, and it is also the foundation of relativity. Questioning 'c' as a constant leaves physics without a definition.
If one questions time dilation etc. one has also to question an invariant “c”. Doing this would leave physics in a bit of a mess.
One can always point out that we don't have a golden standard for what would be 'lowest energy state/time rate', unless? That's actually interesting :)
Not clear as to where this one’s going.
will have to think about that one.
Possibly you_on isn’t, either. :)
That as we do define energy states in physics. Also 'lowest energy states', as defined by HUP. Then one just have to decide how one would like to define that in form of 'clocks', globally so or locally defined. Locally defined proper time is invariant, globally defined using this idea of energy states/'clocks' we have to redefine physics as 'clocks' now become 'discrete', as well as 'variant'. Which of course must include 'c' no longer being a constant as it can have different energy states.
]
Help!
-
Infinity is the never ending, but not the never changing. I would say infinity (as in the common infinity ℵ0) is one more than the last finite number (by definition) so if you take one from it it becomes finite. Therefore the number can become finite even if it's a finite number you could only count with an infinite number of time. About time being still in some places, there is one place where time is supposedly still, the inside of a black hole, and even though we don't know exactly what happens there is common acceptance that time just goes very slow as if time were really still time would get exponentially slower the closer you got to a black hole but the curve would never get to infinity as it would have to get through the last finite number, something imposible in a finite distance. Therefore actually there is no infinity in the proper universe (I'm not really going to get into the multiverse). I hope that cleared some or all of your doubts! Bye!
-
Hi Quantum Gravity, welcome to the emporium of infinite madness. :)
Possibly, you are a mathematician, I’m certainly not, so some of the things you say puzzle me.
Infinity is the never ending, but not the never changing. I would say infinity (as in the common infinity ℵ0) is one more than the last finite number (by definition)
How would you define “last finite number”?
If Aleph null is one more than the last finite number, and is also “infinity”, doesn’t that make infinity a number?
… so if you take one from it it becomes finite.
This works, only if infinity is a number. Try thinking of it the other way round. Is there any number to which you can add 1 and claim to have reached infinity?
Therefore the number can become finite even if it's a finite number you could only count with an infinite number of time.
I would be interested to know if our resident mathematicians agree with that.
Therefore actually there is no infinity in the proper universe (I'm not really going to get into the multiverse).
We agree!
-
One never know jfoldbar, the 'dumbass' might end up to be me.
Wrote this on painkillers so I better reread myself, before .... :)
-
I think I know how I was thinking there. You start with no golden standard of a time rate. What it says is that although we have ways to compare clocks to each other, there is also no 'local wrist watch' that we can define as being that 'golden standard' of a ''correct 'global' time rate''. We do it though, that's how we get to 'repeatable experiments', presuming all 'laboratories' to have a same time rate, alternatively 'equivalent' but then you also define it from more than just your clock because a equivalence involves more, it becomes a 'balance' of sorts in where your local clock is just one of the components.
On the other tentacle 'repeatable experiments' do work, no matter how you want to define it.
then we come to energy, a lowest state of 'somethings' energy is also one influenced by HUP, at least for this, think of temperature to see how I mean. Presuming there to exist different clocks that aren't 'relative' as much as locally true you then should be able to connect them to energy states. This is presuming that all positions in a space have a certain intrinsic 'clock rate' even though described differently through observer dependencies.At least I suspect that was what I was thinking of.
=
This isn't a negation of observer dependencies though, because those can be there and will be there as a result of different frames of reference acrting on each other. 'Intrinsically' should be read as if something is the way it is by its nature, in 'splendid isolation' if one wants :) the same way we define a intrinsic energy to a photon, that then can be experienced to red and blue shift depending on ones observer dependencies measuring it.
-
What that states is that a time rate at that lowest energy level should be very 'wobbly' aka 'indeterminate', presuming it to work. But as you go up in energy you leave HUP further behind and the 'clock rate' should stabilize. that would mean that there is a 'intrinsic clock rate' to f.ex space, although indeterminate, and for other things, as mass? What would that do to a space time position if so?
=
The last connects to how you define a 'gravity' acting on a space, as a geodesic, or not? And 'going up in energy' should be thought of as 'gaining proper mass' for this one, adding to a macroscopic behavior. :)
Ah well..
-
On the other tentacle 'repeatable experiments' do work, no matter how you want to define it.
Is this because every experiment is conducted in its own RF, and in that RF, time is constant?
It would follow from that that constant time in one RF could be validly compared with constant time in another RF.
-
Yes, 'proper time' is what define a repeatable experiment. We don't do them normally in accelerated frames, although we could argue that this too is true for them. It depends on how seriously you take the claim of gravity and accelerations being a equivalence. If you do Earth is a uniformly and constantly accelerating laboratory at one gravity.
and that Bill, fits the claims of being able to treat a acceleration as a 'infinite amount' of uniform motion. Doing so 'c' is 'c' even in a acceleration.
=
Better point out that not all accelerations are uniform though, but a acceleration have the same properties no matter how it express itself. There are no new intrinsic properties, as far as I know, to a 'non-uniform' acceleration.
-
It's a 'mystic' universe Bill, in many ways. and leaving it might just be the door to another mystery. I hope so anyway :) Still, have some kids, they will continue with or without me.
Neither you, nor me, like being bored
-
We don't do them normally in accelerated frames,
Just juggling some thoughts about RFs
An accelerated frame = a non-inertial reference frame. (?)
We know it is an accelerated frame because an accelerometer at rest in that frame should detect a non-zero acceleration. (?)
If I’m conducting an experiment in that accelerated frame, will I obtain a result that differs from that of an experimenter in a non-accelerated frame?
-
Yes. Earth isn't a ideal inertial frame of reference. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=22342&t=is-earth-an-inertial-frame But I'm guessing you wonder if it has a meaning at all? A perfect (non spinning) sphere of a evenly distributed density would still fall under the equivalence principle, if we go by relativity.
yes " For example, an accelerometer at rest on the surface of the Earth will measure an acceleration due to Earth's gravity, straight upwards (by definition) of g ≈ 9.81 m/s2. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
The last one. Are we talking about a ' perfect sphere' here?
-
Had some sleep, and think I see what you was thinking of, hopefully.
The last one again. A repeatable experiment should be able to be done under both accelerations and uniform motions. What differs them would be that, again as far as I know, what relative uniform motion you find yourself to have have no importance for it. But when discussing accelerations I would have to assume that ones type of acceleration will make a difference to the outcome f.ex of blue and red shift of a light 'centered' inside a spaceship. The acceleration of earth is defined as being uniformly and constantly accelerating at one gravity, which then differs it from non uniformly made accelerations. So you can by using red and blueshifts measured over time see what 'type' of acceleration you have inside that black box.
Remember that I wrote " There are no new intrinsic properties, as far as I know, to a 'non-uniform' acceleration. "? The blue and red shift I discuss can either be seen as a result of frames of reference interacting, or as a 'local / Intrinsic' property of any (accelerating) frame of reference. Uniformly moving frames of reference don't have this property displayed though.
=
Ergo, a uniform motion won't make a difference to blue relative red shifts, but accelerations will. And that is a experiment with different outcomes, so the equivalence principle is made under certain prerequisites, as the space ship and Earth both being at a exact same uniformly constantly accelerating frame of reference, ( ideally of a same mass too I guess, no not really, as that doesn't need any more acceleration :) and ignoring 'spin'. That makes it two definitely different descriptions in which (all) uniform motion can be seen as one same (or equivalent) 'frame of reference' no matter your speed, whereas 'accelerations' indeed will give you different frames of reference.
Another way to describe it would be by using 'identical test particles', accelerating versus being in uniform motion, but it comes back to the same thing. The one with Earth and the spaceship having a equivalence (gravity) is just such a unique 'repeatable experiment' demanding prerequisites. Doesn't make it wrong though but uniform motions are what's really weird to me.
=
There are a lot of things following from this, f.ex 'potential energy' that I find intuitively right, but incredibly hard to define. The same can be said for the stress energy tensor talking about shear stress. Still have to find a good description that intuitively describe what it means practically. A vacuum isn't really a 'fluid', or if it is I still need to see a proof of that, although you could argue that frame dragging is one.
What I mean is that we find mathematical 'properties' to a vacuum and gravity , but they stay mathematical and so untouchable practically, at least for me. If we trust Einstein everything should be explainable, and we should trust that, if we don't we're somewhere totally 'magical' :)
Shear stress and potential energy both share the same qualities. They are nowhere to be seen in themselves, only existing as a explanation to how different frames of reference interact. That's not good enough to me. I want more than a equation describing it, unless we're all in a mathematical space of course, then everything falls together with what you thinking of as matter distance speeds and accelerations really becoming a illusion.
A vacuum can both be seen as 'something' aka f.ex 'zero point energy' and as a 'void'. The Chinese use 'yin and yang' for the same idea. To me it's still primary a void practically.
-
Hey sorry to post here after so long, I somehow stopped getting notices. It's only because Mark sent me a thank you email that I came back here to see. This is actually very cool, thank you all for your comments. I've read some of the posts and I'm a little confused by the understanding of the nature of time.
According to the theory of relativity, time isn't a constant, it and space contract at higher speeds. This makes it that time elapsed in the example of the 2 atomic clocks, one traveling at high speed and the other remaining, would actually result in the 2 clocks showing a different elapsed time. This isn't an illusion or a relative thing, when the jet lands at the airport and you compare the clock that traveled and the one that didn't they will show a different amount of time has passed. It may take some meditation to understand this, I did it more times than I can count before I could understand. Even though each second that passed was a full second relative to the person experiencing it, the actual time that passed isn't the same as the clock that remained stationary. So in essence, because time contracted for one clock, the other had less time pass.
The other thing is the comment about taking 1 out of infinity making it finite. Let's look at this a different way, let's say all of the infinity of possibilities of everything exist somewhere independent of space and time. If you want to physically manifest the possibility of this universe, you wouldn't have where to put it. This leads to think that we must be inside that infinity. Time sets the beat so our manifested universe wouldn't realize it is inside of the infinity and lose it's identity.
-
Good to see your return. Been a while it seems.
According to the theory of relativity, time isn't a constant
According to relativity, time isn't absolute. According to some alternate, but still valid, theories, time and space are both absolute. Nobody in the cosmology field ever seems to use these alternate theories, especially since they lagged relativity theory by almost a century.
when the jet lands at the airport and you compare the clock that traveled and the one that didn't they will show a different amount of time has passed.
Yes, this has been demonstrated, but it takes really accurate clocks to measure the difference. It's far more noticeable with say GPS satellites, all of which contain such accurate clocks.
Even though each second that passed was a full second relative to the person experiencing it, the actual time that passed isn't the same as the clock that remained stationary.
Time and space is not absolute, remember? So there is no 'clock that remained stationary'. Stationary relative to what?
So in essence, because time contracted for one clock, the other had less time pass.
No, the length (interval) of the spacetime path traversed by one clock is shorter than the other. This is a physical effect. Time isn't something that 'contracts'. There is time dilation, but that is a coordinate effect, not a physical one.
I couldn't figure out what it was growing into but had to accept it. My thoughts were always directed towards the end of infinite because well, it had a beginning, a fixed point attaching it to reality that was actually wrongfully ignored. My mind (would suspect most of us) is linear with space and time, everything has a beginning. I kept meditating on infinite in every form I could imagine. Still the question of what the universe is growing into remained
No valid model has the universe expanding into some otherwise unoccupied space. Instead, space itself is expanding. There can be no edge to the universe, be it finite or not. That just doesn't work.
The universe has a beginning so to speak, yes. It was never a point. The big bang happened everywhere, not at a point in space. Relativity theory has time as part of the universe rather than the universe occurring in time. That means it is meaningless to talk about 'before the universe', or it being created, or some such.
The alternate (absolute) models do support a universe contained by time, so such language is appropriate if you're using those models.
Hope some of this helps.
-
Thank you! Yes some helps, the rest is beyond my understanding.
The 2 clocks I'm talking about is the classic example of atomic clocks' timers started simultaneously. Both clocks are at an airport. One remains at the airport (the one I said is stationary) while the other goes in a blackbird around the world at mach 3. The exercise is to meditate going with the clock on the plane then repeating while staying on the ground in hopes to reconcile how the 2 clocks would not indicate the same time has passed.
My conclusion was that time contracts, that you call dilation. But now, I can't understand what you are saying about it being relative to the observer. I tried to get Gemini to explain, it said basically the same. The 2 clocks show a different time but relative to the observer. So how are the 2 clocks off?
I'm still thinking time doesn't flow the same everywhere. Like if someone lives at the top of the Himalayas and another lives in an underground cave, time would not pass the same for the 2..
How about a spaceship that goes far away at high speeds and comes back, wouldn't the time it was gone be different from the time that passed on earth by years?
-
Both clocks are at an airport. One remains at the airport (the one I said is stationary)
Earth is spinning, so relative to any inertial frame, that airport is accelerating. it isn't stationary at all.
So if your Blackbird flies west, it will meet the airport after 12 hours on the other side, and both Blackbird and airport got there in about the same time, same speed, different directions. I could not say which clock would read the greater elapsed time.
The exercise is to meditate going with the clock on the plane then repeating while staying on the ground in hopes to reconcile how the 2 clocks would not indicate the same time has passed.
A human keeping the clocks company would have no effect on the experiment.
My conclusion was that time contracts, that you call dilation.
The rest of the world calls it dilation, so best not to make up new words for established concepts.
But now, I can't understand what you are saying about it being relative to the observer.
It's relative to an inertial frame. The typical 'observer' is often just there to identify the frame: "The frame in which Bob is stationary". Bob could be a cardboard picture of a guy. His presence or absence does not affect the physics.
The basic gist under special relativity is that relative to any inertial frame, fast moving clocks tick slower than slower clocks. But this is relativity, so relative to that 'fast moving' clock, it is all the other clocks that tick slower. Any clock is stationary in its own frame by definition, so it runs at 'normal' speed in that frame.
The 2 clocks show a different time but relative to the observer. So how are the 2 clocks off?
The two clocks in say the airplane experiment show different times. This comparison is objective, not relative to anything.
How much apart? It depends on the situation. For your west-flying Blackbird, I could not say which clock would log more elapsed time. If the plane flew west, the Blackbird clock would show less elapsed time.
The famous HK experiment that first did this had slow airplanes that landed periodically, but eventually made it all the way around. The time difference was 59 nanoseconds less if eastbound, and 273 nanoseconds more if westbound.
Like if someone lives at the top of the Himalayas and another lives in an underground cave, time would not pass the same for the 2.
That's time dilation due to gravity, yes. The HK thing had to take that into account since the airplane was often at higher altitude than the clock on the ground.
How about a spaceship that goes far away at high speeds and comes back, wouldn't the time it was gone be different from the time that passed on earth by years?
Yes, it can be much less. If your ship is fast enough, you could age 1 year and you find that 200 years has passed on Earth when you get back.
-
Yes, it can be much less. If your ship is fast enough, you could age 1 year and you find that 200 years has passed on Earth when you get back.
Thanks. I'm still not sure what is wrong with my understanding. Time elapse differently at different speeds, that part I already had. The question is how is this objective?
-
Time elapse differently at different speeds, that part I already had. The question is how is this objective?
Time dilation is due to speed. It is relative, abstract. It is not objective.
So for instance, if clock A and B are moving relative to each other at 0.99875c, clock B will be dilated by a factor of 20 in the frame in which A is stationary, and clock B will be dilated by a factor of 20 in the frame in which B is stationary. There is no objective 'stationary'. Each is simply moving relative to the other.
A very related (and probably most important part) is relativity of simultaneity. That means when comparing two events (say when clock A says 1 hour, and when clock B says one hour, relative one inertial frame the A event happens first, and relative some other inertial frame the B event happens first, and relative to some third inertial frame, the two events are simultaneous.
Simultaneity, being frame dependent, is also completely abstract, not objective. It is established by convention, usually a convention that is based on a choice of frame.
Differential aging is something else. If clock A and B were together at some point, they can be compared, or they can be set to the same value then. If, later on, the are reunited (very much like the airplane going around the world and back to the airport clock), the times can be compared and one might be found to show more or less elapsed time, and is an example of differential aging. This is objective, physical, and not abstract. Relative to any frame (inertial or not), that comparison will be the same. One clock has taken a shorter path (called an interval) through spacetime, and clocks measure the spacetime interval of the path it takes. Spacetime intervals are frame invariant.
The only way two clocks can be together, move apart, and then be together again later on, is for one or both of them to accelerate at some point. If a clock accelerates, then there is no inertial frame in which that clock is always stationary, so the dilation of that clock relative to some frame gets a little more complicated.
If you're completely unfamiliar with these concepts, then all this can be pretty hard to swallow, but I assure you it is accurate. I applaud your willingness to read the posts and ask questions about the unclear parts.
-
Hi Halc, I have a question concerning one of your statements and if you feel it is off topic, delete it and I will open a new thread. You say time dilation is a coordinate effect and not a physical one. However if I start with two synchronised clocks, keep one in my house and send the other off on a zillion mph hi tech craft for lets say, one year, and then reunite them there will be a physical difference. What say you?
-
Never mind "will be". By experiment, there is.
-
You say time dilation is a coordinate effect and not a physical one. However if I start with two synchronised clocks, keep one in my house and send the other off on a zillion mph hi tech craft for lets say, one year, and then reunite them there will be a physical difference. What say you?
The dilation is due to the speed difference. In one frame, the zoomy clock is moving at a zillion mph and runs slower, but relative to a different inertial frame, the zoomy outgoing clock is stationary and it is your house clock that is moving, and is thus running slow. That's what I mean by it being a coordinate effect. Which clock runs faster during some duration depends on the choice of coordinate system.
The comparison when the two clocks are reunited is the example of differential aging, and that is objective, since the different readings of the two clocks at that event is the same regardless of choice of coordinate system. So differential aging is physical, objective, and frame invariant.
-
Crystal clear Halc, thank you.