Impossible to Prove Time is Real
Assume R = Time is real
If R is true then there must be a proof (call it [math]\phi_1[/math]) that R.
The proof [math]\phi_1[/math] implies that we can construct a reductio ad absurdum argument (call it [math]\phi_c[/math]) to prove R.
[math]\phi_c[/math] assumes the negation of R i.e. ~R = Time is unreal.
If ~R, there can't be contradictions (re definition of contradiction); no contradiction, no [math]\phi_c[/math]; no [math]\phi_c[/math], no [math]\phi_1[/math].
Conclusion: Impossible to prove time is real.
If R is true then there must be a proof (call it [math]\phi_1[/math]) that R.
The proof [math]\phi_1[/math] implies that we can construct a reductio ad absurdum argument (call it [math]\phi_c[/math]) to prove R.
[math]\phi_c[/math] assumes the negation of R i.e. ~R = Time is unreal.
If ~R, there can't be contradictions (re definition of contradiction); no contradiction, no [math]\phi_c[/math]; no [math]\phi_c[/math], no [math]\phi_1[/math].
Conclusion: Impossible to prove time is real.
Comments (236)
Could you elaborate on that?
I guess he means that it doesn't make sense to say “it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be at the same time” if time is unreal.
But those who say time is unreal presumably mean that time is something that's only “real” in our minds, not outside them.
For instance, Kant's view is that a thing in itself causes us to perceive phenomena, and that our cognitive apparatus arranges the matter of sensation in space and time. That does not imply that statements about time, like the one contained in the Law of Contradiction, are meaningless, it only implies that they are statements about phenomena rather than about things in themselves (noumena).
Why? Is time is unreal a mathematical theorem?
Since we experience the passage of time it seems quite real. But not physically so like a doughnut.
Ah, I see. Huh, that's pretty clever.
I suppose we could speculate on the whole "time before the Big Bang" topic, if that even makes sense. But that aside, I don't understand what unreal time means.
Time is an illusion, or an imaginative aspect, not real, per say.
Perhaps.
But then what isn't?
Hey, don't kill the messenger.
But if I had to respond...I'd say rollercoasters.
No killing intended, messenger or OPs.
However, if rollercoasters are immune to the status of illusory entities, then I say we have a problem, because I don't know how one can ride one, if there's no time involved.
You raise a good point. However, it is equally difficult to imagine rollercoasters as illusive. I mean, have you ever been on one of those things!?!
It's basically a sensory overload in which we are tricked into believing these things have shape, colours, speed and the like. Combine that with adrenaline and dizziness and you have yourself a well pulled off magic trick.
:wink:
[b][math]\downarrow[/math]
Quoting Amalac
:up:
Quoting jgill
Not all proofs are mathematical. Nonetheless, if time is unreal, we have to have a proof ([math]\phi_1[/math]) and a corresponding reductio ad absurdum argument ([math]\phi_c[/math]). Reductio ad absurdum arguments rely on arriving at contradictions which are undefined if time isn't real (simultaneity is meaningless).
Suppose a proposition P is true and there's a proof [math]\phi_1[/math] to that effect.
Does [math]\phi_1[/math] entail the existence of a reductio ad absurdum proof [math]\phi_c[/math] that P (is true)?
You got it slightly wrong. If we want to use reductio ad absurdum to prove that "Time is unreal", then we need to show that the opposite scenario "Time is real" leads to a contradiction.
Contradictions can exist under the assumption that "Time is real", so in theory we can actually show that "Time is real" leads to contradiction.
It's actually impossible to prove that "Time is real" through reductio ad absurdum, assuming that contradictions rely on time (which I'm not convinced is the case)
:lol: The emperor has no clothes!
On the spacetime continuum irreversible processes can unfold. These are temporarily quantified by comparing them with the periodic motion of the clock or by looking at the number on the local time axis.
The strange thing about the reversible periodic motion required for the ideal clock (even the caesium clock doesn't contain such an ideal, perfect, and reversibe, periodic motion) is that it can only be found just before the big bang. Looking at the quasi periodic motion present then, it looks like a clock which has no direction in time. Only after lift off entropic time came into being and the ideal clock is projected by us on the unfolding ptocesses.
The clock time can be considered as non-existent. But just before the big bang, it was the only time present, approximately. A quasi-periodic motion was all that was present. If we would place a clock near this proces, you could say it lasts an amount of periods. But that what lasts that amount of periods (say seconds), is symmetric in time. You can't see a development, for which irreversible processes are required. Say the quasi periodic state 10 seconds. Can we say it really did if the process can go forward in time, as well as backwards? The only thing present before the bang was the perfect clock. As soon as the universe took of is was sent to oblivion and we try to re-install it, in vain.
Advocates of the entropic time deny the true existence of the clock. Advocates of the clock deny the entropic time (an illusion). Are we just crawling along our objective worldlines, there creating the illusion of time? Or are we projecting the worldlines?
Proving the non-existence of time takes time.
From what you have said, it appears clear that the hypothesis of "ideal time" has been falsified by the evidence. To appeal to "before the big bang", and say that it was true then, is nonsensical, because there is no evidence from before the big bang, and one could propose absolutely anything as true.
Quoting Raymond
This idea of quantized time becomes a more interesting question, if we remove the ideal clock. The ideal clock described is independent from physical evidence and measures a continuous time. So if we propose a standard quantum of time as the smallest possible length by physical evidence, and say two distinct features of the universe require one quantum of time, they could each start and end at a different time, by the ideal clock. So the ideal clock would require units of time smaller than the smallest possible unit of time, by the physical evidence, to account for the beginning and ending of the features of the physical universe, at different times.
But if the ideal clock is removed, then all these features must start and stop at precisely the same time, to account for the truth of the proposition that physical motion is quantized, unless time is driven by some non-physical property of the universe.
Dunno. Absence of evidence invites speculation. That's
the fun, in fact! You can imagine a state before the big bang.
Quantized time has been proven non-existent by astronomical observations. How does a static system know, if quantized time exists, how long it has to stay in the static state?
The ideal clock, the reversible periodic motion, is a non-existent state. There are to my knowledge no periodic processes that are symmetricy under time reversal and the ideal clock only exists in the mind. Even the atomic clock is not a perfect clock. The only truly existing ideal clock seems to be the state of the universe before the big bang. Time didn't go in one direction yet. Or better, the very process was a periodic process without a direction in time. Of course you can mentally place a clock next to the state, outside the universe. It will take an amount of time. It's like comparing a clock with another clock. How long does it take for a clock to execute four periods? You gotta have a perfect clock, which doesn't exist. The pre-big-bang state can be considered the perfect clock for it's own development, except there was no development, only the isolated loops of basic particle fields (in a Feynman diagram depicted by a closed particle propagator). Einstein viewed spacetime as empty, but it's a quantum vacuum. Viewing the particles not pointlike, but close to it, prevents a pointlike singularity. When background conditions were right, the virtual particles "banged" into real existence, space being the exciting force to promote the virtual to real, like two real photons or a particle/antiparticle pair (which are not basic fields just as quarks and electrons are not, but that's a different chapter in the book) can promote a virtual pair or a photon loop to real. This introduces an irreversible changing space background (caused by a previous bang) but that doesn't influence the state as a clock with no direction in time, and you might even say time itself is fluctuating reversibly.
As soon as the perfect clock of the pre-big-bang state ceases to exists, The real particles that are excited into existence out of the fluctuating field, constitute an irreversible process, and the ideal clock has gone to live on only on the imaginary time axis of curved quasi Euclidean space. Space is still filled with virtual particle loop which is the media for interaction.
Just a story I'm writing. But fun to do and nobody has raised objections yet. It accounts neatly for problems like dark energy, dark matter, matter/antimatter asymmetry (which is just an apparent one in the story). I won't bother you further with it, but it only goes to show that there are more stories to tell than the commonly accepted and propagated as the only truth, while in fact the could be fiction.
Like what? Apart from God? The thing you propose can't be anything. It can be one thing only. There is only one universe. It is already known that the classical approach doesn't apply before the big bang. You gotta think something, if interested.
Quoting Agent Smith
I see a clock on the wall. Proof! It's real. I take the clock from the wall and smash it on the floor. Kaput! A real basic ingredient of nature is conserved. But clock Kaput! Time is not real. It's an illusion.
You mean to say that if we destroy all the clocks in the universe, time would cease to exist? Wouldn't you grow old...and die still? Is that not time?
Time is a clock. Clocks are a human invention. The perfect clock only existed at the big bang. Hence the time coordinate is utterly, seriously, shamefully, blatantly, and intrinsically unreal. Don't know what growing older got to do with the clock. Why is time getting older? I mean, why is getting older time? Time is a persistent illusion. There is change only. Things today, say at 12, are different from things tomorrow, say at 12. In between, the clock has ticked 564555555 times. Tic tac tic tac tic tac. Fuck that clock! It's an illusion and at the same time more present then ever before..
If time is an illusion, contradictions are meaningless, or more accurately, they lose their logical significance. I could then say time is real, in opposition to your time is an illusion and we would both be right.
Why is that? I can contradict you and say you just believe it's real and that you are raised to believe so. But if you wanna believe in it, who am I to stop you? The best thing I can do is to try to wake you up from your belief. Why is it so important to you that time exists?
Some equations of quantum gravity (such as the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which assigns quantum states to the Universe) can be written without any reference to time at all.
That, my friend, is a fascinating subject although at present it's well above my pay grade.
Suffice it to say that many phenomena e.g. light (Hz) become meaningless without time.
Light has no meaning.
What are you on about?
Nothing yet... You write light becomes meaningless without time. That means it has meaning. But light has no meaning. Even if you put a clock beside it.
Light has a frequency and wavelength. These are used to define time, showing its relation to space.
So light = flkts (meaningless)?
Quoting Raymond
We can and do use frequency & wavelength to define light.
Too, if light is problematic (circularity), how about Do Re Me Fa So La Ti?
A single frequency of light doesn't exists in reality. Only in the mind it can serve as the perfect clock. Clocks are a realization of the idea. The perfect clock, as assumed for the axis of time, is a process with an unchanging period. Exact, invariant periods, are ideal only. The idea of the clock is the perfect clock. It's this clock that's placed on the time axis. So, the time axis is a virtual axis.
Do-Mi can be used to define time. Like a cuckoo appearing periodically. "Let's meet at two o'cuck".
If time is not real, then Agent Smith didn't post the OP before I posted this. Anyone for modus tollens?
:up:
Temporal paradox of logic
The law of identity.
Panta rhea.
Contradiction.
The second premisse seems to be false. If time is not real (as is the case), then he still could have posted. If the second premise is true and negated, so he did post, then still time is not real.
Might have made his play even more interesting.
Quantum entanglement, ‘superposition’, quantum computing can have a state of 0 and 1 at the same time.
Does this suggest ‘be and not be’, at the same instant in time, is possible?
Einstein shows time as relative and inseparable from space. So there is no time, there is only spacetime.
The smallest ‘current’ unit of time in Physics, is the Planck time or the time is takes a photon to travel a Planck length.
It is posited that a photon does not experience time or space, ‘relative to us as observers’ as it travels at 3x10^8 m/s. This suggests that any photon created after ‘the singularity,’ which has never been slowed down due to an interaction, has never ‘experienced’ space or time, at least, relatively speaking.
Time seems to be ‘linear’ in our 3D arena but perhaps it is not linear.
I think we would all probably accept that time aggregates such as hours, days, dates, era’s etc are nothing more than convenient human measurements but I also think that if the universe as humans generally experience it, is ‘real’ then time as a ‘durational measure of the ‘length’ of the occurrence of an event’ is ‘real.’
BTW, Roger Penrose posits that time before the very stupidly named Big Bang (not big and no bang) would be part of a previous ‘Epoch’. A time duration within which a previous manifestation of a ‘universe’ existed.
This is a convoluted way to try and prove whether time is real or not. How about starting off with a definition of time and then we can discuss whether or not your definition refers to something real and consistent with observation.
"? ????????? ???? ???????"
i taftótita réei synech
In ordinary colloquium:
"per identitatem fluit continue"
The identity flows. Is this a logical contradiction?
Assuming it to be true and trying to proof it implies a way to look for it and compare it with your assumption. If the proof is a reductio ad absurdum, this means you render it absurd if time isn't real. So it's real.The proof takes time for unreal and explores it's absurd consequences, rendering time real.The premise though is false. No time doesn't mean no contradiction. So the conclusion is false. It is possible to proof time real by assuming it not real.
That's what @Raymond has been hinting at right from the beginning.
[quote=St. Augustine of Hippo]What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. [/quote]
What the clock measures.
Basic idea = Something that can't be broken down into simpler ideas. Ergo, is undefin(ed/able).
So you claim...so you claim! Good response though! :up:
So, the clock. Is it real? Approximate. How can the real thing and the approximation be both real? They can't. So time is not real. The clock is a persistent illusion, on an illusionary and imaginary axis (it-axis), as an inseparable part of an illusionary manifold.
Is time the clock though? How can the clock measure time if the clock never can show the true value? Does the real value actually exist? Can time be broken up?
So time exists on that basis. All other time measurements are aggregates of planck time.
According to the uncertainty relations if you make dx smaller and smaller dp becomes bigger and bigger. At the small distances, a black hole appears with a planck size Schwarzschild radius. In the hole time stands still. The limit to measure length lies at the Planck length, with a corresponding uncertainty in time. This doesn't mean though that space or time are quantized. We just can't measure smaller distances, and thus no smaller intervals of time, which doesn't mean that time is not continuous.
What is real?
Playing with Complex and Distorted Time
If there was any physical substance to time it would be a topic in fluid analysis. Perhaps it flows in the aether? :chin:
Isn't so called (velocity/gravitational) time dilation, a case of warping the 4[sup]th[/sup] dimension (time); however, unlike space in which case a straight line becomes a curve, with time, a curve becomes a straight line.
A smaller error margin in one, will result in a bigger error margin in the other, I think?
If you attempt to go smaller than Planck values then yes, the theory predicts a black hole or 'quantum foam.'
Hawking radiation suggests time does not stand still inside a black hole and that over an immensity of time, a black hole will evaporate.
Your statement does not prove that spacetime is not quantised to the same level that current efforts do not prove that it is. We just don't know yet but I would currently move towards the 'yes spacetime is quantised' side, based on what science has found so far. So, I still hold, in general, that time (or spacetime) is 'real.'
For me the more pressing questions, relate to:
if spacetime is the 'real' state then distance and time are 'not separate' quantities, so, expansion of space, is the notional 'clock' ticking. The current expansion rate is accelerating, This suggests that the 'rate of time' must also be accelerating but this further suggests a 'universal' reference frame for time as well as the more localised, relative, reference frames, within which the phenomena of 'time dilation', occurs. The divisor in the time dilation equation can tend towards zero, which suggests that if you could travel at light speed (within space as currently understood) then you cannot age and you could theoretically outlive the universe you are traveling in!!!
Another mind f### is that in your own reference frame you would still only live your own lifespan.
This reference frame would be effectively 'outside of the universe's reference frame.'
This is based on the premise that Is it correct to say that in the 'Universal reference frame', a photon, traveling at light speed, does not experience spacetime at all? It only enters spacetime when it slows down due to interaction/change in property/pair production etc.
I do have some fun playing with this, with more (perhaps philosophical) thoughts like; 'so, is this like the state dead and the state alive?'
is a photon effectively dead when it does not experience spacetime? does it become alive when it enters spacetime? How does this relate to the human experience? Probably nonsense, but it stops my head from exploding when I try to approach anything near to an understanding of this stuff.
'Real' is a label for a concept, a property, an idea. Maybe a member of one of the Platonic forms (or Aristotelian ideals) or something that atoms (don't want to champion Plato over Democritus) can achieve when they aggregate in particular ways
Labels help humans categorise. We then use methods such as the scientific method (Perhaps based on the Socratic method) to test the veracity of a particular label. If the label holds then we might use it in an equation/formula/hypothesis in an attempt to gain new knowledge. 'Real' is perhaps just epistemological.
Possible, quite possible. However truth in what sense truth, epistemologically that is?
If the notion of causation has its relevance only in the context of thought about phenomena (it being a form of judgement) then how could it make sense to speak about something noumenal causing perception of phenomena?
Hawking radiation does imply that particles just outside the horizon are entangled with the particles inside and take away the frozen information inside. On the inside time hasn't stopped. This looks so from the outside only (if you fall in it takes an amount of time to reach infinity inside (which can't truly be infinity though but in the classical picture it is). The moment a black hole has formed it's almost instantly radiated away by from the quantum vacuum near the horizon, the heavy curvature of spacetime being the exciter. Negative energy solutions cause the inside mass to reduce. On the outside though, this process lasts very long. :cool:
Is a photon dead? Nice question. It hasn't an associated restframe. Very strange! In a sense it mediates instantly, like the instant interaction in Newtonian space. But an instant interaction implies that everything happens at once, in space as well in time, hence only a finite lightspeed can make things happen.
Seems you think a lot about this stuff! I don't know a lot of people who have their head exploding on stuff like this! That's what geniuses are made of. (Just kidding...) :smile:
Depends who you ask it. For a lot of people the clock is very real and they fight it, save it, buy it, or kill it even. The clock can go awfully slow when waiting. Don't think about the clock!
Truth maybe only found outside the matrix, agent Smith.
Was his character meant to portray an agent of truth? Especially when he tried to conquer by means of replication. Mimicking the Darwinian, time-driven, experience of DNA. One of the best replicators that evolution/natural selection has produced. Was it ultimately his power to replicate that made him more 'real' than the other agents. Real enough to take over the body of a real person, outside the matrix?
Truth is another label but its epistemology is probably best associated with relativism, whereas 'Real' is probably more of an idealistic goal or perhaps 'hope' would be a better label.
An absolute truth? An objective truth, well I think things get tougher when you combine labels!
'I think therefore I am' may be 'true' and may provide evidence that I am 'real' but that's probably
its limit. It provides no evidence to me at all, that you are real, from a solipsistic viewpoint.
Many physicists now think that the (badly named) big bang started after Alan Guth's Inflation posit.
Big bang and then inflation has now changed to inflation then big bang.
So the suggestion is now that the big bang did not come from the so-called 'singularity' and the 'beginning' or first event/process/period of quantisable time was inflation.
Something much smaller than Planck spacetime must have existed, during the period of inflation.
Photon dominance does not occur until around 10 seconds after the big bang.
We have no cesium at this point, so I suppose it's inaccurate to even mention the second as a time unit at this point.
I think time can only be described as a 'continuum' during inflation because all matter and energy was part of the 'fabric of space' itself. Matter and energy 'broke away' from spacetime during inflation. So after inflation, time can be quantised as plank time units.
Notionally, inflation happened probably from time =0 to < 10^?36 seconds. In that time the universe expanded by a volume factor of 10^76 or from nothing (or perhaps a singularity) to the size of a tennis ball.
Curvature occurs in spacetime, rather than in 3-D space is my (pathetic) understanding.
Quoting universeness
Is it space itself that expands, or matter within space?
(A year of physics at GaTech in 1956 didn't prepare me for the modern world of physics)
Anyway, thanks!
One of the most profound questions which can be asked is 'what is truth?'
I'm certain your undertsanding of the subject is far better than mine.
I have a question. Is there a line straighter than straight, that is to say :point: "_____" is actually a curve.
My question actually inquires into ground already covered, but indeed, the nature of truth is a profound question. :ok:
The clock, is what it measures (time) as real as it itself is?
Curvature of space/time/spacetime is described in great detail on sites such as wikipedia. It would take too many words to attempt to describe the details here. Enjoy reading about it if you have the time and interest.
Space expands, objects such as solar systems or galaxies do not expand as they are gravitationally bound. A common analogy is pen marks on the surface of a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands, the space between the separate marks will increase.
Photons traveling in vacuum are 'stretched' due to the expansion and lose some energy.
Luckily, physicists can have wrong stories. There are different views on the big bang and it depends on your view on big and bang where you place the bìg bang. It is usually placed on the moment matter came into being, after inflation. The real bang is the short moment of inflation. Some people think that inflation is eternal in an infinite universe. And our universe is just a local patch where matter condensed. Without an explanation why inflation. This view is supported by the hypothesis that the universe is flat, which is basically the same position as flat Earthers take. Observations suggest the visible universe is flat but the same holds for Earth and only by looking at the Earth from afar, it is global.Of course we can't look at the universe from afar. But you can give arguments why it is flat only locally. Nobody knows how far the universe extends after the horizon.
General relativity doesn't forbid extra dimensions (string theory even brings in 6, 7, or 26 of them) and it is possible our universe is expanding as a 3d closed structure on a 4d space. At the center of this space was a Planck sized wormhole on which our universe was wriggling tiny weeny as a Planck sized timeless structure. It was wriggling but without a direction in time. There was no cesium back than but you still can put (mentally) a clock there. The timeless state was in fact itself a perfect clock. You can't tell by looking at the state of the universe back then if time goes forward or backward and you can even imagine it has a fluctuating existence with no global direction. So you can put a clock next to it but if this clock goes forwards or backwards, no one can tell. So it becomes pretty meaningless to talk about time at all.
When the two universes of a previous bang on the structure have accelerated away to infinity, the conditions for the next are ideal for a new bang to occur and on both sides of the 4d mouth two 3d structures, a universe and an mirror universe bang into time-like existence.
Now that's a good question! And the answer is no. The clock is only a device we invented and use in relation to irreversible processes. If an irreversible process has proceeded we compare it to the clock and look how many periods it has executed. Tic, 1, tac, 2, tic, 3, ti..., 3.7687987. In nature there are no perfect periodic processes to be found. That's an imaginary only. Even the cesium clock is not perfect.
A clock measures nothing at all. It quantifies irreversible progress by comparing that progress with an imaginary. Of course the progress can be called time.
Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet. Maybe there is a multiverse. Maybe a universe exists in cycles. Maybe the universe has layers of existence. Maybe every quark is a universe. Maybe if we answered all questions then we would wink out of existence as we may have no further reason to exist. My head is starting to hurt again! I think I will go watch a comedy show for a while. Be back soon.
Possible!
The truth sets free. It's pretty clear to me what happened back then. But maybe that's all happening inside a quark, who knows. Don't we ask questions to know the truth? I think it's no problem to know what happened back then or how nature looks fundamentally. Is that the ultimate goal of science? At a certain point, there is nothing left to ask. Think I kill myself... I'm gonna watch some comedy too! :wink:
When you draw a straight line within euclidean 3D space you are actually drawing a cuboid, you just can't see its width or height, but it's there. So you can't really draw a 1D line, straight or not in 3D space. You can only simulate/approximate it.
If string theory/Mtheory has any truth to it then when you draw a euclidean straight line, you are in an 11D spacetime
Cant kill ourselves because something really cool would happen and we would F****** MISS IT!
A comedy show, a small single malt and then back to the questions!
Not a bad existence really.
What the clock measures is change. The measurement of change is time, like the measurement of space is length. Clock is to the ruler as time is to length.
There's more...can you give it another shot?
Thats the definition if time that works for me. Nothing else is needed. Why dont you tell me what I'm missing.
That definition is wanting in many respects. It doesn't, for example, say anything useful i.e. it merely states what's obvious. As for your request to tell you what you'r missing, I regret to inform you that I can't comply, for obvious reasons.
The clock is not what the ruler is to distance. An odometer would be more appropriate to compare the clock with. The numbers on the clock represent the time passed, the number of times the clock has tic-tac-ed. A An odometer does the same with distance. It's number given corresponds to the amount of distance traveled. The ruler just points to the points in spacetime. This corresponds to the hand of the clock only, or, say to the pendulum swinging below it, or a metronome. So the pairs clock-odometer and pendulum-ruler are appropriate.
Time doesn't measure change. It's a number, represented on the time axis, and by an imaginary clock we put besides an irreversible process. It is itself based on a reversible periodic motion and is as such imaginary. No reversible periodic motion exists in nature (except for the situation around the big bang). So there doesn't even exist a reliable measure for the alleged measuring. How do you measure change by a clock if the change is time? If the clock next to a process indicates that the process has proceeded two hours instead of one hour, is the change twice, what does the clock measure? It indicates a value, (an imaginary value, as the perfect clock doesn't exist), you can put in expressions that describe the evolution of the process, which by itself constitutes time. All processes are irreversible, so the artificial recreation, transformation, of time into a clock is turning time into a non-existent process. Time as represented by the clock is a chimera.
It comes in handy though for describing another more realistic time, i.e, irreversible entropic time and only at the begin state of the universe it had a real existence. It was all that existed, in fact. If we could place that initial state besides a process, we would have the ideal clock. We couldn't say though if that clock was going backwards or forwards.
Pretty far fetched, but hey, it's a philosophy site. Ah! 1 o'clock. Coffee time!
Suppose it was, that every moment was contemporaneous, that the universe evolved from big bang to big crunch in an instant, and we experience every moment of our very brief lives simultaneously.
If this were true, we would still experience the world as we do now. Every moment would have a prior moment, established by memory. Due to the constancy of the laws of the universe, we would still anticipate a succeeding moment. And due to these laws, some processes would evolve at rates relative to others, such as clocks.
All that is required is the laws of the universe, and memory. Time as a real thing seems inessential to explaining what we experience.
"Real" is meaningless until it's explained, so the rest is also pointless.
There you go. Time as the variable t is an illusion. Light doesn't travel in time, and it's finite speed in space prevents things from happening at once. There only exists irreversible processes (which can be compared with a clock and its values written on an axis, the time axis, sometimes even written as "it", t preceded by the imaginary number i (to symmetrize the metri, already an indication of its imaginary nature. And only at the singularity time is existing as a real clock, which simply doesn't exist in reality. Only in the realm of thought. Time as a coordinate is an illusion. It can be used though to indicate relative progressions of irreversible processes relative to each other in different frames, but labeling processes themselves with clock values (like is done in evolution formulas of a process) is an imaginary excercise.
Go scientific!
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
It's ok. No problemo!
The straight line of time becomes a curved one too. If space is curved, so does time. Curvature can be defined only for the space between two different points. A point has no curvature. If you imagine two different points on the timeline (an imaginary line) and put a clock on each point, then the curvature of time is the difference in timerate of the two clocks. If the two clocks show no difference, time is flat, like space is. All flat lines, quasi Euclidean because of a factor i that is placed in front of t, it. If space is straight, flat, there is no difference between subsequent intervals mdx (corresponding to the rates of the clock on different mdt on the timeline). The m is called the metric on the spacetime. If the metric is constant there is no curvature. Mass curves spacetime, induces a metric (which are the m's arranged in a symmetric 4x4 matrix, which is usually a diagonal matrix with elements on the diagonal only but sometimes contains off diagonal elements giving rise to a torsion of space, like frame dragging), and instead of moving through flat spacetime around mass and under the influence of a force, as happens according to Newton (and even with an instantaneous action...), a mass just follows the curvature, just as in flat spacetime it travels straight.
Quoting universeness
The problem, at the same the true kicker, is knowing it. Once you see it, it all seems so obvious.
Thanks. It's nit-picking, but space itself has no substance and does not "stretch" as the balloon analogy suggests. The metric changes and objects not influenced by gravity move apart. This is one way of looking at the expansion of the universe. Spacetime is more complex. There's lots of material on curvature in mathematics, but I'm not sure about applications to pure space. Beyond my paygrade.
That's unreal!!! :gasp:
"The straight line of time becomes a curved one too. If space is curved, so does time."
So if time is curved, then based on Euclidean geometry, you can create a straight line, which connects two adequately distanced points on the curvature. Do you therefore posit that time travel may be possible?
"Curvature can be defined only for the space between two different points. A point has no curvature."
Traditionally, a single point only has coordinates, it has no spatial dimensions, so it's obvious that it cannot have curvature.
" If you imagine two different points on the timeline (an imaginary line) and put a clock on each point, then the curvature of time is the difference in timerate of the two clocks. If the two clocks show no difference, time is flat, "
A 'timeline' by definition of 'line' would be linear, 1 dimension. So a line of past, future and present time. Such a line would therefore BE time. It makes no sense to put clocks on it. You can simply read the time from the line. It cannot be a timeline if it does not already contain that information.
"flat, like space is"
This is not fully established yet, as you yourself confirm with "If space is straight, flat,"
"there is no difference between subsequent intervals mdx (corresponding to the rates of the clock on different mdt on the timeline). The m is called the metric on the spacetime".If the metric is constant there is no curvature."
Should be able to obtain this metric by just reading the data from your imaginary timeline at regular intervals or perhaps we can call them 'past intervals' and/or 'future intervals' depending where 'the present' is established on your timeline......perhaps time is not linear.
"Mass curves spacetime,"
Is 'curves' the same as 'warps?'
"induces a metric (which are the m's arranged in a symmetric 4x4 matrix, which is usually a diagonal matrix with elements on the diagonal only but sometimes contains off diagonal elements giving rise to a torsion of space, like frame dragging),"
Is this still valid if string theories extra spatial dimensions exist?
" and instead of moving through flat spacetime around mass and under the influence of a force, as happens according to Newton (and even with an instantaneous action...), a mass just follows the curvature, just as in flat spacetime it travels straight."
Still so much to do. If space is curved. how does it curve? Is it a great big sphere? Is it a big Calabi-Yau manifold, within which, every co-ordinate triple(which I prefer to 'point') is a Calabi-Yau manifold?
"Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet
— universeness"
Still seems pretty accurate to me.
"The problem, at the same the true kicker, is knowing it. Once you see it, it all seems so obvious."
If it's obvious to you then please publish your paper containing your equations and proofs, so that it can be peer-reviewed, before Thanatos and Hypnos do you any mischief from their faraway hiding place.
To quote the American philosopher Harry Callahan (aka dirty Harry)
"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one"
Curved space by definition is not Euclidean. The straight line in curved space is geodetic.
Quoting universeness
The line is curved because the clocks on it tick at different rates. The metric on the axis varies. There are no perfect clocks, so the timeline is an imaginary.
Quoting universeness
You pulled something out of context here. Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite. Measurements show that global space is closed.
Quoting universeness
Reading the data means reading clocks at different positions. If they show different rates, time is curved as well as space. The time curvature is imaginary though.
Quoting universeness
Yes. The matrix will be larger then, like the 5x5 metric in Kaluza Klein theory. KK offers room for U(1) only. String theory offers room for the two other gauge symmetries (on the Calabi-Yau manifold).
Quoting universeness
Yes.
Quoting universeness
I'm working on it. Up till now, there is only resistance, because I attack the orthodoxy. Only proposing that there are only two basic fields of matter is looked at in frown, let alone assuming a spatially 7d substrate with 3 curled up dimensions on which two 3d universes appear at recurring big bangs.
I'm writing my story in a book. Sells better. "The Dark Solution". I have a whole list of titles.
Up till now, nobody offered any good criticism. Apart from the remark that I basically repeat KK theory, which is nonsense.
That's his asshole talking... :wink:
It depends on who you mean with we. I know though...
It's not obvious, or else I wouldn't have asked in the first place. What use are you hoping to get from a definition other than the way some word is used to refer to some (obvious) state-of-affairs?
"Curved space by definition is not Euclidean. The straight line in curved space is geodetic."
My command of Astrophysics and physics is way below yours. My qualifications are mainly in computer science. Since retirement, I have toe-in-the-water qualifications, based on online internet courses on cosmology and my own reading. I am not expecting too many teaching points from you as I recognise the frustrations, that can be involved in having to repeat academic points to each new individual encountered or many times to the same individual before understanding is achieved. I was a secondary school teacher for 26 years, so I am familiar with such frustration. I am of course, willing to do my own work but I always appreciate time and effort savers.
I understand a geodesic is a straight line between two points on a curved surface but my question remains, if time is curved then do you posit that time travel is possible?
"The line is curved because the clocks on it tick at different rates. The metric on the axis varies. There are no perfect clocks, so the timeline is an imaginary."
I understand that your scenario here is imaginary (a thought experiment) but another thought experiment:
if a clock was placed in free space (not orbiting anything) and not in motion, relative to a second clock which passes the first one at a speed close to light (or a significant portion of light speed) in a parallel straight line path, perpendicular to the first clock, then they would tick at different rates but there are no curves involved. If I place both clocks, next to each other, on the same straight line in space and accelerate the second one away from the first, maintaining a straight line path, the clocks would tick at different rates as clock 2 is accelerated more and more. Why would the clocks ticking at different rates indicate curved space?
"Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite."
Well If 'flat spacers' claim that detectable (I dont like the use of the term global here and I'm not mad about 'observable universe/space') space is flat, then I dont see how they make the jump to 'infinite.'
"Measurements show that global space is closed."
I understand k= 1,0 or -1 from the Friedmann equations. Below is a quote from wikipedia:
The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. On the other hand, any non-zero curvature is possible for a sufficiently large curved universe (analogously to how a small portion of a sphere can look flat). Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the four-dimensional spacetime of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice).
I assume this is the area of your work you are referring to and that you disagree with the current evidence but then the obvious question becomes which measurements are you referring to?
"Reading the data means reading clocks at different positions. If they show different rates, time is curved as well as space."
Still dont see why this follows based on what I typed earlier.
"The time curvature is imaginary though."
Why is it imaginary? Time is either linear (past, present, future) or its not, it's curved (time travel then would be possible if you can access/traverse the 'inner sphere/hyperbolic' of time), or its multidimensional and the wormhole aliens of Deep Space Nine become more plausible.
"I'm working on it. Up till now, there is only resistance, because I attack the orthodoxy. Only proposing that there are only two basic fields of matter is looked at in frown, let alone assuming a spatially 7d substrate with 3 curled up dimensions on which two 3d universes appear at recurring big bangs.
I'm writing my story in a book. Sells better. "The Dark Solution". I have a whole list of titles.
Up till now, nobody offered any good criticism. Apart from the remark that I basically repeat KK theory, which is nonsense."
Fair enough!
"That's his asshole talking..."
I wouldn't mess with big Clint, he is liable to give you a new opportunity for espousing multiple opinions at the same time by 'tearing you a new one.'
So why the stupid comment, that you believe in Thanatos and Hypnos. I like humour but I have enough hassle dealing with the irrational theists and other fantasists, without having to waste my time answering, windup comments from those who seem completely rational. Unless you really do have some disfunctional cogs in your head.
"It depends on who you mean with me. I know though..."
I mean me, myself and I.
You appear to be young and wild! The internet can deceive! It's a compliment!
Quoting universeness
Ah, yes. I misunderstood linear. A future and past indeed. I meant that the very concept of clock is imaginary. No real periodic reversible motion exists. All periods vary. Only at the big bang such a motion existed. But there were no irreversible processes to measure with this clock! Time as an irreversible process is real. The clock is imaginary.
Quoting universeness
I won't mess again with the big C! As long as he keeps his ass shut!
Quoting universeness
I don't believe in them. And if there I give them the finger!
Quoting universeness
My fault! I meant we...
"You appear to be young and wild! The internet can deceive! It's a compliment!"
Aw, Thanks Raymond, maybe young and wild at heart but no, an auld 57-year-old, Scotsman!
"Ah, yes. I misunderstood linear. A future and past indeed. I meant that the very concept of clock is imaginary. No real periodic reversible motion exists. All periods vary. Only at the big bang such a motion existed. But there were no irreversible processes to measure with this clock! Time as an irreversible process is real. The clock is imaginary."
Ok, I note what you have texted here but will you not admit that what you say here is opinion, not fact, you can back it up with some evidence but current evidence in this area, is not conclusive (in my opinion) and your impressive knowledge of physics surely compels you to clearly declare and separate opinion from that which you are willing to present as scientific fact or as close as you can get to it using rigor and empirical evidence. I appreciate this forum is not scientific and welcomes opinion, but I just mean it's important to separate your opinions from your convictions and even more importantly, from that which YOU consider TRUTH and are willing to apply maximum effort to defend, in some cases, with your life!
"I don't believe in them. And if there I give them the finger!"
Hallelujah Brother, and that's from an Athiest.
I have no problem with a person who has a religious faith that gives them great comfort and is important to their life. I will tell such people I am an atheist but I would be an ass if I tried to tear down something which was the basis of their morality and their sense of security and well-being.
If I ever do that with malicious intent, then I hope I pay a price because that would be fair justice. All I ask is that they dont preach to me. Dialogue, debate, conversation on the topic, even heated or emotionally driven is ok but as soon as any form of real, personal anger raises itself from my side or the other, I will stop! back away etc. Unless it has already went beyond such opportunities and you are under physical attack, then I have no choice but try my best to defend.
You offered no response to two points I think are important :
I gave you a 'thought experiment' scenario and then asked
Why would the clocks ticking at different rates indicate curved space?
I typed about the Friedmann equations and copied a section from a wikipedia page about the shape of the universe. I then asked you which measurements you were referring to with:
"Measurements show that global space is closed."
I think it's important to respond to these points but of course, you are not compelled to do so.
I think I was a bit slow on the uptake with your :
"depends on who you mean with me. I know though..."
and my response of 'Me Myself and I'
I now get what you were saying. I now think you were asking me, who was I talking about when I said
'Yeah, we just don't know enough yet.' You were asking me who are the 'we' I was referring to?
Sorry I was a bit 'doh!' there.
Well yes, I would certainly fit into that category but only as a representative of the majority of people.
When you type 'I know though....', I now think that you are suggesting that you know the structure, origin and shape of the universe. If that's the case, then the more important 'we' I was referring to, would have been better as a 'they' and they are the current representatives of the cosmology world. The ones we see regularly on our TV screens and on the internet, who all say 'we just don't know yet', on so many astrophysical issues, including the shape and quantum structure of the Universe. Individuals such as Laurence Krauss, Ed Witten, Brian Green, Roger Penrose, Neil De-Grasse Tyson and many others. You have offered nothing so far which suggests you know better than they do (only in my humble opinion of course.)
One final point.
I would place the two clocks, in my thought experiment scenario in intergalactic space, between galaxies, no gravitational effects, hopefully.
Okay Scotsman! Let's set the boat assail. A small flurry of depression hit me. I simply roar back. I don't believe in gods which doesn't mean they are not there. I can't answer the very last question. Where it all came from. Even if the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, which I think it is, and even if there is an all-explaining theory (well, not all obviously, but the cosmological story), which I think I have, then still, where does it all come from? You can ask the same about gods, but at least then it comes from something alive. I think though they don't want me to bow at them.
About the closed universe. Indirect measurements of gravitational waves (by means of CMBR polarization) showed that certain wavelengths (long ones) are not there. This means the universe was and is closed.
What's your aim in this experiment? I'm not sure I understand. The clocks in intergalactic space show the same rate but the rate by itself is not constant. There are no perfectly periodic clocks.
"Okay Scotsman! Let's set the boat assail."
Good, strong words, I like them. I would guess you are American, but no matter, good strong words in any nationality. We are all Earther's
"A small flurry of depression hit me. I simply roar back."
Carl Sagan's books, I think it was 'The Dragons of Eden' or 'Broca's Brain'. He discusses the brain as a triune system (the R-complex, the Limbic system and the cortex). Three brains really or three interconnected systems. He also discusses the left and right hemispheres of the cortex, the corpus callosum between them as the com channels etc. He describes a good level of detail about how it all works together. Such books gave me a better understanding of states like depression, small and long lasting. But yes, you are spot on. The choice is to fight back and chase such away or suffer. The more times you win the more resistance you build. I look to the Neuroscientists like Sam Harris to help me further with such issues. I don't need god or faith in anything supernatural to deal with the pressures of being me and being human and just BEING. I am convinced no-one else needs the god crutch either, if rationalise their life.
" I don't believe in gods which doesn't mean they are not there."
Good, I am perhaps just more convinced than you, that they, or just IT, is not there, but I also cannot prove gods do not exist, no-one can and it's unlikely that anyone ever will be able to. But no-one needs to, I am happy to let the idea fade away. It's others who keep it alive. I used to like the phrase
'Hell is other people', I probably still do but it is certainly misanthropic and too harsh.
"But I can't answer the very last question. Where it all came from. Even if the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, which I think it is, and even if there is an all-explaining theory (well, not all obviously, but the cosmological story), which I think I have, then still, where does it all come from? You can ask the same about gods, but at least then it comes from something alive. I think though they don't want me to bow at them."
Again, no-one can, so you are in the company of the population of the entire planet and all who have gone before and probably all who are yet to arrive, so why take the stress/burden personally.
These issues niggle at people all through their lives no matter how many times you try to 'close' them, as an individual. The niggles will always return and in countless variety.
I personally think that its because, deep somewhere in the triune brain is the niggle that WE MUST and everything MUST be connected IN SOME WAY!. We should celebrate that. I love it. It's fun searching, frustrating, probably involves mental instability at times but you can always stop for a while and do something simpler for a time, The Vulcans of Star Trek fame, celebrate infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Exciting, much better than god and heaven (in my opinion). Each person secretly wants to be a god themselves and be recognised by all others as such, but I think that its just an instinct (probably from the Rcomplex), developed from our time in the wild, where the rule was survival of the fittest. Most of us can suppress and reason away the god complex, quickly.
"About the closed universe. Indirect measurements of gravitational waves (by means of CMBR polarization) showed that certain wavelengths (long ones). This means the universe was and is closed"
I know about cosmic microwave background radiation from the big bang. I know gravitational waves as disturbances in spacetime due to big explosions such as hypernovae. I know gravitational waves have been detected due to 'tiny fluctuations in a particular set up involving laser beams'. I get polarization as light waves being changed so they focus? concentrate? to one direction? The words you typed seem incomplete. "showed that certain wavelengths (long ones)....... incomplete?
and then "This means the Universe was and is closed". So I don't understand what you have typed so far, apart from the understanding I explained above.
"What's your aim in this experiment? I'm not sure I understand. The clocks in intergalactic space show the same rate but the rate by itself is not constant. There are no perfectly periodic clocks"
I don't want any massive objects around to affect the path of the clock in motion or attract the clock which is stationary. For this reason, I place them beside each other in intergalactic space.
One clock is accelerated away from the other, maintaining its straight-line path. At near to the speed of light, time dilation will cause the moving clock to tick much slower than the stationary one.
In your scenario, you said that if the two clocks you described, show different rates of time (meaning one ticks faster than the other) then this shows that space is curved.
Why?
In my scenario there are no curves! and my clocks will show the same as the ones in your scenario. It is the velocity/motion of the accelerated clock that is causing the different time rates, not the curvature of the space they are traversing. What am I missing?
Another point that might interest you is, In my wish to take part in online discussion sites. I have joined one of two of them, including this one. Its been a part of 'what I do,' since retiring.
You are now the third person, who I have discussed cosmology with, who has stated, with serious conviction that they know the structure and origin of the Universe.
Each as convinced as the other that they are right and the current popular hypotheses are wrong.
I can recall some basics but i'm sure if I went back to sites such as Askamathematician/askaphysicist
I could bring up the discussions we had.
One was about Klein bottles and.......that's all I can recall
The other was more recent so I can recall a little more. He posited something he called DIMP
DIMentionless Particle or Point, I can't remember which.
DIMP was outside of spacetime, so outside of this Universe but what started our Universe came from DIMP and I remember he typed a lot about pair production and virtual particles and zero point energy.
It would be good if I could try to find their main jist's again and post them here for you to look at. I am sure there are many other such out there, if I alone have encountered 3 in the past two years.
I am not suggesting in anyway that your proposal is unlikely.
I cant because, like the other two examples, I don't have the knowledge to be able to. I also don't intend or wish to discourage.
On the contrary, I want to celebrate all true seekers. Surely it's the participation that matters not who gets the plaudits
:cool: :up:
Sorry! I hadn't seen that you meant this experiment. You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. It's relative stuff. It depends on your state of motion how it looks. If you fall freely in curved space it is flat. If you accelerate in flat space, it looks curved. Space around mass is not inherently curved though, just like space in intergalactic space is not inherently flat. It looks so, but it depends on your state of motion, your relative velocity wrt other bodies, how it appears. If you accelerate towards the speed of light, you will observe that clocks that are stationary in your frame have different ticking rates, like in a gravity field, the difference being that the field you see in that frame is uniform). Relative to the frame from where you leave all clocks in the accelerated frame tick slower and slower. In a gravity field, artificial or not, time at points where the clock stays stationary, tick at a different rate than clocks in rest in empty space. This is an actual difference because acceleration is absolute. It's an actual feature of objects. If a force acts on them then they accelerate. The clock doesn't go faster for you (if you accelerate) though. Only wrt to non-acelerating ones. Seen from two frames with constant relative velocity, the time in the other frame seems to run slower. This doesn't mean that both clocks run slower than the other. It depends on how they started out and meet again (for which acceleration is needed), how their clocks compare. If your clock that accelerates to lightspeed returns, it runs behind the clock that stays behind (twin paradox). If you will go behind it and meet (after it stopped), the clocks will show the same time.
Klein bottles in relation to the universe? I'm not sure, was he a Scotsman? That whiskey...There are hundreds of theories about the origin of the universe. Each cosmologist claims a theory. Eternal inflation, the pyrotechnic universe (to which mine actually is very close, but it claims two infinite braines, eeehh, branes, and as I said, the universe only appears flat). All of them have not a clue what dark energy is. I give an explanation.
I'm curious! Seems you are sent from heaven! If you want to. But from what you've written they seem wrong. Which I say naturally. All these theories, from the ones I've mentioned to the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack...
There are no point particles. This is an abstraction made in quantum field theory. The only true fundamental particles are two massless basic fields. All particle interactions, like proton decay, are easily explainable in this model. How can a basic particle like a quark change into another quark if it's fundamental? What is space? Maybe the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. Space is a means for charge to interact.
"Dimp is used when an idea, so dumb, that you just don't want to bother replying.
Jack: Hey do you think the world is flat
Joe: You and your dimp ideas, just shut up."
By the way, curvature only arises because the speed of light is finite, as it should be. What would happen if not? Then space and time would be absolute. Space would loose its relative nature and everything would happen at once. All matter would feel each other at the same time, no cause, no effect, no time no space, no interaction.
It would be great to get the plaudits, but that's not why I look for it. The thing that feels shitty though: okay, now what?
In four dimensions, yes.
That's my theory, yes. But in GR space is curved inherently. Like a circle can be described without reference to the 2d space it's in. Without reference to an outside 4th dimension. If you place 3d space, the whole structure, on a 4d space, the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth. If matter, contained on the 3d structures (a matter filled one and an antimatter filled one, although both contain the same amounts of the 2 basic massless matter/antimatter fields, but differently combined) accelerates again later on, as observations on supernovae have shown, the 4d structure has to be negatively curved again. This negatively 4d substrate represents dark energy. It gave rise to inflation near the mouth, then inflation stopped and turned the negative curvature to positive, and then, when accelerated far enough from the mouth, the negative returns, as is now happening.
Does he mean dimention? Or dimension?
:halo:
Imperforate Anus.
:lol:
Ha! Seems that some opinions are pretty distorted!
:lol:
Sorry my replies took a while. I switched to my current book. 'Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant and then went to sleep.
An absolutely fascinating read so far.
"Klein bottles in relation to the universe? I'm not sure, was he a Scotsman? That whiskey...There are hundreds of theories about the origin of the universe. Each cosmologist claims a theory. Eternal inflation, the pyrotechnic universe (to which mine actually is very close, but it claims two infinite braines, eeehh, branes, and as I said, the universe only appears flat). All of them have not a clue what dark energy is. I give an explanation"
To specifically respond to "was he a Scotsman?"
I would say humor is such a subjective form, isn't it! But yeah.........ha ha.
A true Scot never puts an 'e' in his whisky, only the cheaper Irish and American grain whiskey's do that.
The Klein bottle guy was in fact American and came across as a very nice person.
James Clerk Maxwell, Alexander Graham Bell, James Watt, John Logie Baird and many other highly contributive scientists were Scots. I think I've made my point. I don't want to get too much into Braveheart mode.
I remembered a little more about the Klien bottles guy. It was all about Klein Bottles and Mobius Strips and he got very insistent about two base variables which he was convinced had to be the digital values 1 and 0 from computing. Even though I told him that in Computing a 1 is received as any voltage > 0 and < 5, which is in fact, analogue data.
I find the brane theory stuff fascinating. I am not familiar with 'Eternal inflation' or 'the pyrotechnic universe' but they sound like two I should read about.
"I'm curious! Seems you are sent from heaven! If you want to. But from what you've written they seem wrong. Which I say naturally. All these theories, from the ones I've mentioned to the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack.."
In response to: "Seems you are sent from heaven!"
There's no need to insult me Raymond (Ha Ha).
In response to: "the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack..."
Careful, You are person 3!
I found the exchanges between myself and the DIMP guy. I also have his name and noted again that he also wrote Sci-Fi books. I copied all our exchanges into a word file and condensed it (only took 10 mins) into my best attempt at his main Jist. It's two A4 pages. I will post it below, once I have finished responding to recent comments. It will be a little disjointed as it's an amalgam of posts. I've removed any repetition I could find. You might, as I did, find the level of passion which comes from his 'slightly manic' style (only my opinion), interesting in a positive or negative way. I won't include his name but I'm sure he will be happy that I am disseminating his hypothesis.
"There are no point particles. This is an abstraction made in quantum field theory. The only true fundamental particles are two massless basic fields. All particle interactions, like proton decay, are easily explainable in this model. How can a basic particle like a quark change into another quark if it's fundamental? What is space? Maybe the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. Space is a means for charge to interact"
Maybe once I have posted what I have on the DIMP idea you will have more to go on.
He talks a lot about quarks.
With or without e, whisky feels good for me! I can't drink it with a straight face though. Can you taste the difference between Scotch and Irish whisky? To me they all taste the same, be it Johnny or Jack. Tastes awfully, but great! Must be the promise they hide!
Looking forward to that dimp text!
"Does he mean dimention? Or dimension?"
Probably just my typo. His own words will be posted below:
You are sent from heaven... :smile:
Now for the more important ones for me:
"You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. It's relative stuff. It depends on your state of motion how it looks. If you fall freely in curved space it is flat. If you accelerate in flat space, it looks curved."
Ok, I understand that but are such effects not localised? As an observer, I would just see a receding red blob, wouldn't I? An observer would not see or detect spatial curvature. I can understand the motion curving or warping the space being traversed but to me, that suggests that the fabric of space is flexible not curved.
"Space around mass is not inherently curved though, just like space in intergalactic space is not inherently flat. It looks so, but it depends on your state of motion, your relative velocity wrt other bodies, how it appears. If you accelerate towards the speed of light, you will observe that clocks that are stationary in your frame have different ticking rates, like in a gravity field, the difference being that the field you see in that frame is uniform). Relative to the frame from where you leave all clocks in the accelerated frame tick slower and slower. In a gravity field, artificial or not, time at points where the clock stays stationary, tick at a different rate than clocks in rest in empty space."
This sounds like you agree with the posit that 'Space is not rigid, it's flexible.' Similar perhaps to a person swimming under water, you displace your volume of water. Move through space and you displace/flex your volume of space.
I understand your reference frame points and its repeated in Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' A person travelling at light speed may switch on a torch. The light from that torch would travel at light speed in all directions. In his own reference frame he would also age at the same rate he aged in the frame of reference he was in before he accelerated to light speed.
"This is an actual difference because acceleration is absolute. It's an actual feature of objects."
I understand that you never add a velocity to the speed of light, so the speed of light is a constant.
I also understand that traveling at a constant speed in dark space and in absence of any other sensory info, you would feel no different to being completely at rest. But you would feel accelaration. I think that is what you are describing by your words in the quotes above.
"If a force acts on them then they accelerate. The clock doesn't go faster for you (if you accelerate) though. Only wrt to non-acelerating ones. Seen from two frames with constant relative velocity, the time in the other frame seems to run slower. This doesn't mean that both clocks run slower than the other. It depends on how they started out and meet again (for which acceleration is needed), how their clocks compare. If your clock that accelerates to lightspeed returns, it runs behind the clock that stays behind (twin paradox). If you will go behind it and meet (after it stopped), the clocks will show the same time."
Yep, all good. I am familiar with the twin paradox. So my only open points so far are 'localised effect' and 'spatial flex'.
"That's my theory, yes. But in GR space is curved inherently."
What does GR stand for?
"Like a circle can be described without reference to the 2d space it's in."
Do you mean Mathematically(pure numbers or pixel values) or by its attributes, such as (name,radius, coordinates of centre point, line thickness, fill colour/pattern etc). This is a system used in computing called object orientated graphics.
"Without reference to an outside 4th dimension. If you place 3d space, the whole structure, on a 4d space, the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth."
This has some commonality with the Klein bottle guy but I could be recalling incorrectly.
I just have great difficulty trying to contemplate anything outside 3D. I can visualise the idea of other dimensions of the very small using the common 'Look at a 3D pipe from above and it looks 2D, you dont see the wrapped dimension. I can also easily visualise a doughnut shape but that's about it. I dont understand " the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth." I will have to research that one.
"If matter, contained on the 3d structures (a matter filled one and an antimatter filled one, although both contain the same amounts of the 2 basic massless matter/antimatter fields, but differently combined) accelerates again later on, as observations on supernovae have shown, the 4d structure has to be negatively curved again. This negatively 4d substrate represents dark energy. It gave rise to inflation near the mouth, then inflation stopped and turned the negative curvature to positive, and then, when accelerated far enough from the mouth, the negative returns, as is now happening."
Nope. I'm lost now. Would need to research and study. How can you get massless matter/antimatter fields??? Surely all matter has mass or else it's not matter its energy??
"It is precisely this dogmatic attitude towards intrinsic curvature of space that blinds most physicists. Einstein said the curvature is intrinsic, so... The problem with an extra dimension is how to keep matter in 3d. But if this can be done in string theory (gravity leaking in a fourth dimension while matter stays on three, it's no problem. Particles themselves can be a kind of torus too. The product space of three circles, SxSxS"
Only a layman style response but I have always taken it that the spherical shape presented in physics books, were never meant to be true representations of particles/atoms etc. I understand them as irregular shaped cloud-style concentrations of waveforms. A torus? Product of 3 circles S^3? visualises in my head as 'too pretty' doesn't fit with the chaotic quantum imagery.
"You are sent from heaven.."
Then when I return I'm going to try and destroy it because its description sounds like hell to me.
Nasty, nasty place with a maniacal dictator in charge of pointless automatons forced to 'worship' it for ever.
"Dimp stands for DIMensionless Point.
This is a new idea with a funny name that challenges all physics.
We know that photons are outside of time and distance.
My suggestion is that Dimp contains all photons.
That means Dimp contains all electromagnetic energy in a single dimensionless point.
Dimp is eternal and outside time, space, distance.
Dimp was here before the Big Bang and will be here after the Big Bang, and long after this space-time universe has ended.
Here is an analogy. The energy was in Dimp. The Big bang was an explosion that broke away from Dimp and began space – time; but space – time is not part of Dimp.
This can be seen as the fire analogy:
a fire = Dimp, and an ember = space – time, that broke away from the fire and is no longer part of that fire.
Dimp is outside space and distance. That means that there is no distance between any two photons, they share the same, no distance, point. This is hard to fathom. The idea that all energy is gathered in a single point outside of space-time and is eternal may be one of the hardest things in physics to comprehend or even imagine. Yet all that we know about photons and the speed of light say it IS so.
Next comes the idea that this energy was there before the big bang, is much much more energy than all the universe after the big bang, and that the Big Bang was a small subset of Dimp, just as an ember is a small subset of a massive fire. That means that DIMP is not part of Spacetime, Gravity, Mass. That means the forces of gravity and the electromagnetic force are not connected. They are separate and any attempt to unify them will fail. The goal of physics to unify forces into one, during the early Big Bang is wrong for the reasons listed above.
Background: Why are positive and negative exactly the same?
They have to be because the waves of each are exactly the reverse in destructive interference.
That is what I suggest charge is – exact destructive interference of waves.
Fact: The total charge of the universe is zero. Number of surviving electrons matches the number of surviving protons.
QUARKS MAY BE 3 CRESTS AND TROUGHS OF WAVES.
Quarks are crests and troughs of waves that make a proton or neutron.
Proton as two crests and one trough wave =3 quarks = +2/3 -1/3 +2/3
Neutron as two troughs and one crest wave = 3 quarks = -1/3 +2/3 -1/3
This suggest that if quarks are parts of a single wave, we may not need the idea of quarks
This suggests that, like electrons; protons and neutrons are in orbitals.
This suggests that the neutron orbital is SLIGHTLY smaller than the proton.
THE OLD IDEA THAT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS ARE STATIONARY PARTICLES MAY BE WRONG.
My Diagram suggests that protons and neutrons are NOT stationary particles, but active wave/particles in orbitals that are MUCH smaller than the electron orbitals around the nucleus.
Then too, these waves/particles that make up the proton and neutron, must have incredible superposition, and destructive interference – not to mention momentum. – that would be a massive STRONG force between them. Could that be a clue to the strong force?
Fact: Atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons do behave like particles. … Atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons also behave like waves! In other words, matter is just like light in that it has both wave-like and particle-like properties.
Fact: Superposition does not mean that an electron may have one momentum or another – it means that the electron literally has all the momenta at once.
PIONS AND KAONS MAY BE WAVES TOO.
We now think pions and kaons are two quarks.
What if they are extremely small waves such that the wave has one crest and one trough – each representing one quark.
ELECTRON AND PROTON MAY BE THE SAME SIZE
Both the quark and the electron are virtually the same size at (10)-16 cm.
But I suggest that the 3 quarks (up and down quarks) are really just the crests and troughs of extremely small orbitals.
THEN, that suggests the electron and proton may be virtually the same size.
But how can that be?
Fact: The 3 quarks of a Proton = 1% of the mass of the proton.
The binding energy of a proton = 99% of the mass of the proton.
Summary: So instead of a zoo of strange particles, we are looking at different waves that combine or ‘decay’
Here are ideas on waves and existence.
On the quantum level an electron wave represents existence . When the wave is at the anti nodes or crests, it is most likely to be in existence. When the wave is at the nodes, it is not likely to exist at all!!!!
So if Dr. Hoang is correct, then on the quantum level, the electron wave/particle comes in and out of existence during parts of the wave!
What if I took this idea further.
Would that mean that a proton wave acts the same way as the electron wave?
Would that mean that the existence of not only fundamental wave/particles come into and out of existence, but all quantum particles do as well?
Would that mean that when any two waves experience constructive interference such that each wave is then enhanced in it’s crests, then does that mean their existence is stronger.
Would that mean that when any two waves experience destructive interference where the waves reduce the crests to a more ===== form, then does that mean their existence is much weaker or that they are non existent?
Further is this a clue to how mass comes into existence?
https://youtu.be/e-xsKfZ7BOA
So why does a free neutron take 11 minutes to decay, and protons are virtually immortal? They are both made of 3 quarks.
QUARKS DO NOT MAKE SENSE – or the 3rd quark is REALLY weird.
Proton = 2 up , 1 down quarks. Neutron = 2 down, 1 up quarks.
So the difference between the two is the 3rd quark.
Both have one up and one down.
That leaves the difference between the proton and neutron as the 3rd quark.
So difference between a proton and neutron is due to whether the 3rd quark is up as in a proton, or down as in a neutron.
So, if that’s true then:
The third quark determines two things:
If it has an up quark – proton, then the particle is immortal.
If it has a down quark – neutron, then the particle decays in 10 minutes.
If it has an up quark – a proton, then the particle has less mass then the neutron.
If it has a down quark – a neutron, then the particle has .1% more mass than the proton.
So the down quark weighs .1% more than the up quark.
Quarks have no measurable physical extension, and seem to exist at points. Yet that single point does all this and more.
The proton has an up quark, and that magic third quark also determines half of the electromagnetic force in the universe and it in no way is like the electron, the other half, except in being an opposite charge.
When three quarks team up only a small part of the proton’s mass comes from the masses of the quarks. Most is binding energy. So that third quark has virtually no mass but can do all these magic things.
Quarks interact strongly and link in twos or threes to make particles such as pions, protons, and neutrons. Yet the other half of the charge world, electrons, does none of these things.
Physics is a science of pairs. For every particle there is an anti-particle. Virtual particles come in pairs. Spin, waves destructive and constructive interference, etc. In these cases the pairs are virtually identical and or mirror images of each other. So why would electromagnetic charge have electrons and protons so different from each other, and in no way seem built on exact opposites, or mirror image opposites. "
"With or without e, whisky feels good for me! I can't drink it with a straight face though. Can you taste the difference between Scotch and Irish whisky? To me they all taste the same, be it Johnny or Jack. Tastes awfully, but great! Must be the promise they hide"
If you want to talk whisky then this is probably the wrong site. So with humility towards the indulgence and patience of any other readers, I will keep this short.
Johnny Walker has some respectable creations and there are some 'ok' Irish whiskeys but there are few (in my opinion) same with Japanese and Canadian whiskys but sample the range of 10 year up to 30 year single malts from Ardbegs to Caol ILa's to Lagavullins to all the whiskys that start with the word Glen. Go through The Islays, the highlands and lowlands, the Strathspeys Then we can talk.
You are unlikely to get a really good single Malt for under £80. Maybe if your lucky, you might pick up a bargain. I was given a £400, 27-year-old, Bowmore by family when I retired. Delicious, I have a dram from it, every birthday and Hogmanay. I love the peaty's, the peatier the better. The likes (or Yikes!) of Jack Daniels is just burnie fire water that deserves to be drowned in flavoured, fizzy anything.
You would see a torch moving away from you getting redder and redder in a flat space. The guy holding the torch would see a curved spacetime, with a varying metric.
Quoting universeness
Well, actually how space is curved is a difficult qùestion. GR, general relativity, doesn't answer that. It states it. Where there is acceleration, there is curvature (it is normally stated that where's mass/energy, there is curvature). But how this curves space(time)? Quantum gravity describes it as an exchange of gravitons, but this exchange takes place in flat space and there lies the problem that both string theory and Loop quantum gravity don't solve. Me on the other hand...
Quoting universeness
Indeed. In dark space you can feel it. It could be you accelerate in empty space or istand still n curved space.
Quoting universeness
The Klein bottle is a kind of M?bius strip and bears indeed resemblance with a torus. I don't think there is an a Tòrus form exactly, but only the inside, stretching out to infinity. The 4d torus is unimaginable. But you can imagine a 2d one. Then the two universes emerging are circles starting at the center, one up and one down.
Quoting universeness
The neutrino was thought massless once too. The Weyl equation is suited (in quantum field theory). If the two basic fields are massless then mass comes into existence if they interact strongly, by a new charge called hypercolor.
Gonna read the dimp! I'm typing on a phone, with one thumb and a fucking small screen. My laptop is still dead.
Nice talking with you!
Forgot one!
Quoting universeness
Attributes, the metric components, in the metric tensor. Theses are defined intrinsically but can be immersed in a higher dimension.
"Gonna read the dimp! I'm typing on a phone, with one thumb and a fucking small screen. My laptop is still dead.
Nice talking with you!"
Yeah, cheers Raymond. Thanks for your comments. I hope there are others around this Forum who have the physics depth, to be able to bounce ideas around more fruitfully than you are able to achieve with me and my current physics level.
I'm afraid that any new learning in the area of cosmology is only going to be unidirectional at present from you to me. I will attempt to leave you alone for a while but I'm sure we will converse again.
araverybestfurnoo!!! ('all the very best for now!!!', in case you don't do scots dialect)
Araverybestbestfuryuutoo! Furnoo!
I can't make anything of this.
Quoting universeness
The first thing I thought: hey! Quarks as composed of 3 subs. Like I think. What he means though is that each quark is either an up crest or a down crest. I don't agree here. The wavefunction can have crests or troughs. These waves combine in a proton. He takes the quarks out. Quarks are accompanied by wavefunctions, and these are spatial cross sections of the quantum fields. I think the quarks and leptons are composite. When these massless composites interact by means of a new hyperstrong colorlike charge, they acquire an effective mass, meaning that while all particles are massless they can still act as if.
I have read it all. From a physicist's point of view, it's an opinion only. A nice one but an opinion. The dimp outside the universe? Nonsense. The photon field lies inside, though he is right it doesn't exist in space nor time. You are the first who actually asks sensible questions, together with jgill.
Keepopthesail Scotsman!
"Keepopthesail Scotsman!"
Ha ha nice try Raymond, you are close but it would be 'keepuprasailman' or 'keepupyersailman'
in proper 'Glaswegian'
Thanks for taking the time to read the DIMP hypothesis. I upset him I think, when I said I thought his idea was a bit pedestrian, based on my own limited analysis. I did tell him about my limited Physics.
But I do genuinely try to respect all knowledge seekers. I don't always succeed but I get my fair share of insults or camouflaged putdowns fired right back at me.
Thanks also for your 'good questions' comments.
All power to your impressive Physics knowledge.
I count such scientific depth of subject knowledge, amongst the best hopes for the progression of our species in a hopefully positive and honorable direction.
Are you in "Glasga"? Scotland appeals to the imagination! I saw "Trainspotting". But that was Edinborough. That Spud character made me laugh. O man, I wish my laptop was back alive and kicking. It's kind of frustrating. My thumb dictates me!
Born in Glesga(well done) and lived most of my life there but moved away 15 years ago.
Didn't like Trainspotting, too depressing. Drugs have destroyed a lot of lives all over the world, I just can't let go of the seriousness of the topic, enough to laugh at portrayals of messed-up junkies.
Edinburgh people call us 'weegies' and we call them 'burgers.'
Buy a new Laptop ya cheapskate! Physicists are all minted are they not?
I want my old back in life. Every day I tell myself to contact the firm, Medion, and then I don't. I studied physics but just don't wanna use it to make money with. The book can change that. Damned, I'm gonna contact them now. All my information is on that computer, and I can't log in on a lot of my original accounts with my phone. I forgot the password of my original email account, and had to look at my computer to log in again. Which couldn't be done. I've written quite some stuff already. Thanks man! You are the drop! :razz:
Is this meant to imply that flat spacers are like flat earthers? Is space curved if there is no mass? If not, then how do you know that the curvature is not just a property of the mass and its influence on surrounding objects, like the earth and its gravity.
Quoting universeness
If we remove time from its "fourth dimension" relationship with space, and allow that time can pass without any physical change, time becomes prior to physical existence. Then time becomes the zeroth dimension, and we have the basis for the reality of dimensionless points. There is allowed for, activity within the dimensionless point, as time does not require physical activity, and time is conceived as prior to space. When time is prior to space, we need principles to allow for the coming into being of space, as space is then something which is generated in time. This means that we must allow that space itself is not static, but changing, as the concept of spatial expansion indicates.
Flat spacers like flat Earthers, yes! There is evidence for global space being closed. Space beyond the horizon doesn’t necessarily continue to infinity. Like in flat Earth (where it actually stops, but you get it). If space was infinite then the wavelength spectrum would be unbounded (or the frequency spectrum start above zero). Measurements on the CMBR suggest a bound. So the conclusion should be a closed universe. Which doesn't mean it's heading for a big crunch though. All galaxies show a time-dependent acceleration wrt to each other). Galaxies seemed to accelerate slower, or not at all, than earlier. That's why Webb telescope data are "important". To observe the universe expansion way further back. I bet it was even decelerating then.
The consequence to making this stupid concept is it change the way we viewed situations that we experience or hear about and so now we have the wrong understanding in the wrong idea on what history is and what the future is we think of the past as something that we could eventually one day travel to in some stupid machine and or the future as if these are both places that are physically somewhere just not here right now and that we could somehow go there when that's ridiculous and not the case there's only now
"I want my old back in life. Every day I tell myself to contact the firm, Medion, and then I don't. I studied physics but just don't wanna use it to make money with. The book can change that. Damned, I'm gonna contact them now. All my information is on that computer, and I can't log in on a lot of my original accounts with my phone. I forgot the password of my original email account, and had to look at my computer to log in again. Which couldn't be done. I've written quite some stuff already. Thanks man! You are the drop!"
Such a familiar story to me. I was regularly red in the face for 26 years telling my pupils/students to
backup their work, passwords, software etc, etc on a secure, regular manner using more than one device and store the copies away from the originals.
But most of them only complied periodically and I had to deal with "Oh no sir, my computer broke and ive lost all my stuff," more times that I can recall.
I have a good regimen for backing up. Good luck with your old faithful Laptop.
Use cloud computing or at least an external SSD to regularly back up.
Luckily I have a lot of memory cards! And there are a lot of photographs and words already print out! I virtually love every aspect of art, and especially photographing, painting, poetry, physics, and shaping wood. That's a true kicker! When I walk with our dog in the "woods", I often find wonderfully shaped trunks and branches. I take them home and give them "a treat". I have my book in shape but it needs a lot of adjustment. I tell the science in a story. It gives insight in the scientific part of the cosmology0, the process of the theory taking shape, my own criticism, how it's frowned upon by most people (you at least try to understand it, instead of burning it from the start because it doesn't comply to the orthodoxy; I'm unimpressed by the orthodoxy though! Maybe I burnt Dimp from the start too, but I have good arguments; I haven't seen them yet) Maybe I can send you a finished chapter once in a while, to check out... I don't think you agree with some parts, but just to know how it reads for other people before actually sending it to the publisher. But then I have to translate in English. Tomorrow I send my laptop for lap-up! Thanks Scotsman!
Good logical analysis. However, we know already --or can easily find out-- that time is not real. (The word "real", of course, considered as something physically existing or occurring.)
Everything that physically exists can be observed or sensed or located or identified in any way. Time is not offered for any of these. Because it is not physical. It's a dimension. It is used to measure motion and change.
This is a simplified approach, of course, and there are other like this. For example, when we talk about time, we also have to talk about past, present and future. Neither of them however actually exists: past has gone; it does not longer exist, present becomes past at the moment we try to identify it and future has not happened yet. The reason why is so, is that time refers to a continuum, which has no start, middle or end points. As the old mate Heraclitus said "Everything flows".
Panta rea. Still when compared in different frames time is very real. We can say that some processes are ahead in time compared to others. If an irreversible process constitutes time, then the reversible periodic motion of a clock might not have intrinsic meaning (the perfect clock is imaginary), but the difference has. Or the difference between the clock right now and one hour ago. It's one hour. Still, the clocks are always deceiving.
Once one moves into 4-D, the "curvature" of space becomes an algebraic concept, not a geometric concept. And implications back to 3-D probably remain algebraic. Einstein called gravity a force. All those images of Earth sinking into a net and balloons expanding are misleading. IMHO. :cool:
Why are these pictures misleading? The only thing that's misleading are gravity used for the pulling in and applying 2d for 3d. A 3d space curved in 4d is not to see (well, maybe a 2d slice). But if the rubber sheet represented 2d space around a 2d mass, the picture would be correct. Of course without gravity pulling and time curvature iscthe most important for low velocities. :cool:
Can you elaborate on that? For example, why can't a circle exists in 2d?
That's exactly what he not did. Gravity is no force.
There you go. Incontrovertible.
Hence we can conclude that whatever else might be said about the "argument" in @Agent Smith's OP, it reaches the wrong conclusion.
Then how long did it take before you came up with this fantastic idea? If you can't tell me the answer you are wrong. Then time is not real.
Indeed, I fully agree. No one has even started to explain what time is before proving it wrong or wright. You seem to be the only one who made an attempt.
Implied by
You are completely right. It is wrong to think that ‘geometrization’ is something essential. It is only a kind of crutch (Eselsbrücke) for the finding of numerical laws. Whether one links ‘geometrical’ intuitions with a theory is a … private matter
Einstein, from a translation of a letter to Reichenbach in 1926.
Drop a brick on your foot. No force, huh? :lol:
I don't think it's about metric component values only, if this is what he means by numerical laws. The numbers are not primary but secondary. Associating numbers with it is...an opinion, and E and R are allowed to have opinions...
The ezelsbrug is the reality, the numbers the description of the manifold. In brane theory, a 3d brane, on which matter is constrained, is emerged in a 4d space. When the branes collide, with an incredible precision, a big bang occurs. The branes reside again and matter accelerates away to infinity. Then a new collision and again, bang! Ad inf. A bit like my model. The branes being two 3d closed universes on a 4d substrate space.
It's intriguing to think these things "exist", an effort to comprehend the physical universe - or simply a devise to create working models.
Yes, it's strange. Very strange. I still wonder from where it all came, why I am me, etc. Even when you think you know the fundamentals, what are they really? We can make models, and space seems the "stuff" between matter. But is that space? Or just a perception necessary for life? The world is a magic place!
My conclusion wrong?
I asked for criticisms on one single issue that I'm in the dark about:
1. Does a "normal" proof P for a proposition q imply the existence of a reductio ad absurdum proof C for q? In other words, does a proposition q being true imply that assuming ~q leads to a contradiction?
Help me out will ya?
Isn't denying an assumption already contradicting it? Is denial to contradict?
Sounds like you have a good life and you are enjoying life. All power to that.
I like to think I am having a similar experience. I wish it were so for all people.
I had an early interest in drawing/painting.
Since taking early retirement I have taken up oil painting and I am really enjoying it.
I am also writing a book and intend to self-publish when it's finished.
It's the illustrations that take so long to create.
It's just a novel but you might like the fact that it's about life after death (for some) but has nothing to do with heaven's or hell's of any kind.
P) Process. (meaning observable change and concurrency).
H) History. (meaning memories, records and archives )
C) Causality (meaning modal logic)
Are these three concepts irreducible, or does one or more reduce to the others?
Consider
C = P + H. This is essentially the Humean notion of causality.
P = C + H. This is equivalent to assuming that laws of physics exist.
H = P + C. This is presentism in which the past is said to not exist.
"Its clearly a concept and not an actual thing or at least in my eyes this is the case. The way I see it people have experienced and viewed change and decided to categorize it as time or at least partly as time but it's an untangible non-real thing I mean hell we can't even naturally keep it we have to make clocks to keep it for us because it's unnatural to know what time it is now you can know that the sun setting or the sun's coming up but that's different than knowing the exact time to the second"
Well love, thought, consciousness, etc they are all concepts and not really 'things' or demonstrate the attribute of physical substance but they are all very important to the human experience.
Time has no physical substance, except in the representational physicality of the moving clock hands but I disagree that 'it's not an actual.....thing.'
The fact that a concept causes difficult comprehension in the human mind in no way diminishes the validity or importance of the concept.
To me and with a little tongue in cheek, you are trivialising or disrespecting the 'wonder' of time.
Strength or a lack of it, physically, morally, economically, etc These are also 'concepts', but perhaps they can be more easily and substantively understood and demonstrated in our everyday experiences compared to time. But the concept of time is no less important than the concepts of love, thought, consciousness or strength
Time is the arena within which events occur. It's not exclusively change-driven.
The coordinates of a point in 3D space for example (x,y,z) does not change but that coordinate still has a substantive reference. In the sense of the actual physical point of the fabric of space, it refers to.
You can state that this 'point in space' can be described as having 'no spatial dimensions' and that's fine but does that mean there is 'NOTHING' at that point. Well, it depends on your definition of nothing.
The best Laurence Krauss can say and most other cosmologists say the same or similar. They use a counterfactual such as 'well it's an absence of something.'
I think words like 'it's an untangible non-real thing' are just defeatist.
Try to enjoy the 'wonder'.
Individual humans can be very impatient and think 'arrrrrrghhhhh my f###### head, this makes no sense!!!!.' I sympathise and feel the exact same way sometimes but then I remind myself, it is very arrogant to assume that as humans, we DESERVE, we have EARNED full disclosure.
WHERE DO WE COME FROM? WHY ARE WE? WHAT IS OUR FATE IN THE ETERNAL SENSE?
It's fun to anthropomorphise the Universe into a small recalcitrant child (always female in my head, might be just a male thing) laughing whilst saying 'am no tellin ye, am no tellin ye' (oh, I forgot to say, she is always Scottish as well).
Btw, the Sun does not rise or set, it is the Earth that turns.
"The consequence to making this stupid concept is it change the way we viewed situations that we experience or hear about and so now we have the wrong understanding in the wrong idea on what history is and what the future is we think of the past as something that we could eventually one day travel to in some stupid machine and or the future as if these are both places that are physically somewhere just not here right now and that we could somehow go there when that's ridiculous and not the case there's only now"
I think referring to time as a 'stupid concept' is just mawkish. You might be right, time travel maybe just a 'flight of fantasy' but it is not ridiculous to conceptualise it and use the scientific method to find out if it's possible and doing both of these things does not stop me enjoying the 'now.' On the contrary it's part of my enjoyment of 'now.' If you think I have the wrong idea of what history is and what the future is then please enlighten me. I joined this forum for that exact purpose, to enhance my level of enlightenment.
Right. Time may exist and be real in a lot of different ways. But not as physical.
Time is a material process. An irreversible physical process, entropic time. It can be compared with a reversible periodical process, the clock time. The clock time is imaginary though. A periodical process, as implied in physical formula and relativity, doesn't actually exist. At the big bang the situation was kind of reversed. Only a perfect clock existed, but there was no entropic time yet.
Remember theirs about 8b people on this planet at the moment and all of them disagree with you on something .
I'm bad in Physics but I think I see what you mean. However, time is not a process. Change is. A process is a series of actions, steps, movements, changes, etc., which may or may not have a start and end. Some cycles of actions or events, e.g. the periodic revolution of Earth around the Sun, have no start or end, except if we arbitrarily set them ourselves. Otherwise, they are continious processes. We called such a revolution a "day" and divided it into "hours", "minutes", etc. "Days", "hours", "minutes", etc., which are time representations, do not actually exist: they are names of measurement units created by us.
The same thing goes with past, present and future. Neither of them exist. They are arbitrary time attributes created by us for description purposes..
Finally, you can also look at the subject on a purely logical basis:
If time really existed, it would be infinite. That is, indefinite and undefinable. That is, it can't exist, at least not for us. So, the statement "time exists" leads to its negation! :smile:
As a physicist, I have to jump in here. One can just as well say that the universe, the Sun, the stars, the Moon, the galaxy, etc. rotate around the Earth. I thought it laughable too, but after thinking it through, this is what relativity tells. Acceleration is absolute, but the relation with surrounding is relative. A person accelerated in empty space, can say he finds himself at rest in a g-field, or is accelerated in empty space. Same for rotation. You can consider the Earth at rest in a suitable g-field, in which the Sun, the Moon, and all stars rotate around you. You might think they would rotate faster than light, but this doesn't hold, on closer inspection.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Time is infinite. An irreversible process is time. It has a past, present, and future. It's the clock time that is unreal. Entropic time is real. Only at the big bang the clock time is real. The state is the perfect clock. Only kicked into entropic time when all matter has irreversibly accelerated away from each other to infinity.
OK
I have already responded to your topic (See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/643002)
I the meantime, always within this thread, I conceived of another interesting proof about the non-existence of time, based on pure and simple logic:
If time exists (literally, physically), it is infinite, since it has no start and end. That is, it is indefinite and indefinable (it cannot be described exactly). Thus, it does not actually exist, at least for us. So, the statement "Time exists" leads to its negation! :smile:
Of course, the same reasoning applies to whatever we consider as infinite, e.g. God.
It also tells us, as a corollary, that if something exists it cannot be infinite. E.g. the observable Universe, the infinity of which is still an open question in cosmology! (I wonder what they need to "close" it and when this would be done ... I think this is long overdue!)
"I'm sorry I triggered you."
You are welcome to do so, as often as you like.
"Remember theirs about 8b people on this planet at the moment and all of them disagree with you on something."
And your point is?
If there were 50 billion people in the population and on more than one planet it would make no difference. The numbers don't matter. Disagreement is healthy, it can even cause change. It's going to war over disagreement or taking unjustified punitive action against an individual or group due to disagreement that can, in the vast majority of examples, be very destructive to all or at least the vast majority of participants.
"The same thing goes with past, present and future. Neither of them exist. They are arbitrary time attributes created by us for description purposes."
I remember a discussion I had many years ago with a person who at the time was around 30 years older than me. This person was a professional photographer. The conversation turned a little 'cosmological'
I have always remembered the main gist of what they said since and still find it intriguing. It went something like this:
A movie is a series of still photographs. Perhaps our reality can be conceived in the same way. Time is movement from one still image to another, which will continue until the end of the Universe. Each still image is 'recorded' on the physical medium called the 'fabric of space'. The past, therefore, is recorded, in a 'real' physical medium. We just don't know yet, how to access earlier frames in the movie in the sense of physically sending someone back to those moments.
We can only capture a tiny portion/view of the current 'frames of reality' using our own invented camera systems. But, when you look at a photograph you are actually doing time travel in a very real sense.
You can report information to the people who live in this current time, using the 'snapshot of existence' shown in the photograph. Photographs and moving images are more convincing as evidence of actual events, which happened in the past compared to books, manuscripts, scrolls, and info chiseled on stone/clay tablets or monuments because they don't depend as much on the honesty of the authors.
I am not saying that looking at a photograph or old documentary is the equivalent of actually visiting the past as a 'live' event but how far away from that concept is the concept I posit here?
I also do not include recordings of 'film drama' in what I am saying as these are fictitious events, which employ actors.
As a photographer, I produce evidence every day that time travel into the past is real. Pick up a photo album and enjoy the journey.
My use of 'I' in the paragraph above is, of course, just my attempt at representing the old photographer.
I just find this a very interesting viewpoint. It is scientific evidence of the reality of the concept of 'past',
well what do you think? I for one, like it.
So by your reasoning, could you say that what is called 'the centre of the milkyway galaxy' rotates around the Earth?
Again by your reasoning, could you say that the other galaxies rotate around the Earth?
If not then I don't see that your attempt to assign more 'importance' to the position of planet Earth within the Cosmos than it actually merits, in reality, serves any purpose
I think this makes no sense, or that it is nonsense. Time could have a starting point that is different from the time that is measured by the clock. The clock is non-existent in reality. There simply a perfect clock, the one used by Einstein to put on the time line, pointing to values indicating it's position on the time axis. Every value on the axis is a pointing of the clock's hand to a value. Time "derivatives" can be viewed as the variation of the tictac rate between the clocks in two close nearby points in space. If there is a difference between these rates, meaning the "time gradient" is non zero, an object set free falls down, which is easily understandable if you envision the object in outer space and we accelerate towards it. For you, co-accelerating, the clocks in your frame tictac with varying speed.
Now what does this all mean? It means, though itc requires some imagination, that the clock existed at the singularity, in a literal sense. This clock was the cause for entropic time, present in the universe, from which the truly fundamental clock had departed. The original perfect clock was the cause without needing a cause itself. The actual working of this first a-causal first cause, the actual universe caused depends on the preceding universe. That universe spatially retroactively creates the condition for the potential at the singularity get actual and the virtual to get real.
It's Einstein's reasoning: Acceleration is absolute. If you accelerate in empty space you can equally valid (is there one word for this?) say that all stars fall freely in a globally uniform gravity field (what causes this field is a different question). That's what relativity is about. Likewise, if you are accelerated on a sphere, you can just as well say that you are at rest and the stars "fall freely" in a weirdly curved spacetime. I once had a lengthy discussion about this on a physics site. The acceleration is absolute, but the rotation isn't. The spacetime you see around you on the sphere to which you are fixed is curved just as the linear accelerated guy sees a globally curved spacetime.
So, Galileo and the church were both right. Einstein brought peace!
I know of no documented text, traced to Einstein, where he states or even implies that it is valid to posit that an Earth-centric view has any validity.
"The acceleration is absolute, but the rotation isn't."
Is that not because there is no acceleration involved in Earth's rotation.
Is there any component of Earths motion in space that conforms to acceleration
In my view 'churches' are very rarely correct about anything.
It is stated somewhere in your book by Brian Green, about the water bucket (if I remember well). If you find yourself on a rotating sphere and look at the universe it seems as you are rotating. Rotation is a sequence of linear motions, each one a bit different than the others. Linear motion is relative. Acceleration is absolute but if you accelerate through the empty universe you can just as well say you are at rest in a gravity field, Same for rotational acceleration (the acceleration you feel on the sphere, outward).
Well, on a rotating Earth, you feel an extra force, the centrifugal, a tidal non-local force. But, strange as it may sound, you can say just as well that the Earth is at rest and the acceleration is caused by an outside field. If you rotate in empty space your arms tend to move away and this can be caused by a strange form of a gravitation. So you are at rest and then suddenly your arms spread away from you. Of course it depends too on how you get accelerated.
I get what you mean but has it been shown that any gravity is present in intergalactic space in places where there is no mass?
I understand the usefulness of the 'You could also say...' thought process but it becomes a matter of how useful such musings are in offering new valid, important insight.
I don't remember the section of 'The Elegant Universe' you are referring to but that book is on my 'need to read again' list.
Yes, I have heard about that expression-term, also a very long time ago. It seems that it has faded away! :grin:
Quoting universeness
Yes, figuratively. And in your mind. In your mind you can do a lot of things, you know! :smile:
Your photographer example is quite interesting. But we don't have to refer necessarily to photographs, picture frames or movies as a recording of the past. Our whole life is recorded into our memory in frames, at a much shorter rate, since we are perceiving images with a duration up to about 400 fps. (New video standards support up to about 300 fps.) So, our whole past is there.
Quoting universeness
Yes, I like it. I already mentioned it's quite interesting.
BTW, as someone who knows about photography, you most probably have heard about people saying "photography is more real than reality". I think this is based on the fact that photography can capture an instant of infinitesimally small duration, something our human perception is unable to. And I always laugh when I see pictures of persons caught "sleeping" while they are talking, eating, etc. :grin: So, we may be tempted to question the above statement, since persons normally never sleep while eating! :grin: But this is only according to what we can observe. The "sleeping" person is real, though. Reality defeats though!
However, as interesting as all this may be, it doesn't really tell us anything about time. We cannot use a recording of any kind as a proof for the existence of time or even as a result of time. Neither can we attribute to time the decay of matter, e.g. of our bodies, as we grow old. it is the result of aging, a process of life. It is a finite process, with a start (birth) and an end (death), the cycle of life as we call it, wrongly of course, because it's a line and not a circle! :smile:
I can accept "making no sense", althought it is not so appropriate in here. But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense", which is an offence and totally inappropriate in this place, as well as other serious discussions in public. Anyway, I have ignored even this too, to see if and what you really have to say about my reasoning about time and infinity.
Quoting Raymond
I have not mentioned anything about "clocks"!
As I can see, you have just rejected my whole reasoning sequence as a "nonsense" (very bad) and you have not produced any argument on any of my easing steps. Instead you started talking about clocks. This is not how it is done. So,
[b]1) You must learn to be more polite.
2) You must learn your basics, esp. about arguments and counter arguments.[/b]
What is noonsense? Sounds like one wants to nap at noon! "I have superb noonsense!"
Where am I not polite? I just said it's nonsense and corrected that in saying that I think it's nonsense. Why is that impolite? In my view it is nonsense like mine is in yours. I just don't see why past and future don't exist. I said the clock indicating it is an imaginary one and that in the context of irreversible processes they are real. No more no less. Why shouldn't they be real?
Okay sorry if I sounded impolite! It's young wildness, I guess. :smile:
I consider my view applicable to everyone. I realize though that there are more views. Don't we all wanna know the truth?
Indeed, no one has dealt wit the logic of your OP. I don't think logic is high on the agenda this year. Or it might be that the structure of your argument is not obvious.
If a statement is true, then it's negation can be used to prove a contradiction. That is, if P, then we can deduce ~P ? (Q & ~Q).
A reductio has the form ~P ? (Q & ~Q) ? P; that is, if a proposition's negation implies a contradiction, then the proposition is true.
So yes, for a true proposition on can trivial construct a reductio argument.
But your argument in the OP seems to rely on assuming both that time is real and that it is not real; from that, you can deduce whatever you like.
With all the variety in the posts, I lost track of what it was that I wanted.
Yep, it's logic and its temporal aspects that interest me. A few points I wanna lay down for your consideration:
1. "All is change" - Heraclitus
2. A = A (The law of identity)
Ergo,
3. Logic is atemporal
But then,
4. Contradiction ([...]in the same sense and at the same time)
Ergo,
5. Logic is temporal
3 & 4 is a contradiction (if time matters) and not (if time doesn't matter)
Gracias for showing me that Quoting Banno
(Q & ~Q) is atemporal.
Time can be introduced by just specify the time and place that a predicate occurs: Banno is writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021.
A contradiction might be (Banno is writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021) and (Banno is not writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021)
Note that the temporal component is part of the predication, not part of the logic as such.
So logic is atemporal, but predication may involve time as needed.
Q & ~Q is, not atemporal, rather it's temporal. There has to be time i.e. time has to be real (contradiction: true and false in the same sense at the same time).
If time were an illusion i.e. it's unreal, Q & ~Q can't be a contradiction as the notion of simultaneity, crucial to the definition of contradictions, is meaningless.
Just to be clear, I'm not as sure about this as I sound.
SO (Agent Smith is a cat and not a cat) is a contradiction at some time and not another?
No; only some contradictions are time dependent.
I bet this is a confusion resulting from that "Is change a property of space, objects, or both?" thread. Nonsense begets nonsense.
It's rather confusing, the relationship between time and logic. If S = Agent Smith is a cat, S & ~S is a contradiction only if simulateneity is meaningful. However S & ~S isn't a contradiction if change is real (law of identity violated).
Quoting Banno
I dunno about that!
Quoting Banno
Perhaps...
Show me how it's nonsense! Is there a contradiction? Where?
Where is time in (~(Q & ~Q)?
The Law of Noncontradiction only makes sense if contradictions are well-defined.
Suppose time doesn't exist. If so simultaneity is meaningless.
Contradiction: A proposition is true & false
1. In the same sense
2. At the same time (simultaneity)
A proposition can be true and false in the same sense (at different times). Change (takes time).
The law of identity: A = A
If the law of change (everything changes with time) is true, the law of identity is false, A now is not the same as A later.
However, for logic to, in the most basic sense, work, the law of identity must hold. In other words, if the law of change is true, logic must be atemporal (outside of time).
I'm at a loss as to what conclusion(s) follow(s) from these facts.
My best guess.
1. Logic must be atemporal (to avoid equivocation fallacy).
2. Logic must be temporal (otherwise contradictions are meaningless).
1 & 2 is a contradiction (only if logic is temporal) and not a contradiction (if logic is atemporal). The only way out is to say logic is temporal (contradiction) sometimes and atemporal (law of identity) at other times.
"Yes, I have heard about that expression-term, also a very long time ago. It seems that it has faded away!"
Things take TIME to fade away.
"Yes, figuratively. And in your mind. In your mind you can do a lot of things, you know!:"
Well, that's part of many other threads, isn't it. What the conscious mind comes up with versus what reality is.
"Our whole life is recorded into our memory in frames, at a much shorter rate, since we are perceiving images with a duration up to about 400 fps. (New video standards support up to about 300 fps.) So, our whole past is there."
Yeah, human recall of 'past events' is a similar posit. Is human recall another example of more evidence of 'time travel' into the past?
'When ma auld mammy tells me aboot her days gone by,' sorry about the scots dialect, I seem to have a need to express it every so often, is she 'really' taking me on a 'time trip' into her past?
"BTW, as someone who knows about photography"
Not sure if you are referring to me or you. I know very little about photography, but I could be convinced of the posit that "photography is more real than reality" from the position that a moment is fleeting but a photograph of it maintains it longer so is more 'real' in that sense. You suggest a similar viewpoint with:
"photography can capture an instant of infinitesimally small duration, something our human perception is unable to"
"The sleeping" person is real, though"
They certainly seem real to me, whenever I have observed such.
"Reality defeats though!"
Don't understand your contextual use of the word 'defeats' here. Surely 'thought' is a part of an individual's reality and an objective reality, if we consider the human race as a totality.
"However, as interesting as all this may be, it doesn't really tell us anything about time. We cannot use a recording of any kind as a proof for the existence of time or even as a result of time. Neither can we attribute to time the decay of matter, e.g. of our bodies, as we grow old. it is the result of aging, a process of life. It is a finite process, with a start (birth) and an end (death), the cycle of life as we call it, wrongly of course, because it's a line and not a circle! "
I Disagree with your 'cannot' above and would suggest 'can' instead or at least 'perhaps can.'
A process happens due to time passing. Process cannot happen without duration, as an attribute.
The 'cycle of life' is valid, if you accept the posit that within the time that humans have existed, an individual atom (or smaller packet), in its individual journey through the universe, since its formation, may have been a physical part of more that one human. In this sense, we are all made of the same raw materials. We are ALL part of the posit of infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
"I can accept "making no sense", althought it is not so appropriate in here. But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense", which is an offence and totally inappropriate in this place, as well as other serious discussions in public. Anyway, I have ignored even this too, to see if and what you really have to say about my reasoning about time and infinity"
I think you are being a little over-sensitive. I use the term nonsense and will continue to do so when I feel it is warranted. It just means 'No sense' or non sense, the two are synonymous and in my part, not intended as an insult but just an accurate description of my opinion of something stated. so to be accepting of one and more unhappy with the other demonstrates the confusion that's out there. REMEMBER, this site has moderators. Let them arbitrate. Don't get me wrong, anyone is still absolutely free to complain about any turn of phrase I use that they are unhappy with or find offensive. Just in the same way as I can choose to accept or reject their concern. The site moderator will judge and decide on any required action. Let's not become too woke folks or we might become too close to the 'snowflake generation' description.
"this is true I'm glad we're on the same page and you're not butt hurt about it"
We are on the same page, no hurt at all involved. I have enjoyed our wee exchange so far.
:grin:
It seems to me that yourself and Agent Smith are concentrating on the mathematical aspects of the OP and Agent Smith did put the OP in mathematical terms. Perfectly acceptable approach, but as is often the case, people like to employ various epistemology when contemplating a posit. I personally have no issue with digression as long as the OP is 'kept in mind.' People can pick up nuggets of thoughts that they had not thought about before, from any discourse, digressive or otherwise. Demanding fierce loyalty to the OP and its method of presentation, to a dictatorial level, is rather restrictive and somewhat short-sighted.
"Time can be introduced by just specify the time and place that a predicate occurs: Banno is writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021."
Yeah, but at which hour?, which minute?, which second?, which nanosecond......planck time...ad nauseam, did Banno write this?
Is time a continuum or is it quantisable?
Does it have a definite beginning, a clearly defined flow/direction, and an end scenario?
Is time linear (past, present, future,)? or is it multidimenional (time travel possible?).
For any given set of possible reactions to a causal event, will all of them happen, in a multiverse of time?
This would not mean, time is not linear as all the alternatives can happen at the same time in each universe, perhaps suggesting a 'layered' structure to time or an infinity of linear time lines rather than non-linear time.
These are all or at least some of the sub-questions implied by the OP's main posit and title: 'Impossible to Prove Time is Real.' This is not purely mathematical but has mathematical aspects.
Alkis Piskas.......please feel free to call this nonsense. These are just my thoughts. They are not precious to me in the traditional sense as described by the character Gollum in Lord of the Rings.
This exchange was a waste of time. I am out of here.
To you. But it applies to both of us. :smile:
Quoting universeness
You are right, sorry. I missed the word "us". (I initially had typed "Reality wins")
Quoting universeness
:up: At least someone who can see what "objective" reality can mean!
Quoting universeness
OK. I can accept this.
Quoting universeness
Well, as far our physical part (our body) is concered. But there's also a non-physical part ... (Well, this for some other time, though! :smile:)
***
BTW, why don't you use the "Quote" feature (like I do) that TPF offers for replying? It makes more clear who says what.
Thanks, I hadn't noticed the quote feature, which is a 'doh!' moment for me as an old retired computing teacher!
But I like this wee digress.....sorry Banno!
That "non-physical part" you offer becomes two questions.
is a thought quantisable? and can it exist outside of the human body?
My current answers would be probably yes to the first one as under quantum theory everything is quantisable and no to the second question unless it is memorialised as text, recorded audio etc.
In my language, saying "This is nonsense" is clearly impolite, if said publicly or between two people who are not familiar with each other. I believe this is true for most countries.
One can always say "This makes no sense", which is perfectly OK. But if he choses to say "nonsense" instead, he does it on purpose. See? It's the intention that counts.
[]not intended as an insult[]
Certainly. That's why I said impolite. And we don't need that, do we? It makes this place less pleasant, doesn't it?
[]this site has moderators. Let them arbitrate.[]
For godssake, it wasn't so serious to report it and call the attention of the moderators ... It was just a remark I made. And it certainly didn't have to take such dimensions!
Anyway, there's enough rudeness going on in this place already that overshadows this case!
***
OK, let's move to some other topic to talk about something more interesting! :smile:
I am a retired programmer too, well among other retirements! :grin:
I really don't understand your feeling about the use of nonsense. What's so bad if I think something is nonsense? It's not a personal attack. I just don't understand what you mean, so to me it is nonsense. I litterally don't sense it. I asked to explain what you mean, to turn it into sense. Should I have said that I don't understand?
Ahoy Scotsman! Why do you think that non-linear time is associated with multiple time dimensions? Time can be circular in one dimension. Closed time loops are a possibility in general relativity. On the microscale virtual particles states in the vacuum are represented by a circle, a vacuum bubble. Virtual photons or virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, are represented by closed one particle propagators in Feynman diagrams. In a sense such a particle rotates in spacetime and it can be released from it's closed periodic prison by real particles, like an electron and a positron can excite the closed photon loop, giving two real photons (which is called the annihilation of an electron by a positron), and two photons can excite the virtual electron loop to create an electron and a positron (or another pair). It were these loops that were the only material presence at the singularity. Time went back and forth. Then... bang! Freedom!
By the way, there are two books Brian Greene wrote. I think the story about the rotating bucket is written in The Fabric.
I hold the personal view the nonsense is not impolite, even if you are correct that I hold a minority opinion.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Now don't get all 'theist' on me.....ha ha
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I was not discussing the action of 'reporting'. I don't know the moderator's system of moderation, perhaps it's by sampling or something, it may be by receiving complaints as you imply, I doubt they read every comment.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It did not but I can 'blow on embers,' if I wish and you can ignore my response if you wish.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Ha! This website is very pleasant compared to some I have read. But I support your goal to maintain and encourage people to be polite but we don't want to turn into snowflakes either. So I maintain that 'nonsense' is not impolite and I will use it when I wish to. People can just ignore my response if they are offended or simply respond to me that they are offended.
We just need to discuss the balance at times, as we are doing now.
Don't worry about spoiling Agent Smith's (not Banno's) topic ... It gets more replies => more popular! :smile:
But we got already far astray. Better check my topic "You are not your body!" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1) You can comment to it, if you like. :smile:
Cheers fellow computaunt!!:grin:
Sorry I forgot to include the quote again. So, again:
Cheers fellow Computaunt!! :sweat:
... It was with a small "g" ... :smile:
Quoting universeness
I don't know either ...
Quoting universeness
I guess so.
Quoting universeness
Good. Thanks. :smile: Thanks god, I have been justified, at least partly! :smile: (Really, now. I'm not a theist. Note the small "g" again ... :grin:)
No problem. I got it, anyway! :smile:
I don't know if you realized ... We have completely destroyed this topic! :grin:
Now thats real nonsense...
"A vibrant community of people who rarely agree with each other but who all love philosophy, this is the place for philosophical discussions about knowledge"
Happy to read that.....wink...
as they don't seem to have a wink emoticon or at least, I couldn't spot one in the group offered.
Yeah I know it was Agent Smith's thread, I was more responding to Banno's comment regarding 'poor responses.' i was 'kinda' referring him/her back to the philosophy of Dirty Harry, I have often used with tongue in cheek intention.
Oh, I forgot to say I will have a look at the thread link provided.....
Quoting Raymond
Quoting Raymond
These are all states found in 3 dimensions, not 1.
Quoting Raymond
Ok, I haven't read 'The Fabric', too many books, not enough lifetime!
:wink: (Just add colons to your "wink")
Nothing is mine. :sad:
Aw didums....:grin:
again, thanks for these wee computing lessons, it seems I need them :wink:
I used to teach hypertext! I think I need a refresher
Entropic time can be proven non-existent in the light of the perfect clock time. The perfect clock time, on the other hand, is proven an unreal, non-existent, in the light of it's entropic counterpart.
In mathematical terms:
The periodic function sin(at), t being the clock time, or coordinate time, used as the basis for the clock time itself. The clock is defined as a periodic process with constant. Every periodic function functioning as the base of a clock can be expressed as a superposition of pure sine functions with constant periods. It's a fact of nature that processes with a constant period do not exist. It follows logically, undubitably, self- as well as logically consistently, while complying to the strict imperatives of scientific rationality, that t is ill defined and no real existing parameter in our universe.
Only in the virtual reality of the quantum vacuum, t is present intrinsically as a true parameter. All quantum field fluctuations can be expressed as a superposition of independent fixed energy and fixed momentum oscillations, both forward and backwards in time (anti-particles). These oscillations are a clock but they can't be used as a reference clock.
:kiss:
I think I missed some of your sentences, sorry, have quoted and responded below:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
ha ha.... :grin:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
we have become death! the destroyers of topic threads... :naughty:
Oppenheimer would not be happy!
I think that basic lesson in physics, the one on working with errors, should be compulsory.
universeness, to the day will do.
Logic is temporal, as logic is an aspect of thought and thought is temporal, because it takes time to think! Go ahead, have an atemporal thought, how long does it take for one of your neurons to fire? Probably faster than a day, but certainly a 'small time packet' will be involved.....so temporal.
I think that basic lesson on thinking, the one on working with errors, should be compulsory
Then you will have no trouble identifying for us the temporal elements in propositional calculus.
@Agent Smith, you have some familiarity with language games, and the errors that arise when they are mixed willy-nilly. What do you think of ?
Truth is Wittgenstein, nec caput nec pedes.
Universeness? The only discussion I had with him/her I can remember was on antinatalism. S/he's a natalist not because but despite (the illusion of) happiness!
A shame.
I was referring to: Quoting universeness
This is the sort of muddle that results.
To be sure, there are some rather neat temporal logics
Indeed!
Quoting Banno
Oh! Sorry, didn't read universeness's post. S/he seems busy...
My choice of methodology is for me to offer not for you to insist.
enjoy your bromance boys/girls/mixers!
In fact, I will do that for you as soon as you present your arguments to me in the form of Klingon and in the form of the programming language C++
Good one! :lol:
And sometimes we visit your country and live in your home
Sometimes we ride on your horses, sometimes we walk alone
Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own[/quote]
Therefore, there are some times.