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 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Is 'time' fundamental?

  • 83 Replies
  • 11511 Views
  • 5 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puppypower

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1366
  • Activity:
    16%
  • Thanked: 97 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #80 on: 11/12/2017 12:00:45 »
A related question is, is time a potential? For example, say we had an experiment where all the forces of nature are active in the lab. What I will do is take a still picture, so I can simulate stopping time, so I can see the impact. What you will notice are the forces of nature are no longer active. Without time, everything has reached steady state and never changes from that point on. The entropy has reached a constant amount and remains there.

Another thing one will notice, in the still photograph, is Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in action. This is reflected in an affected call motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the action is faster than the shutter speed. Motion blur gives us the impression of motion. However, with time stopped in the photo, time associated with motion, is being expressed via uncertainty in position. In the photo below, places that are in focus, allow us to know position, but we cannot determine the momentum since it looks stopped. While where the image is blurry with motion blur, we can sense momentum, but we can't determine position.

In the case of the motion blur, time is being approximated by uncertainty in distance. This gives us a sense of action wth time stopped. This seems to indicate that time potential lingers in the still photo but becomes converted to distance potential since the photo does not stop distance from expression. This also suggests that time moves in a quantum step fashion, going from motion to motion blur, as it propagates on and off. We call the composite affect space-time and Heisenberg Uncertainty, but it is really composed to two separate affects; time and distance potential both of which are connected to time potential.

Say we added extra time potential to space-time. We get acceleration which is d//t/t. In the photo, we have stopped time therefore both space-time and acceleration are no longer expressed. While the appearance of motion, due to force and acceleration is still expressed as uncertainty in distance or distance potential.


Logged
 



guest4091

  • Guest
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #81 on: 11/12/2017 17:36:16 »
demalk #70;

Quote
All our choices are made in our unconscious mind.

You can only make conscious decisions. (check your dictionary)

Quote
Look, there are replicated studies where the measuring device already shows what the participant's decision will be seconds before the decision is made, that is, while the participant still feels like he is exerting his freedom of choice. You still feel like you're weighing your options, but the machine measuring your brain activity has already produced accurately the result of your decision. This should pretty much end the discussion, no?

Studies by neurologists show there is a lag of a few 100 ms, between the application of a stimulus and a persons awareness of it, and a persons decision to act and the physical act. The complexity of brain functions requires a finite amount of time. Perception of an event occurs after the event (per Relativity Theory), otherwise it's magic.

Quote
You are still accountable for them.
Not if the person is without free will. If their actions are predetermined, they have no motive.  Just as in the insanity defense. 

The same person who forms an addictive habit, also chooses to quit, using the same brain for both choices.

You can connect live wires to a dead frog and make it twitch, but the frog is still dead.
All this demonstrates is how the nervous system works.

Quote
Secondly: all we would need to predict with 100% accuracy which number the ball will land on in a roulette spin, is a complete picture of all the classical elements influencing the ball's behavior.
That idea is dependent on an ideal world, which only exists in the mind.
In the real world of quality control, there are small scale variations which are accepted as insignificant and normal, unless methods are refined. At the quantum scale, there is a limit to precision of measurement.

I was anticipating you explanation of DNA to be based on the mechanics of matter, in keeping with your previous statements, but no response.
The honors for scientific discoveries like DNA, should be rescinded, since the inanimate elements can achieve more than humankind, according to popular opinions
If DNA is the blueprint for forming a human, and is transferred in the process of conception, and requires two donors, what is its origin?
The human life form is carbon based, but molecules are composed of atoms. Speaking metaphorically, how would the elements know which basic units are needed, and what sequences will form the varied processes, such as the immune system.

Would you place a stone on the dining table, go to work, and return home expecting dinner?
If you have money to invest, do you seek advice from inanimate matter, or a person?

Logged
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28582
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #82 on: 12/12/2017 16:23:46 »
No Demalk, it's a simple thing I'm directing you too. The main reason for a quantuum entanglement being so mysterious is the fact that in a simplest case the probability for a spin to be up or down is 50/50.  But the 'other side' of a down converted photon, into two, will always 'know' the outcome of the other. And the main thing here isn't even that :) It's the probability itself that should be interesting. You might even want to argue that both things coexist in this case. 'Free will', as well as a deterministic outcome for the 'other part'.

And HUP is HUP
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 
The following users thanked this post: demalk

Offline demalk (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« Reply #83 on: 19/12/2017 17:31:07 »
Quote from: yor_on on 12/12/2017 16:23:46
No Demalk, it's a simple thing I'm directing you too. The main reason for a quantuum entanglement being so mysterious is the fact that in a simplest case the probability for a spin to be up or down is 50/50.  But the 'other side' of a down converted photon, into two, will always 'know' the outcome of the other. And the main thing here isn't even that :) It's the probability itself that should be interesting. You might even want to argue that both things coexist in this case. 'Free will', as well as a deterministic outcome for the 'other part'.

And HUP is HUP

Thanks for pointing that out. I am aware that I am probably wrong. I just really love these discussions and also they are extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of things. I will be looking into all the input from yourself and others in this thread more closely over the next period of time, and return with a new post/comment as soon as I have something to say that I haven't said already. Until then, thank you all for your contributions!
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 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: 24765
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: 11150
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: 9342
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: 14319
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: 11907
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 0.087 seconds with 41 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.