1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time stand still in the quantum world?

« on: 04/01/2019 03:14:33 »

If anyone has used a stopwatch they are aware of time as a measurement of change.

I can only speak for myself  but I  personally seem to feel a need to "anthroposize" time or more accurately to give it its own elemental existence (the Greeks certainly did this with their Chronos).

Naturally I assume that the "general population" shares my (outdated) instincts  and so might only  appreciate that a stopwatch only measured change if it was first suggested to them.

Perhaps ,even then they might only agree to that  in a lip-service kind of way and hold onto the notion that indeed "time is passing" as if it was a "thing" ...or maybe they would cop on more quickly than myself whom I admit to be a snail like learner at best.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time stand still in the quantum world?

« on: 03/01/2019 22:00:00 »

I like a good debate but the concept of time seems to be flogged to death for no reason. It is simply a mechanical means of measurement of change in one form or another. The fact that those mechanics don't always run at the same pace in different frames is not that difficult.

Yes,a fair point.

On the other hand "time" has always (I imagine) been a focal point of humanity's  thoughts....until ,amazingly we are introduced to time dilation and  the non existence of absolute time.

Small wonder we are ,on an individual basis trying to keep up with the new normal  some 100 years later.

And how many of the general public are even dimly aware what special and general relativity have meant for our understanding of what can be called the "timing as a measure of change" mechanism?

Would they care ? Would they "believe"?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time stand still in the quantum world?

« on: 01/01/2019 23:47:15 »

I have had ,in the past  the belief that time required motion  to exist.However I have been assured that   clocks that rely on radioactive decay show that this is not the case.(no motion)

I also wonder (from bits and pieces I have heard)  whether it may be the case in the quantum world  that all particles are indistinguishable from each other..would that rule out   "change" at that level?

So ,how would one go from  the universal sameness of the quantum realm (if that is indeed how it is  or might be) to the variety of the classical realm?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why must c be an absolute "speed limit"?

« on: 20/02/2018 16:53:08 »

Can the question also be asked "Why is there any maximum speed limit?"

As far as I  have understood , there must be a maximum speed limit and  it looks like c is it since it lies at the heart of all processes that have been observed .

It is the fastest that any object has been observed to go  and since there must be a maximum speed  of some kind the c is the obvious candidate.

I have also understood that c is a function of both the permittivity and the permeability of a vacuum.

So if these observed values were different ,c would also have a different value.

But there would still be a maximum speed limit.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If I moved backwards at the speed of light holding a torch, what would happen at the start of th

« on: 17/11/2017 16:16:34 »

I race with a beam of light, start point A n finish point B.
Both light beam n my velocity is same = speed of light.

You cannot travel at the speed of light.

No matter how close you come to the speed of light (as measured from your point of departure,as well as that of the beam of light) the beam of light ,if you were able to measure its speed would still be c .

The only difference would be its frequency .

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does reality not exist until we observe it?

« on: 01/10/2016 11:27:22 »

Consciousness causes the wave function to collapse acording to this interpretation. 

The interpretation does not refer to the consciousness of the observer but to the interaction with the device making the measurement. For example, a photon hits a detector and ceases to exist - its wave function has collapsed - and we know where it was when it hit. Bohr was very clear that the result can and should be described classically using ordinary language.
The wave function is only a probabilistic description.

Must  the interaction be with a "detector" or simply with another object?

The "observer" is an integral part of the physical universe ,is it not ? There is no such thing as a disembodied observer (or a pure observation) ,is there?

PS is there no way to format posts?