The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Is 'time' fundamental?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Is 'time' fundamental?

  • 83 Replies
  • 11453 Views
  • 5 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bogie_smiles

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1065
  • Activity:
    0.5%
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • Science Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #20 on: 22/11/2017 02:39:10 »
Quote from: demalk on 22/11/2017 01:44:56
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
I do enjoy your views, and our discussion, but there is a place for hard science, which is generally accepted, and there is a place for unprovable layman ideas about the “as yet” unknowns of science, like mine.

If you approve, I will respond to your questions in a post that I will write in my thread, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple Big Bang events”. When that post is ready, I will come back to this post and edit in the link to the appropriate response, written to you, on my thread out in the “New Theories” sub-forum.

Then I can address your questions in an environment where layman ideas can be discussed freely, without having to worry about young readers getting misled, and where our views as layman science enthusiasts won’t be confused with science done by professionals. That is in accord with the forum guidelines, and relieves the moderators from having to decide if the guidelines have been crossed.

I hope this is not an inconvenience to you. Go to that post using this 'link" now active.

« Last Edit: 22/11/2017 13:26:21 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 



Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #21 on: 22/11/2017 02:51:38 »
Quote
I hope this is not an inconvenience to you. Go to that post using this ”link”. which I will edit tomorrow to actually contain the link that I haven’t written yet :)

Not at all, looking forward to it :)
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #22 on: 22/11/2017 12:32:20 »
Quote from: demalk on 21/11/2017 23:26:37
Quote from: jeffreyH on 21/11/2017 20:27:38
Quantum time is the proper time in general relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference we can devise a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames. This is separate from coordinate time but can be derived from it. These transforms then make time relative in quantum mechanics for all particle interactions. It sounds easy but is far from it.

Hahaha it doesn't sound easy at all, trust me  ;) Please elaborate more. What do you mean by 'a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames'?

I will reply to this later as I on lunch break at work at the moment.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #23 on: 22/11/2017 17:49:33 »
OK let's take a step into Heisenberg's world. The energy of an oscillating particle is
f27351a86d80308af9cdae82d34fac80.gif
If w = 76a04c96a651f52be11396cb4697ed96.gif and p = mv then we can restate this as
2827a9b433d7f3c5ccb555a812c49e59.gif
If we then replace p with matrix P and x with matrix Q we have
a172a33d93e7efe3ce19b5be177839d1.gif
This is quantised oscillator energy. The classical and quantum versions are both linked by proper time
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #24 on: 22/11/2017 20:19:06 »
It may be worth also reading about imaginary time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 



Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #25 on: 23/11/2017 21:59:37 »
Now above it should be noted that P is the momentum matrix and Q is the position matrix. This can be used to derive the uncertainty relationship.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #26 on: 25/11/2017 21:23:01 »
Quote
Now above it should be noted that P is the momentum matrix and Q is the position matrix. This can be used to derive the uncertainty relationship.

I understand that everything about QM implies time. I am not proposing to just erase time from the equations. That wouldn't make any sense. Of course the equations are right to include time. They are describing what we see and so we need it represented in our formulas if we want to make predictions. All I am saying is that this is what they do: they describe the world we live in. They don't describe the underlying layer, if any, and if it were a static informational layer, there would be no way to prove or disprove that through QM's equations just like a pre-QM argument about QM could never have been proven or disproven using any of Newton's equations.

Now, I understand you firmly disagree with this, so please, explain to me how :) What is so certainly fundamental about QM that absolutely nothing more fundamental could possibly exist?
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #27 on: 26/11/2017 13:39:24 »
The matrices P and Q are both infinite. From these it can be determined that energy comes in set discreet amounts. There is not an energy continuum. That is as fundamental as it gets.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #28 on: 26/11/2017 13:54:53 »
Read here about the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Heisenberg himself misinterpreted this.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 



Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #29 on: 26/11/2017 17:20:51 »
Quote
The matrices P and Q are both infinite. From these it can be determined that energy comes in set discreet amounts. There is not an energy continuum. That is as fundamental as it gets.

There is of course a good chance that these equations do indeed say something about their own fundamentalness which I am currently missing due to my lack of understanding and if so, I am keen to find out about them. But any argument to be taken seriously will certainly have to entail a bit more logic than the above. Your statement that discrete amounts = fundamentalness is a fallacy. By that reasoning, the first person to have discovered that all living tissue consists of discrete cells could have said the same thing: look, all life consists of discrete amounts, I must have hit the fundamental level of reality. Whereas the cel of course consists of molecules which consist of atoms, which we now know have their own special inner workings and their elementary bits can be broken up further yet if we apply enough energy like in the LHC. In other words: there is nothing about finding discrete amounts in itself that guarantees fundamentalness. It just means you've hit a deeper layer of reality than before. Nothing more, nothing less.
Logged
 

Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #30 on: 26/11/2017 18:40:53 »
Quote
Read here about the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Heisenberg himself misinterpreted this.

I am not disputing the math, what I am questioning is its interpretation. The contradiction here is quite obvious: the 'fundamental' uncertainty is attributed to wave-like systems. But every child understands that a wave is caused by something. If nothing acts on the water, it sits still. Any wave has to have a cause. As soon as there is cause, then there is mechanism, and as soon as there is mechanism, fundamental unknowability evaporates. The only thing left to be fundamental here, perhaps, is our inability to include the cause in our formulas. That is already a vastly different proposition than that of Copenhagen.

By stating that the foundations of reality are probabilistic, Copenhagen essentially claims that there is no cause. There is no mechanism. That is directly perpendicular to the concept of a wave-like system which according to the very same model underlies everything. It simply cannot be true that what underlies everything fundamentally, is causeless waves. It is an inherently internally inconsist claim. Furthermore, as long as QM and relativity haven't been married while both seem to be ultimately true, and fundamental mysteries remain such as dark matter and dark energy, then it seems a little premature to make any definitive claims about fundamentalness based on any existing math whatsoever.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #31 on: 26/11/2017 20:00:51 »
Both quantum mechanics and relativity agree with observation. If they didn't then you may have a point. They agree do therefore you don't. Disputing something for the sake of it is not the best way to learn.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #32 on: 26/11/2017 22:49:15 »
Quote
Both quantum mechanics and relativity agree with observation. If they didn't then you may have a point. They agree do therefore you don't.

The fact that they agree is central to my whole point. Which apparently you've missed completely.

Quote
Disputing something for the sake of it is not the best way to learn.

Agreed.
Logged
 



Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28309
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 64 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #33 on: 27/11/2017 06:24:26 »
Interesting read Jeffrey, and I agree Evan, from where and what can they stipulate a 'outside'? I don't consider time to be 'relative' in relativity as suggested in that text though. Your clock, the 'wristwatch' you use won't give you a longer (or for that sake 'shorter') lifespan, whatever trick you try, unless you find a way to freeze yourself down to then revive you. Doing that won't allow you to consciously enjoy those days passed in a frozen condition though, and according to everything we know time still pass even when you don't know it.

Time is a local constant, just as 'c' is one.
=

Using my analogy, now try to make time a result of entropy :)
=

The text is based on general assumptions about how and what a universe 'is', sort of like you watching a 'whole universe' through a telescope. Doing so you then define 'islands of time' slower and faster than your wristwatch, but locally measured, aka in a same frame of reference, all clocks 'ticks' alike. It's not relativity that is wrong, it's just our presumptions about what a universe is.

Actually, what is important here is the stipulation that ones 'lifespan', locally measured, never will change, no matter what speed, mass, etc etc you find yourself to be in/at. It's simple, time is a local constant and one proof of it is being in a same frame of reference.

Btw: so is 'c' :)

A local constant I mean, every constant is, or has its base from local observations. 'repeatable experiments' (observations) creates them,  those all being of a local nature. It's just us lifting them up to a global representation
« Last Edit: 27/11/2017 06:53:02 by yor_on »
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 
The following users thanked this post: Bogie_smiles

Offline Bogie_smiles

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1065
  • Activity:
    0.5%
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • Science Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #34 on: 27/11/2017 12:55:10 »
Quote from: yor_on on 27/11/2017 06:24:26
Interesting read Jeffrey, and I agree Evan, from where and what can they stipulate a 'outside'?
That is a good point. “Outside” seems best accessed in a thought experiment. "Local" is where your clock runs true; outside, it is open to relative motion affects.
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #35 on: 28/11/2017 20:35:48 »
Quote from: Demalk
The fact that they agree is central to my whole point.

Please could you "distil" that for a hitch-hiker with little time to review the thread?
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Marked as best answer by demalk on 28/11/2017 21:49:10

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11385
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 667 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #36 on: 28/11/2017 21:31:32 »
Let's look at the original question.

Things happen, and the universe changes. If there is a detectable difference between "before and "after" then the concept of time has meaning, and if there are consistent differences between different systems, its meaning must be universal. If we count sunrises and the grass gets a bit taller as the count increases, there is a common dimension for astronomy and horticulture, which we call time.

At the quantum level I think a lot of confusion is caused by the word "uncertainty", which colloquially implies some involvement of an observer or arbiter. A better translation is "indeterminacy", which doesn't. It's the difference between guessing the position of a raindrop (uncertainty) and knowing you are in fog. Wave mechanics is simply a mathematical model that helps us predict how the universe evolves: it doesn't imply that electrons are waves any more than your income tax code implies that you are a number on paper, but both can be used to predict the probable evolution of something in time.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 
The following users thanked this post: Bill S, jeffreyH, demalk



Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #37 on: 28/11/2017 22:52:15 »
Alan cuts through the BS once again with the scalpel of truth. Good on you sir. AND you got best answer. Wow! Top form.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #38 on: 29/11/2017 01:35:03 »
Quote
Let's look at the original question.

Things happen, and the universe changes. If there is a detectable difference between "before and "after" then the concept of time has meaning, and if there are consistent differences between different systems, its meaning must be universal. If we count sunrises and the grass gets a bit taller as the count increases, there is a common dimension for astronomy and horticulture, which we call time.

At the quantum level I think a lot of confusion is caused by the word "uncertainty", which colloquially implies some involvement of an observer or arbiter. A better translation is "indeterminacy", which doesn't. It's the difference between guessing the position of a raindrop (uncertainty) and knowing you are in fog. Wave mechanics is simply a mathematical model that helps us predict how the universe evolves: it doesn't imply that electrons are waves any more than your income tax code implies that you are a number on paper, but both can be used to predict the probable evolution of something in time.

Thank you for your well-put and thoughtful contribution. I will try to reciprocate as thoughtfully as I can :)

I agree with you, of course, that time has meaning. One should even argue it has more than just meaning. The concept of 'time' is implied in that of 'prediction' and prediction is arguably what all of physics and most other sciences are all about: creating models that are as accurate as possible at predicting how the world behaves. So needless to say, 'time' has tremendous meaning.

The question here however is not whether time is meaningful, but whether it is fundamental. There are a lot of things that are very meaningful but nowhere near fundamental. Love. Chair. Internet. Child. Understanding. Drums. Elephant. All extremely meaningful. But the fact that I can pick up the chair, hold it over my head and throw it straight through the window, doesn't make the chair or my head or the window the least bit fundamental. All these things either exist as concepts stored in our neural networks or as macroscopic objects or both, but none of them are fundamental in any way. 'Gold' means nothing to an electron, let alone 'wood' or 'chair'. So these things can never be fundamental.

So what is fundamental? Well, the photon seems pretty fundamental to me. It has no mass, its speed equals the maximum speed of causality, it interacts sub-atomically as well as macroscopically and we need it by definition to observe anything. Seems like a great starting point. If we can figure out how a photon experiences the world, perhaps we can get a step closer to what the world really is like fundamentally.

So what does the universe look like from the perspective of a photon? How is its perspective different from ours? Well, according to special relativity a photon doesn't experience time. If you would travel at the speed of light, everything would seem to happen at once. Of course this seems like a theoretical quirk because a) mass could never travel at that speed, and b) clearly everything doesn't happen all at once. Time actually passes. Right? But why wouldn't we assume that the photon may be right? Clearly it interacts with the world in a much more fundamental way than we do? With the whole being absorbed and emitted by individual electrons at the speed of causality and all, perhaps we should take its 'theoretical' perspective a bit more seriously? Maybe we can find some experimental evidence that this theoretical timelessness of photons might actually be a more accurate representation of the fundamental universe than the timefulness of mass?

Turns out, yes, we can. In the quantum eraser experiment we are affecting the behaviour of photons in hindsight. After the photon has already travelled through the slit(s), and has already been absorbed by one of the atoms in the screen, we are able to modify its past behaviour. We could even set up the experiment so that the choice would be delayed for billions of years after the photons have completed their paths. And still somehow they will have incorporated that distant future event into their behaviour. No matter how hard we try, we cannot fool the system.

How much more proof could we want? Isn't it obvious that the concepts  'time' and 'random' mean nothing to these photons? Isn't that exactly what we'd expect if the idea that a photon experiences no time weren't theoretical at all? If time and future and random are emerging phenomena carrying meaning only to that which has mass, then what is left at the fundamental level, the level that a photon 'sees', is a static, timeless, informational, pre-determined layer. Just like the software of a computer program being executed by a processor. The causal relations are "real", but only from the internal perspective of that which is being executed. At the most basic fundamental layer of it all lies a static, timeless 'hard drive' containing all the predetermined code - informational bits which dictate everything that will ever happen throughout the duration of the program. In other words: a fundamentally deterministic "reality".
« Last Edit: 29/11/2017 03:55:38 by demalk »
Logged
 

Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #39 on: 29/11/2017 03:35:23 »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: time  / spacetime  / simulation  / quantum  / relativity 
 

Similar topics (5)

Must ∞ monkeys on ∞ typewriters really write everything given ∞ time?

Started by chiralSPOBoard General Science

Replies: 28
Views: 24667
Last post 28/03/2020 11:42:26
by yor_on
We Know The Extent Of The Sun, What Is The Extent Of Space Time?

Started by TitanscapeBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 11117
Last post 27/04/2008 23:10:10
by turnipsock
What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

Started by scheradoBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 15
Views: 9294
Last post 09/02/2018 10:28:21
by Colin2B
If you could travel faster than light, could you travel in time?

Started by DmaierBoard Technology

Replies: 13
Views: 14271
Last post 19/03/2020 14:56:52
by Paul25
If the speed of light is constant, time must be constant too?

Started by Chuck FBoard General Science

Replies: 4
Views: 11873
Last post 19/03/2020 14:51:12
by Paul25
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.181 seconds with 80 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.