Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Time (and existence) (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=110471)

richhhhhard 07-13-2009 02:42 AM

Time (and existence)
 
Note: Sorry this is kind of long, I have been thinking a lot about time and how it relates to life. This is basically the conclusion that I have drawn based on my own experiences. It is not meant to offend or ridicule anyone, I am just curious what thoughts and arguments people may have.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is time exactly? The dictionary defines it as “the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.” Progress of existence and events? Progress is defined as the “forward or onward movement toward a destination.” Movement is defined as the “act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.” So the definition of time could be broken down to:

the indefinite continued change in physical location or position of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

Does this mean that time cannot exist without change? If when you are reading this sentence, time were to stop for 100 years, would it take you 100 years to read this sentence? No, because nothing changed in that time so that “time” did not exist. The truth is, that time is only a measurement of how much things change in comparison to a set standard. Does a mile exist? Does a gallon or a pound? A mile of land, a gallon of water, and a pound of iron all exist but without the physical matter to measure, the measurements are meaningless. Time is no different.

So is time travel possible? If you think about one instant in time, one freeze-frame, it is simply an array of how each particle of matter in the universe is arranged at that instant. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, so everything on this Earth, from the food we eat to the elements that compose our bodies, is made up of particles that have existed as long as the universe. It is a crazy thought, but everything on this planet is made up of only three different kinds of particles. Everything is composed of varying combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The complex interactions of these particles create every element on the periodic table. These elements make up everything we experience on this planet. 98% of our body mass consists of only four of these elements: Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen. It is crazy when you consider that the only thing that makes Oxygen different than Nitrogen is that Oxygen has one more proton in it’s nucleus. The only thing that makes Nitrogen different than Carbon is that Nitrogen has one more proton. That something that seems so small is what made life possible, is hard to imagine.

Evolution is the concept that living organisms developed from simpler organisms, but I think with only a bit of deductive reasoning, it is clear that even “life” evolved from something much simpler. Even protons and neutrons are made up of smaller subunits called “quarks.” That is as basic as technology allows us to get at the moment, but quarks could be made up of something even smaller. If it is true that matter cannot be created or destroyed then it means that the universe has always, and will always be. Everything that exists is just an always-changing form of matter. But if this is true, then we were neither created, nor can we be destroyed. If we are merely a chance combination of molecular building blocks then what is our purpose for living? Why do we laugh and cry and love? If there is no reward for our actions in this life then why do we even live? If there is no punishment for doing awful things then why not indulge ourselves?
The truth is that if everyone believed this, I do not know how people would act. Religion is nice, I go to a Baptist university and I grew up Christian, but it just seems to be a double-edged sword. It gives people hope, purpose, and a reason to wake up in the morning. I believe that it is the main reason that we developed humanistic qualities such as neighborly love and selflessness. On the other hand, it also allows people to justify terrible actions. How many wars have been fought in the name of God? To this day people use the argument that God is on our side to gain support for war. I have yet to read anywhere in the New Testament that says killing people is fine as long as you are fighting for Gods cause. I have yet to understand how a message of ‘love thine enemy’ can be perverted into kill people with different beliefs than you.
I am not trying to bash anyone, but it seems like religion is often only a justification of things that people do not understand. Such as why people have to suffer and how we came to exist and why disasters and miracles exist. I do not claim to understand everything, in fact, I feel as if I know less than most. It seems to me, though, that all of these questions that have plagued mankind throughout history, can be answered with only one explanation. Nearly any “why” question can be answered with the answer “because that is what happens when such a combination of matter interacts with another combination of matter.” For example, “why do we exist?” The question that could be considered the basis for every religion, really seems kind of simple. Life exists because protons bonded with neutrons and attracted electrons. Different combinations of these basic particles lead to amazingly complex compounds. Over untold amounts of time these combinations interacted with other combinations creating new combinations. We know that our planet has existed (in it’s current form) for at least 4.5 billion years. It is believed that we may have developed the ability to control fire about 800,000 years ago. That means that we have only been developing for less than 0.02% of the time that the planet has been developing everything that pre-dated us. We exist because of the reactions that occurred between the different combinations of the basic elements of matter. If you really think about it, we always talk about the end of the world but can the world ever truly end? If the world exploded tomorrow it would be the end of comprehension, but all of the matter that composes everything on the planet would disperse into space and be drawn toward the strongest gravitational pull until it reached a new planet or star and underwent further change. The only rational explanation for the beginning of the universe is that this change is what the “universe” is. Whether or not matter has reached a form as complex as humans, or whether it has reached an even more complex state is unknown but if our most basic concepts of physics are correct then it has always existed in some form. It is also clear that no matter how complex combinations of matter become, they can be broken apart almost instantly. A black hole could reduce everything in our solar system to one dense point, erasing any history of the combinations of matter found before.


I kind of got away from the original topic about time, but to get back on the subject of time travel…
I cannot understand the argument that going faster than the speed of light is a form of time travel. I understand that we can see stars that are no longer in existence because the light takes so long to reach our planet. What I do not understand is how traveling away from earth faster than the light that is being emitted by earth is supposed to be able to allow us to see into the past. Theoretically we would be catching up to light that existed on Earth thousands, or even millions, of years before we existed, but how would that be traveling through time? We would be looking at light, not history. That light is not from the “past,” it is just light that has been traveling for a long time. The most we could learn from that is when the Earth began to emit light.

Another form of time travel I have heard of is traveling to a different dimension that is actually a previous or future time. I think this model has been displayed as something similar to a film reel, where each individual shot is a moment in time. Like the shots on the roll of film, every instant of time exists simultaneously. I have been told that there are scientific theories that state that it would be possible to “jump” to one of these instants. I have two arguments against this one. First of all, I don’t see any scientific evidence to support multiple dimensions. I had to go to a string theory lecture for one of my classes once that attempted to explain how string theory supports the idea of multiple dimensions. I am sorry, but I just thought it was kind of ridiculous. I do not understand how the mathematics of knots explains that there are other dimensions. Also, if there were multiple dimensions then wouldn’t they have to exist completely independently of our dimension? To travel to another dimension would be to add, or “create,” matter in that dimension. Since there is a set amount of matter, wouldn’t taking matter out of this universe and adding it to another defy that concept?

Finally, it is commonly said that time is a “fourth dimension.” I was always very against that idea. I never really gave it consideration because I did not see a relation between height, width, and length compared to time. When I considered the definition of the word dimension though- “a measurable extent of some kind”- I could agree with that title. I think that change can be measured, so time could be considered a 4th dimension. This also makes sense because we can “travel” through time. After all we age, things decay, and so on. This is similar to the way we travel through the other dimensions. My only problem with this is the connotation that it creates. That we can travel through it implies that we are in control, like we are in control of where we travel on Earth. However, change is a one way road, things can change but never has something un-changed. To change something is to change the position or structure of matter in some way, the only way to “undo” this is to change it again, back to how it was. This, to me, means that the only way to go “back” in time is to change every particle in the universe back to its exact position in space at a given instant. Even if we could miraculously achieve this, that would have been a change occurring in the present, we would not be traveling through time, we would simply be changing the position and state of matter. However, I do think that would be similar to time travel because things would play out in exactly the same way they had. Every molecule would have the same forces acting on it that it had had, so when you jumped to this instant every action and reaction would occur the same as it had the first time. Obviously instantaneously changing every bit of matter to a state that it was in before is not possible, I just thought that was an interesting note.

The only form of time travel that seems logical is reaching the temperature of absolute zero. If time truly is defined by change, than the only way to “stop” time is to stop change. At absolute zero every molecule is frozen in place. Nothing changes at all. If you were instantly frozen to absolute zero, every molecule in your body would remain exactly the same for an indefinite amount of time. In this way you would be “unaffected” by time. At some time in the future if you were unfrozen you would have traveled through that time unchanged. You still would have traveled through time at the normal speed of time though.

For this reason it seems like the only way to have a true effect on time is for the entire universe to reach absolute zero. At that point nothing would change so time would essentially be stopped. That would, however, also be the end of time. If everything was at a point that change was not possible, nothing could create the change required to unfreeze a single particle. Matter would continue to exist though; there is no change that can be made that stops something from existing. Even in a black hole matter is not destroyed, light does not cease to exist. These things are just trapped in a very dense point. People often show a giant black hole as ending the universe, but eventually the black hole would explode and the matter would spread out again throughout space.

Things are always changing; everything we experience and observe seems just a form of change. Our bodies are the most complex combination of matter that we have yet observed, so it seems counter-intuitive to assume that the answers to our most complex questions come from much more basic concepts. That we are more complex than a vast majority, if not all, of the combinations of matter in the universe is a strange thought to have. It is in our nature to think there is something greater than us out there that is responsible for the way things are. I can not say for sure that there is not, but I can say that everything that we experience in this life is a result of basic particles interacting in extremely complex ways. Human consciousness, dreams, ambitions, they all result from particles reacting to stimulus from other particles. It is my opinion that these reactions, these changes in position of matter, are no different than the change that causes a rock to degrade. Though conscious, we are nothing more than a more complex combination of the same basic building blocks. Upon death we will simply return to a less complex form. These particles will disperse, eventually returning Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and the rest of the elements found in our bodies to the atmosphere, free to form new combinations. So in the end time seems irrelevant.

All of these arguments seem logical to me, but normally when someone believes something, they close their minds to other ideas. I am really curious what peoples reactions to any part of what I have said may be. Whether in support or opposition I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions.

dsliscoo 07-13-2009 04:28 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Well.. I think modern science measures time in how long it takes light to propigate in a vacuum.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light says its.. 298km/s) I actually was looking at the stuff a few days ago. It actually says they can make lasers travel faster then the speed of light(like 300x the speed of light.. fast) I think on another note Temperature(absolute 0) or rate of entropy is also a really good measurement of time. The thing is I've read that absolute 0 is actually the same as infinite entropy or +infinity degrees, while -0 would as cold as possible. From coldest to hottest its (-0, 1, 100, -100, 0) Its probably hard to understand the idea of negatives in real circumatsances because I always thought of it as a reflection of positives, but I dont know.


Uhm.. im not sure where i want to go with any of that, I think I will come back and edit later.

richhhhhard 07-13-2009 11:21 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
That may be true, but I do not see how absolute 0 would be equal to infinite entropy. Entropy is disorder right? and at absolute 0 there is no change in structure so that seems like it would equal 0 entropy. Isn't one of the factors that contributes to entropy that the greater the heat, the greater the entropy? It's been a while, but I seem to remember that being the case. It would make sense cause an increase in heat excites the molecules. I reread what you said though, and maybe that is what you were saying in the first place.

In either case, I do not think it matters what name the temperatures are given. Whether you call the hottest temperature 0 or -0 or 16, it doesn't change the temperature. There are no "real" negatives, a negative is an implied opposite of a positive. They are just descriptive words right?

Oni-Paranoia 07-14-2009 01:18 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by richhhhhard (Post 3145143)
In either case, I do not think it matters what name the temperatures are given. Whether you call the hottest temperature 0 or -0 or 16, it doesn't change the temperature. There are no "real" negatives, a negative is an implied opposite of a positive. They are just descriptive words right?

It matters without actually having to matter. The name of a temperature doesn't change the temperature itself but it does effect how we know what temperature it is. If one person thinks the hottest temperature is 16 and another person thinks it's 547, than in any case shall they try to communicate about temperature will be a very sad situation.

It is descriptive values which balance along a line of many values for us to understand. It's how we are taught and how we understand anything that changes in value. If 0 became 1 then 1 would become 2 and so on. It's our way of understanding and creating a 'balance' I guess.

richhhhhard 07-14-2009 02:40 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oni-Paranoia (Post 3145287)
It matters without actually having to matter. The name of a temperature doesn't change the temperature itself but it does effect how we know what temperature it is. If one person thinks the hottest temperature is 16 and another person thinks it's 547, than in any case shall they try to communicate about temperature will be a very sad situation.

I agree, I was just trying to say that the name doesn't change the fundamental nature. For the purposes of this argument it is the idea, not the name, that is more important I think.

Reach 07-15-2009 01:24 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

What is time exactly?
I think the best answer to this question comes from relativity. Here, time is a property of *space* itself that differentiates between one event and another within that space. Every objective or mass in the universe including me or you is part of the fabric of space in this universe, and thus the fabric of time. Because these two properties are intertwined, if you manipulate one, you manipulate the other.

Because mass, or energy (they can be considered equivalents, see E=mc^2) influences how space is distributed around an object, it also influences how time is distributed around an object. As such, by changing the local mass or energy of an object, you change the property of time that object experiences. The classic example of this is Time Dilation - as velocity increases, the perception of time slows relative to objects outside your -space+time- reference. This is because as velocity increases, so does the energy (E=mc^2/(Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)).

So, time is a way of differentiating between one event in space, and another, and is a property of space itself.

Quote:

So is time travel possible?
It's impossible to say at this point for sure, but under the previous definition, the answer is no. Time can be *manipulated*, just as space can be manipulated, but because time is a property of space itself, you're really traveling through it all the time. That doesn't mean there is any physical way of skipping over events that have yet to happen and getting yourself into the future, or somehow reversing time and going to the past - you'd have to ...reverse or fast forward space itself and I don't think that makes any sense to either of us :P

Quote:

I cannot understand the argument that going faster than the speed of light is a form of time travel.
It's a bit hard to understand, but in all honesty you don't need to understand it, because it's not possible. See: (E=mc^2/(Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) - faster than c velocities are a violation of physics! (Energy would *exceed* infinity, lol :P)

Quote:

The only form of time travel that seems logical is reaching the temperature of absolute zero
It's also impossible to reach absolute zero. Even in 50 billion years, when the universe is expanding so quickly it rips itself apart, it will never cool to absolute zero.

Quote:

For this reason it seems like the only way to have a true effect on time is for the entire universe to reach absolute zero.
It's not, though. According to relativity and the space-time equivalency, you effect time all the time, simply by moving. Just by getting up and walking around you're changing the fabric of space around you, and thus time. It's by a tiny amount...so small you can't notice it, but in more extreme cases it can be measured and quantified.


Quote:

I actually was looking at the stuff a few days ago. It actually says they can make lasers travel faster then the speed of light(like 300x the speed of light.. fast)
They're not actually moving faster than light. They're *cheating* a bit, if you will - they're getting from A to B faster than light would, but moving at or slower than the speed of light.

Imagine you're playing a game of Mario Kart, and you're racing light. Light is going to go around the track normally, and you could never win normally, because light is always faster than you are. However, you could take a shortcut and beat light to the finish line. That's what they're doing in this experiment (It's still an impressive feat!)

Izzy 07-15-2009 01:35 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
I don't see why people talk about time as something that can actually be manipulated. Just because the concept of time that was artificially created has been used to solve many practical applications doesn't mean it is actually there. For something like time to actually exist there would have to be some form of its existence. Time travel could only work if that point in time still existed in some way.

I'd like to see some kind of evidence that shows that speed has ever relatively effected that object in the perspective of time. From my understand things just happen because of all matter trying to move to the path of least resistance.

Also I'd like to thing that if some matter ever did hit absolute zero that something fun would happen like a super black hole.

richhhhhard 07-15-2009 02:32 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Thanks for the input Reach, I think we agreed on basically everything, we just said it in different ways. This was the only thing that I had a "problem" with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3146780)
It's not, though. According to relativity and the space-time equivalency, you effect time all the time, simply by moving. Just by getting up and walking around you're changing the fabric of space around you, and thus time. It's by a tiny amount...so small you can't notice it, but in more extreme cases it can be measured and quantified.

Moving around is causing change, which is what I equated time to. It doesn't cause much change, but if say, you could move a planet, or a galaxy, that would change a lot. After all, by all accounts the moon is more or less a big rock, but it's position is detrimental to life on Earth. Is moving a planet really affecting time though? Or is it just causing measurable and quantifiable change in the universe?

It seems the one thing we differ on is that I see time as just a term to describe change.
You see it as part of the fabric of space (I think). But you *did* say that traveling through time would require rewinding or fast-forwarding the universe. That implies that you believe a set time is a location of each individual bit of matter in the universe. So one time is only different from another based on the change of location of that matter within the time span. If you do believe this than I do not understand how you can think that time is part of the fabric of space. Matter will change location based on the forces of other matter acting on it. A big change or a small change doesn't change the *fundamental* nature of anything. One instant will still only be different than the previous because matter is in a position that it was not in before, the magnitude of change seems irrelevant(unless it is 0).



Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3146791)
I don't see why people talk about time as something that can actually be manipulated. Just because the concept of time that was artificially created has been used to solve many practical applications doesn't mean it is actually there. For something like time to actually exist there would have to be some form of its existence. Time travel could only work if that point in time still existed in some way.

I'd like to see some kind of evidence that shows that speed has ever relatively effected that object in the perspective of time. From my understand things just happen because of all matter trying to move to the path of least resistance.

Also I'd like to thing that if some matter ever did hit absolute zero that something fun would happen like a super black hole.

Agreed, I think the whole argument about speed slowing down a clock at high enough speeds is kind of ridiculous. First of all, if a person were to go that fast they would die. Second of all, and more importantly, no matter how slow you perceive time to be going, it is not changing at all. Everything continues to change at the same rate, you just have different forces acting on you at faster speeds than at standstill. That is not affecting "time."

Also, I agree with Reach that matter *cannot* ever reach absolute zero, because for something to change from a state of change to a state of absolutely no change through a process of change makes no sense. What change could be induced that could create a state of no change? It is a conundrum. But IF it DID happen we could all party because we would get to live forever! (It would be a boring party though, we wouldnt even know it had happened).

Izzy 07-15-2009 02:50 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Well the reason absolute zero is impossible is because if there is nothing of a lower temperature then absolute zero then nothing can be used to get something to absolute zero. You would have to take some matter below zero and put it next to something right above zero for it to get there. But since that's impossible it doesn't matter.

richhhhhard 07-15-2009 03:31 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3146844)
Well the reason absolute zero is impossible is because if there is nothing of a lower temperature then absolute zero then nothing can be used to get something to absolute zero. You would have to take some matter below zero and put it next to something right above zero for it to get there. But since that's impossible it doesn't matter.

Thank you, that is a much better explanation than what I said.

Reach 07-15-2009 10:21 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Moving around is causing change, which is what I equated time to. It doesn't cause much change, but if say, you could move a planet, or a galaxy, that would change a lot. After all, by all accounts the moon is more or less a big rock, but it's position is detrimental to life on Earth. Is moving a planet really affecting time though? Or is it just causing measurable and quantifiable change in the universe?


Moving a planet quickly, like the Earth around the sun, is affecting time quite a bit; however, the Earth cannot experience time so it's a bit inconsequential. The reason that we personally aren't affected by this is because relative to the Earth, we aren't moving, so unless we get up and move around the space around us and thus time are unaffected.

You could measure the effect on time the earth experiences fairly easily. The Earth's orbital velocity is approximately what, 65000 mph? So, using part of the equation I posted earlier, events happening in space that is unchanged experience time at a rate of 1.000000004 times faster than Earth does.

Quote:

It seems the one thing we differ on is that I see time as just a term to describe change.
You see it as part of the fabric of space (I think). But you *did* say that traveling through time would require rewinding or fast-forwarding the universe. That implies that you believe a set time is a location of each individual bit of matter in the universe. So one time is only different from another based on the change of location of that matter within the time span. If you do believe this than I do not understand how you can think that time is part of the fabric of space. Matter will change location based on the forces of other matter acting on it. A big change or a small change doesn't change the *fundamental* nature of anything. One instant will still only be different than the previous because matter is in a position that it was not in before, the magnitude of change seems irrelevant(unless it is 0).
Well, I suppose what I really said is that under the *classical* definition of 'time traveling' you would have to rewind or fast-forward the universe. However, I also pointed out this is a ridiculous point to be making if you consider time to be a property of space itself, since rewinding or fast-forwarding space itself makes no sense whatsoever (unless space is continually being exchanged through higher dimensions of space we cannot perceive or something crazy like that that we haven't discovered yet :P ).

I don't really 'believe' time is a part of space, physics tells me that. Einstein's theory of special and general relativity are incredibly well supported theories, and my position is their position on this matter.

Though, to address your points:

Quote:

So one time is only different from another based on the change of location of that matter within the time span.
We're starting to get technical here, but according to relativity there aren't 'different times' at all...rather, there is one time, which is space, and this property of space differentiates between quantum events. If this property of space did not exist, then all events would happen simultaneously and it would be impossible to differentiate between one happening and another.

This is precisely how we describe the state of the universe prior to the big bang, because at that point we have a breakdown of space itself, and thus time.

Quote:

Agreed, I think the whole argument about speed slowing down a clock at high enough speeds is kind of ridiculous. First of all, if a person were to go that fast they would die. Second of all, and more importantly, no matter how slow you perceive time to be going, it is not changing at all. Everything continues to change at the same rate, you just have different forces acting on you at faster speeds than at standstill. That is not affecting "time."

.
It's not ridiculous, because we've already shown it's true. You can do it relatively easily in the space shuttle. You line up two atomic clocks to measure precisely so they're measuring the same thing, put one on the space shuttle, fly around, and compare them when they get back. They read different times afterward, *precisely* the difference in time that Einstein's relativity would predict.

I don't think you quite understand this yet. You aren't slowing down either of the clocks. You're changing the *space* the clock on the shuttle is in, and thus you change the time it experiences. Both clocks continue to tick at the exact same rate, regardless.

It's hard to understand, but it's true. It seems like a paradox, but the reason it occurs is because by changing the space and thus time around an object, you create two different reference frames in space; one for the clock on Earth, one for the clock on the shuttle. These reference frames create the basis for the difference in time the clocks read.

Also, you don't have to be going fast to get this effect. I know I pointed this out earlier, but this effect is perceived when any movement occurs. It's just...it's easier to measure the change when high speeds are involved.

Izzy 07-15-2009 11:53 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
But how do you know that isn't caused by something else. Maybe the closer an object gets to the speed of light the atoms react differently because the electrons around the atom are still going the same speed and are having a more and more difficult time keeping track of where the neutrons are.

richhhhhard 07-15-2009 05:13 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3147170)
Moving a planet quickly, like the Earth around the sun, is affecting time quite a bit; however, the Earth cannot experience time so it's a bit inconsequential. The reason that we personally aren't affected by this is because relative to the Earth, we aren't moving, so unless we get up and move around the space around us and thus time are unaffected.

You could measure the effect on time the earth experiences fairly easily. The Earth's orbital velocity is approximately what, 65000 mph? So, using part of the equation I posted earlier, events happening in space that is unchanged experience time at a rate of 1.000000004 times faster than Earth does.

This is my problem. The Earth *can* experience time as much as we can, it is just not conscious of it. And this is kind of vague anyway. Because there are different forces on something in space it experiences "time" differently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3147170)
Well, I suppose what I really said is that under the *classical* definition of 'time traveling' you would have to rewind or fast-forward the universe. However, I also pointed out this is a ridiculous point to be making if you consider time to be a property of space itself, since rewinding or fast-forwarding space itself makes no sense whatsoever (unless space is continually being exchanged through higher dimensions of space we cannot perceive or something crazy like that that we haven't discovered yet :P ).

I don't really 'believe' time is a part of space, physics tells me that. Einstein's theory of special and general relativity are incredibly well supported theories, and my position is their position on this matter.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is about gravity, one of the fundamental forces of nature. It was proven by the fact that light bends around planets. What implication does this have on time? To say that two things experience time differently because different forces are applied to them seems counterintuitive to me. It just causes them to change differently.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3147170)
Though, to address your points:



We're starting to get technical here, but according to relativity there aren't 'different times' at all...rather, there is one time, which is space, and this property of space differentiates between quantum events. If this property of space did not exist, then all events would happen simultaneously and it would be impossible to differentiate between one happening and another.

This is precisely how we describe the state of the universe prior to the big bang, because at that point we have a breakdown of space itself, and thus time.

I guess I missed that in Physics, but that sounds really ridiculous to me. Basically what this is saying is that if fundamental laws of nature did not exist everything would happen at once, but LUCKILY things do not just change instantaneously with no regard to the forces of nature. *whew* lucky us!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3147170)
It's not ridiculous, because we've already shown it's true. You can do it relatively easily in the space shuttle. You line up two atomic clocks to measure precisely so they're measuring the same thing, put one on the space shuttle, fly around, and compare them when they get back. They read different times afterward, *precisely* the difference in time that Einstein's relativity would predict.

I don't think you quite understand this yet. You aren't slowing down either of the clocks. You're changing the *space* the clock on the shuttle is in, and thus you change the time it experiences. Both clocks continue to tick at the exact same rate, regardless.

It's hard to understand, but it's true. It seems like a paradox, but the reason it occurs is because by changing the space and thus time around an object, you create two different reference frames in space; one for the clock on Earth, one for the clock on the shuttle. These reference frames create the basis for the difference in time the clocks read.

Also, you don't have to be going fast to get this effect. I know I pointed this out earlier, but this effect is perceived when any movement occurs. It's just...it's easier to measure the change when high speeds are involved.

Again, to me what this is saying is that you change the forces acting on the clock and thus the "time" it experiences. That is not changing time it is changing the rate at which the clock changes due to the forces acting on it.

It seems to me that we think the same thing, I just do not like the word time. It makes much more sense to call it change. Time has too many other connotations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3147230)
But how do you know that isn't caused by something else. Maybe the closer an object gets to the speed of light the atoms react differently because the electrons around the atom are still going the same speed and are having a more and more difficult time keeping track of where the neutrons are.

I think that it is obvious that something is causing the change. It is not that the object experiences a different "time" it is that it is experiencing different forces. This is exactly why I think time is a really bad word for it.

Reach 07-15-2009 09:03 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

This is my problem. The Earth *can* experience time as much as we can, it is just not conscious of it. And this is kind of vague anyway. Because there are different forces on something in space it experiences "time" differently?
Ok, my point was that Earth isn't conscious, so it can't perceive time. Really, that's all. This is a weird over analysis of what I said, lol.

Quote:

Einstein's theory of general relativity is about gravity, one of the fundamental forces of nature. It was proven by the fact that light bends around planets. What implication does this have on time? To say that two things experience time differently because different forces are applied to them seems counterintuitive to me. It just causes them to change differently.
Light doesn't 'bend around planets' per say. Light follows straight lines relative to the topology of the space that it is within. If that space is curved, light will curve as well, following the path of space. We observe this effect around objects with extraordinary masses that bend space, and thus time a great deal. The classic example of this is the Black Hole.

Quote:

I guess I missed that in Physics, but that sounds really ridiculous to me. Basically what this is saying is that if fundamental laws of nature did not exist everything would happen at once, but LUCKILY things do not just change instantaneously with no regard to the forces of nature. *whew* lucky us!
Yes, if space, and thus time didn't exist everything would happen instantaneously.

I have no idea what you're going on about in the next sentence though. Space and time *didn't exist* prior to the Big Bang, and thus as far as we can tell, all events at that point occurred simultaneously without any way of differentiating between them.

Yes, we are lucky? If space, and time didn't exist, the universe wouldn't be here, at least not in it's current form, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see the relevance to your previous point, though.

Quote:

But how do you know that isn't caused by something else. Maybe the closer an object gets to the speed of light the atoms react differently because the electrons around the atom are still going the same speed and are having a more and more difficult time keeping track of where the neutrons are.
The clock never changes the rate at which it keeps time. This is ...what I think you're both still missing. If you sat on Earth, or on the Space shuttle, and watched the electrons and neutrons in the clock at exactly every moment during the flight, nothing would change. You'd take the exact same measurements on the ship and on Earth.

The reason the effect occurs is because by distorting space, and thus time, you put the shuttle on a different reference frame. This would cause the person on the shuttle to perceive things on Earth happening faster than normal, and cause the person on Earth to perceive things in the shuttle as happening slower than normal, but inside of both reference frames everything is normal and exactly the same.


So no, it has nothing to do with the 'forces' per say.

richhhhhard 07-15-2009 10:40 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Okay, so really we do not agree at all. I thought we were saying the same thing with different words, but really we are not.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3148035)
Ok, my point was that Earth isn't conscious, so it can't perceive time. Really, that's all. This is a weird over analysis of what I said, lol.

Haha well, I think that is an important point because perception doesn't change what is happening.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3148035)
Light doesn't 'bend around planets' per say. Light follows straight lines relative to the topology of the space that it is within. If that space is curved, light will curve as well, following the path of space. We observe this effect around objects with extraordinary masses that bend space, and thus time a great deal. The classic example of this is the Black Hole.

Okay so what you are saying is that light travels in straight lines that bend around areas that "space bends." OR light bends around things with a strong force of gravity. Why do you think it takes an extraordinary mass? *Space* isn't bending, the particles around the object are just being drawn toward that massive object. The "classic example" of a black hole is just an object that is so dense that its gravitational pull is so strong that light cannot escape. Space doesn't "bend." It is the particles within that space that are being drawn toward something.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3148035)
Yes, if space, and thus time didn't exist everything would happen instantaneously.

I have no idea what you're going on about in the next sentence though. Space and time *didn't exist* prior to the Big Bang, and thus as far as we can tell, all events at that point occurred simultaneously without any way of differentiating between them.

Yes, we are lucky? If space, and time didn't exist, the universe wouldn't be here, at least not in it's current form, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see the relevance to your previous point, though.

I do not understand why this is so widely believed. If this is the direction that science is going then that is really sad because it doesn't even make sense. Making up ideas to explain things that we do not understand with no proof is no different than me saying that rainbows exist because God needed a reminder not to flood the Earth again. It is believed that space didn't exist before a big bang? There was a reaction of some kind(between nothing apparently because matter 'did not exist') and this magical reaction created empty space and matter to fill it. Ah! I feel much better now.
It makes much more sense that the big bang was a point that all of the matter of the universe was condensed to a single point due to a massive black hole. At such a point "space" would have been inconsequential because matter would have only been occupying one point. Then an energy build up could have caused the black hole to explode and the matter that was trapped within to be released throughout space. Thus giving "birth" to space and matter (which were really there all along).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3148035)
The clock never changes the rate at which it keeps time. This is ...what I think you're both still missing. If you sat on Earth, or on the Space shuttle, and watched the electrons and neutrons in the clock at exactly every moment during the flight, nothing would change. You'd take the exact same measurements on the ship and on Earth.

The reason the effect occurs is because by distorting space, and thus time, you put the shuttle on a different reference frame. This would cause the person on the shuttle to perceive things on Earth happening faster than normal, and cause the person on Earth to perceive things in the shuttle as happening slower than normal, but inside of both reference frames everything is normal and exactly the same.


So no, it has nothing to do with the 'forces' per say.


I think it is you that does not understand this experiment, you and pretty much everyone else. I am curious, what exactly do you think space is? Is space really a malleable thing that can be distorted? Or is it just a medium which can be occupied by matter?

For space to be distorted it has to be made up of something, meaning it would have to be composed of some type of matter. By traveling do you really think you are distorting space, or just the molecules that exist within it? Clearly it does involve 'forces' per say because the speed which induces the "distortion" is causing a force.


When did science turn into science fiction?

insanefreddy926 07-15-2009 11:09 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
I think you guys need to understand special relativity a bit more to understand what Reach has been saying. So here's a crash course :razz::

One of the most important things we've discovered about the universe is that light always travels at the same speed (through a given medium). This may sound obvious, but if you think about it, it's really weird. Consider standing on a street, and throwing a ball. You are stationary, and you throw the ball and it goes 10 meters per second. Now let's say you hop on your skateboard with the ball. You ride down the street at 5 m/s and throw the ball while on your board with the exact same force as before. Now the ball will travel at 15 m/s, since it's already moving at 5 m/s and you throw it at 10 m/s. Now let's say you repeat both steps, but instead of throwing a ball, you shine a flashlight. The speed of light is about 3X10^8 m/s. So you shine it while standing still and it goes at 3X10^8 m/s. You would think that when you shine the light while moving on your skateboard, it would go 3X10^8 m/s plus the 5 m/s you're already moving, just like the ball. But it doesn't. It still only travels at 3X10^8 m/s. This type of experiment has been done (albeit not exactly in the same way) and proven.

So knowing this, we can generate a "thought experiment" which makes use of this curious property of light. Now the actual experiment is impossible to do (hence "thought experiment") but you can figure out a lot from it: Say you are in a spaceship, traveling at a constant speed. The ship has a large window. You have a large transparent cylinder which has mirrors at each end of it. There is a light beam which is continuously bouncing back and forth between these mirrors.

There is also an observer standing on the Earth, stationary. We say that you and the person on the earth are in two different "reference frames" because you are moving while the observer is stationary.

So you're going in your spaceship, and you fly right by the observer while the light is bouncing in the cylinder. You and the observer both see that light travel from the top of the cylinder to the bottom of it. You and the observer both measure how far you saw the light travel. To you, the light went in a vertical line, from top to bottom. So the distance you measure is the length of the cylinder. To the observer, however, the light traveled in a diagonal line, because while it was moving up and down in the cylinder, the ship was also moving sideways past the observer.

Now we can form a right triangle. One side is the distance you saw the light travel. The hypotenuse is the diagonal distance the observer saw the light travel. The other side is the distance the ship traveled while the light went from top to bottom. We know that distance/time = speed. So distance = speed*time. We know that light always travels at the same speed.. We know that the observer saw the light travel a longer distance than you did, because the diagonal side of a right triangle is longer than the other sides. This means that the light traveled two different distances while going at the same speed. Since distance = speed*time, this must mean that you and the observer both experienced two different times. Since the light traveled a shorter distance for you, "your time" was passing slower, relative to the observer.

That's pretty much the basis of it. If you were to use the Pythagorean Theorem on that triangle and fiddle around with it, you would end up with a form of that formula which Reach referenced. But this really shows that the act of traveling through space alters the time which you experience. In fact it slows it down.

Now if you were to use that formula you would see that the faster you travel the slower time passes. When you travel at the speed of light (which isn't really possible) time passes infinitely slowly; or it stops.

edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by richhhhhard (Post 3148184)
The "classic example" of a black hole is just an object that is so dense that its gravitational pull is so strong that light cannot escape. Space doesn't "bend." It is the particles within that space that are being drawn toward something.

Actually the classic example of a black hole is an object so dense that it bends space so much that every direction you can travel inside the event horizon leads to the center of it. So when light crosses the event horizon, it travels in "straight" lines which lead to the center of the black hole.

richhhhhard 07-15-2009 11:51 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926 (Post 3148239)
I think you guys need to understand special relativity a bit more to understand what Reach has been saying. So here's a crash course :razz::

One of the most important things we've discovered about the universe is that light always travels at the same speed (through a given medium). This may sound obvious, but if you think about it, it's really weird. Consider standing on a street, and throwing a ball. You are stationary, and you throw the ball and it goes 10 meters per second. Now let's say you hop on your skateboard with the ball. You ride down the street at 5 m/s and throw the ball while on your board with the exact same force as before. Now the ball will travel at 15 m/s, since it's already moving at 5 m/s and you throw it at 10 m/s. Now let's say you repeat both steps, but instead of throwing a ball, you shine a flashlight. The speed of light is about 3X10^8 m/s. So you shine it while standing still and it goes at 3X10^8 m/s. You would think that when you shine the light while moving on your skateboard, it would go 3X10^8 m/s plus the 5 m/s you're already moving, just like the ball. But it doesn't. It still only travels at 3X10^8 m/s. This type of experiment has been done (albeit not exactly in the same way) and proven.

So knowing this, we can generate a "thought experiment" which makes use of this curious property of light. Now the actual experiment is impossible to do (hence "thought experiment") but you can figure out a lot from it: Say you are in a spaceship, traveling at a constant speed. The ship has a large window. You have a large transparent cylinder which has mirrors at each end of it. There is a light beam which is continuously bouncing back and forth between these mirrors.

There is also an observer standing on the Earth, stationary. We say that you and the person on the earth are in two different "reference frames" because you are moving while the observer is stationary.

So you're going in your spaceship, and you fly right by the observer while the light is bouncing in the cylinder. You and the observer both see that light travel from the top of the cylinder to the bottom of it. You and the observer both measure how far you saw the light travel. To you, the light went in a vertical line, from top to bottom. So the distance you measure is the length of the cylinder. To the observer, however, the light traveled in a diagonal line, because while it was moving up and down in the cylinder, the ship was also moving sideways past the observer.

Now we can form a right triangle. One side is the distance you saw the light travel. The hypotenuse is the diagonal distance the observer saw the light travel. The other side is the distance the ship traveled while the light went from top to bottom. We know that distance/time = speed. So distance = speed*time. We know that light always travels at the same speed.. We know that the observer saw the light travel a longer distance than you did, because the diagonal side of a right triangle is longer than the other sides. This means that the light traveled two different distances while going at the same speed. Since distance = speed*time, this must mean that you and the observer both experienced two different times. Since the light traveled a shorter distance for you, "your time" was passing slower, relative to the observer.

That's pretty much the basis of it. If you were to use the Pythagorean Theorem on that triangle and fiddle around with it, you would end up with a form of that formula which Reach referenced. But this really shows that the act of traveling through space alters the time which you experience. In fact it slows it down.

Now if you were to use that formula you would see that the faster you travel the slower time passes. When you travel at the speed of light (which isn't really possible) time passes infinitely slowly; or it stops.

edit:



Actually the classic example of a black hole is an object so dense that it bends space so much that every direction you can travel inside the event horizon leads to the center of it. So when light crosses the event horizon, it travels in "straight" lines which lead to the center of the black hole.


Thanks for the information. However, this does not change anything in my opinion. What you are saying is that the way we *perceive* time changes, but what is *really* happening with the light? Regardless of how the two people perceive it, it is doing the same thing. Because we are limited by our perception does not mean that altering how you perceive something changes the time that passed. To refrence your example, "To the observer, however, the light traveled in a diagonal line, because while it was moving up and down in the cylinder, the ship was also moving sideways past the observer." Is time limited by our perception? Outside of the perception of the two people the light is not doing anything differently. The only thing that is different is that one of them is moving really fast so they perceive a change. The equation d=s*t is irrelevant because that is *supposed* to be measuring only the light, not your perception of it. You are taking a scientific equation and using it to try to rationalize differences in perception.

Edit.
What you said about black holes means the same thing as what I said.

insanefreddy926 07-16-2009 12:31 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by richhhhhard (Post 3148276)
Thanks for the information. However, this does not change anything in my opinion. What you are saying is that the way we *perceive* time changes, but what is *really* happening with the light? Regardless of how the two people perceive it, it is doing the same thing. Because we are limited by our perception does not mean that altering how you perceive something changes the time that passed. To refrence your example, "To the observer, however, the light traveled in a diagonal line, because while it was moving up and down in the cylinder, the ship was also moving sideways past the observer." Is time limited by our perception? Outside of the perception of the two people the light is not doing anything differently. The only thing that is different is that one of them is moving really fast so they perceive a change. The equation d=s*t is irrelevant because that is *supposed* to be measuring only the light, not your perception of it. You are taking a scientific equation and using it to try to rationalize differences in perception.

All I did was explain what Einstein did in formulating special relativity. He used the equation d=s*t with the Pythagorean theorem to derive the Time Dilation formula. That formula accurately predicts the outcomes of experiments which have been performed.

The important thing is that light will always travel at the same speed. How you perceive what the light does matters because if you measure a shorter distance than someone else, your time is passing relatively slower than theirs. It's all relative. The only thing that isn't relative is the speed of light, and that proves that space-time has to be able to somehow bend or slow down to preserve it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by richhhhhard (Post 3148276)
What you said about black holes means the same thing as what I said.

You said that a black hole doesn't bend space. I said that that a black hole bends space so much that all directions lead toward the center.

richhhhhard 07-16-2009 12:45 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926 (Post 3148318)
All I did was explain what Einstein did in formulating special relativity. He used the equation d=s*t with the Pythagorean theorem to derive the Time Dilation formula. That formula accurately predicts the outcomes of experiments which have been performed.

The important thing is that light will always travel at the same speed. How you perceive what the light does matters because if you measure a shorter distance than someone else, your time is passing relatively slower than theirs. It's all relative. The only thing that isn't relative is the speed of light, and that proves that space-time has to be able to somehow bend or slow down to preserve it.



You said that a black hole doesn't bend space. I said that that a black hole bends space so much that all directions lead toward the center.

Well I see it as the same thing. I am just still waiting for a definition on what "space" is if it is able to be bent and manipulated. Until then I am going to believe that we are saying the same thing because I don't think that anyone is illogical enough to assume that empty space is something that can be bent. Anyway, if we are only talking about relativity then I still say that "time" is not changing for either. You can justify it however you want but I still say they are only experiencing change at different rates because they are experiencing different situations.

insanefreddy926 07-16-2009 01:28 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
If you don't believe that space can bend, then how do you explain gravity? Our planet is revolving around the sun because it is following a straight line which the mass of the sun has bent. When we look at distant galaxies, their image is physically curved because the mass of a galaxy between them and us bends the space through which their light travels. How else do you explain this?

richhhhhard 07-16-2009 01:45 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926 (Post 3148399)
If you don't believe that space can bend, then how do you explain gravity? Our planet is revolving around the sun because it is following a straight line which the mass of the sun has bent. When we look at distant galaxies, their image is physically curved because the mass of a galaxy between them and us bends the space through which their light travels. How else do you explain this?

I explain it simply by gravity?
All matter in the universe is attracted to all other forms. We give this attraction the name gravity. The greater the matters density the greater the force of attraction it applies to other matter. It does not exist just for huge objects though, you can calculate the force that you have on someone you sit next to on a bench for example, it is just not strong enough to be noticeable. So yes, the planet is falling in a straight line toward the strongest force of attraction which is the sun. Just like the moon is falling in a straight line toward the Earth. If the Earth was stationary the moon would crash into it. However the Earth is always moving, just like the sun is always moving.

Also I would say that I explain that an image of a distant galaxy is curved because the force of gravity affects light. That is why it "curves" around planets. The particles within the space are being affected, not the space I think.

Reach 07-16-2009 10:55 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Alrighty - It isn't my job to give you a physics lesson. I see insanefreddy has tried. I'm replying one more time to your technical errors, and after that I refuse to continue to correct you.

Quote:

Okay so what you are saying is that light travels in straight lines that bend around areas that "space bends." OR light bends around things with a strong force of gravity. Why do you think it takes an extraordinary mass? *Space* isn't bending, the particles around the object are just being drawn toward that massive object. The "classic example" of a black hole is just an object that is so dense that its gravitational pull is so strong that light cannot escape. Space doesn't "bend." It is the particles within that space that are being drawn toward something.
No.

Light being unable to escape has little to nothing to do with the 'pull'. This has nothing to do with escape velocities we see here on Earth.

Light can't escape the event horizon of a black hole because space beyond that point actually curves back onto itself. That is, mathematically, every straight line at every point within the event horizon of a black hole leads back into the black hole.

Quote:

It makes much more sense that the big bang was a point that all of the matter of the universe was condensed to a single point due to a massive black hole. At such a point "space" would have been inconsequential because matter would have only been occupying one point. Then an energy build up could have caused the black hole to explode and the matter that was trapped within to be released throughout space. Thus giving "birth" to space and matter (which were really there all along).
Well, I'm glad you're not a physicist. What makes sense to you or anyone else is so utterly meaningless. You rely on mathematics, theory generating and theory testing through collecting data to come to your conclusions, and some times the truth is counter intuitive. That's the way it is.

Quote:

I think it is you that does not understand this experiment, you and pretty much everyone else. I am curious, what exactly do you think space is? Is space really a malleable thing that can be distorted? Or is it just a medium which can be occupied by matter?

For space to be distorted it has to be made up of something, meaning it would have to be composed of some type of matter. By traveling do you really think you are distorting space, or just the molecules that exist within it? Clearly it does involve 'forces' per say because the speed which induces the "distortion" is causing a force.
Great, thank you so much for telling me why I don't understand the experiment, and then giving be absolutely no reason as to why I misunderstand the experiment. You didn't address any of my points, all of which are correct to begin with. Stop wasting my time. Address my actual points or there is no point in having this discussion.

richhhhhard 07-16-2009 01:11 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3148609)
Alrighty - It isn't my job to give you a physics lesson. I see insanefreddy has tried. I'm replying one more time to your technical errors, and after that I refuse to continue to correct you.



No.

Light being unable to escape has little to nothing to do with the 'pull'. This has nothing to do with escape velocities we see here on Earth.

Light can't escape the event horizon of a black hole because space beyond that point actually curves back onto itself. That is, mathematically, every straight line at every point within the event horizon of a black hole leads back into the black hole.



Well, I'm glad you're not a physicist. What makes sense to you or anyone else is so utterly meaningless. You rely on mathematics, theory generating and theory testing through collecting data to come to your conclusions, and some times the truth is counter intuitive. That's the way it is.



Great, thank you so much for telling me why I don't understand the experiment, and then giving be absolutely no reason as to why I misunderstand the experiment. You didn't address any of my points, all of which are correct to begin with. Stop wasting my time. Address my actual points or there is no point in having this discussion.

I really am not a physicist. I took four science classes last semester, I do fine with Biology and Chemistry, but something about Physics just bothers me. It seemed to me the whole time that they were going out of their way to make simple things complicated. Is the universe really so complicated?

Neither of you will give me a definition of space though. If it is curving and bending and warping it has to be made out of something. What about a massive object is causing space to bend?
Also, what do you think light is? It has to in some way be a form of energy or matter.

Sorry if I am wasting your time, but if you will just answer these questions than I will be satisfied.

SM0K3D_0UT 07-16-2009 03:30 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by richhhhhard (Post 3148722)
I really am not a physicist. I took four science classes last semester, I do fine with Biology and Chemistry, but something about Physics just bothers me. It seemed to me the whole time that they were going out of their way to make simple things complicated. Is the universe really so complicated?

Neither of you will give me a definition of space though. If it is curving and bending and warping it has to be made out of something. What about a massive object is causing space to bend?
Also, what do you think light is? It has to in some way be a form of energy or matter.

Sorry if I am wasting your time, but if you will just answer these questions than I will be satisfied.

Space, and the universe, is full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of EM radiation, from low RF to gamma. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the 'voids' that have been identified.

In fact, and because the universe is regarded as being the same everywhere, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber's paradox about infinite quantities etc. Mass is just a form of Energy. Hence E = mc^2..A black hole is a lot of Mass (or Energy). Therefore it bends space a lot....In fact a black hole doesn't have anthing else except mass, angular momentum and charge. That's all it is.

Light continues to circle around the black hole in what is called the Schwartchild radius before disappearing into the event horizon. This is how that scientists are said to find the black holes; they find the bright circles with a black hole in it. light cannot escape a black hole because the velocity needed to escape the gravitation pull of a celestial body of a black hole exceeds the speed of light.

insanefreddy926 07-16-2009 07:11 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

I really am not a physicist. I took four science classes last semester, I do fine with Biology and Chemistry, but something about Physics just bothers me. It seemed to me the whole time that they were going out of their way to make simple things complicated. Is the universe really so complicated?

Neither of you will give me a definition of space though. If it is curving and bending and warping it has to be made out of something. What about a massive object is causing space to bend?
Also, what do you think light is? It has to in some way be a form of energy or matter.

Sorry if I am wasting your time, but if you will just answer these questions than I will be satisfied.
When we talk about space, we actually are talking about space-time. All it is, is the four-dimensional (3 spatial, 1 temporal) manifold in which everything resides and occurs. It isn't really "made out" of anything. It is a property of the universe, and the presence of matter affects that property.

richhhhhard 07-16-2009 08:09 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Sigh.
Well I suppose this is just not something I will ever be able to understand.
I know it doesn't matter cause it really doesn't affect you guys, but there is a reason I have been thinking so much about stuff like this.
A few months ago I was at my friends apartment and I stood up and walked into the kitchen and everything just got kind of hazy. You know the feeling you get when you stand up too fast? I thought that is what it was but I started shaking and when my vision came back I couldn't remember who I was or where I was or why I was there for a few minutes. I thought maybe it was just my diet or sleeping habits (I am in college so both are pretty bad) but it kept happening no matter how I ate or how much sleep I got. Finally one time that it happened I woke up in the hospital. My mom says that I collapsed on the staircase, but I don't remember.

How are you supposed to make sense of something like this when you still feel like a little kid? They don't even know what the problem is. They think something is causing my brain to swell. It's not cancer, it's not a tumor, my brain is just swelling bigger than there is room for in my skull.

I gave up on religion a long time ago, so that is why I have been thinking about stuff like this so much. I am supposed to be getting married at this age, starting a family, finishing school. My parents are supposed to be picking out toys for their grandchildren not trying to figure out how to pay for my funeral. This is s*** I should be seeing on a TV show, not experiencing in real life.

It made it easier to simplify everything. To think that everything was easier to understand than I had always thought. I guess nothing is easy, or simple, in this world though. There will always be things more complex than I am able to understand. This is probably the last time I will be on here because it is making me really sad.

Thanks everyone though, for explaining things and sharing your thoughts. Oh, and I don't want your sympathy. Just don't take time for granted.

insanefreddy926 07-16-2009 08:44 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by richhhhhard (Post 3149150)
Sigh.
Well I suppose this is just not something I will ever be able to understand.
I know it doesn't matter cause it really doesn't affect you guys, but there is a reason I have been thinking so much about stuff like this.
A few months ago I was at my friends apartment and I stood up and walked into the kitchen and everything just got kind of hazy. You know the feeling you get when you stand up too fast? I thought that is what it was but I started shaking and when my vision came back I couldn't remember who I was or where I was or why I was there for a few minutes. I thought maybe it was just my diet or sleeping habits (I am in college so both are pretty bad) but it kept happening no matter how I ate or how much sleep I got. Finally one time that it happened I woke up in the hospital. My mom says that I collapsed on the staircase, but I don't remember.

How are you supposed to make sense of something like this when you still feel like a little kid? They don't even know what the problem is. They think something is causing my brain to swell. It's not cancer, it's not a tumor, my brain is just swelling bigger than there is room for in my skull.

I gave up on religion a long time ago, so that is why I have been thinking about stuff like this so much. I am supposed to be getting married at this age, starting a family, finishing school. My parents are supposed to be picking out toys for their grandchildren not trying to figure out how to pay for my funeral. This is s*** I should be seeing on a TV show, not experiencing in real life.

It made it easier to simplify everything. To think that everything was easier to understand than I had always thought. I guess nothing is easy, or simple, in this world though. There will always be things more complex than I am able to understand. This is probably the last time I will be on here because it is making me really sad.

Thanks everyone though, for explaining things and sharing your thoughts. Oh, and I don't want your sympathy. Just don't take time for granted.

Well, here's a response, if you ever go back on:

Since you don't want any sympathy, I won't show it (thought it's there). But you can't go on with that outlook. It's true, there will always be more complex things, and nobody, ever, will truly understand everything there is. But that's the beauty of it isn't it? That no matter how much you know, there's always more out there, waiting to be discovered. But what we're doing here, trying to understand the universe, the laws which govern it and it's physics.... It's absolutely nothing compared to the human nature and the greater, more meaningful truths out there, which transcend understanding, and which are really simple yet infinitely complex at the same time. Those kind of things are the real truths, and the ones we should really be trying to figure out.

So don't let this stop you from pursuing your interests and doing what you like. And please don't let it stop you from coming to the FFR community.

richhhhhard 07-16-2009 10:35 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Words, words, words.
You fools. Don't you see?
I am dead.
All I ever wanted was to receive my letter from Hogwarts. I know I got one, my mom just probably hid it, that b****.
Who does that?
But did Hagrid come knock down my F****ING door>?? NO.
Did they send ME 10,000 more?
NO.
All because I didnt kill the 'he who must not be named' and send the magical world into a period of peace?
that is F****ING BULL S***.
Discrimination if you ask me, but what do you care?
No,
forget about me,
for this is the way that it must be.
If it must be so, then let it be so.

dsliscoo 07-17-2009 02:19 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3148609)
Light being unable to escape has little to nothing to do with the 'pull'. This has nothing to do with escape velocities we see here on Earth.

Light can't escape the event horizon of a black hole because space beyond that point actually curves back onto itself. That is, mathematically, every straight line at every point within the event horizon of a black hole leads back into the black hole.
1

I had a question on this idea. Blackholes have X-ray/Gamma Waves coming off of them. Does that theory you support say these are reflection off the black hole, generated by the black hole or something else?

Cavernio 07-21-2009 12:20 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Rich, I suggest that if you don't understand the concept of einstein's theory of relativity go somewhere to learn about it. Scientific experiments have given us a wholly different view of 'time' than what the original thread talks about. The first few chapters of Faster than the Speed of Light by Joao Magueijo, I found are excellent in the basic understanding of currect physics which highschool just doesn't teach you. Time and space are perceptions, yes, but they follow laws which we figure out through observation and mass. Having non-physicists who aren't teachers who are trying to explain stuff to you is clearly not working, because they aren't physics teachers.

Lamoc 08-2-2009 03:31 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
I got bored with the first post of reading and i'm just going to give my input on time.

Time isn't real. Sure we look at time and see its 11:00PM or so, but that's something we created. If we said no and the clock will never move from 11:00PM, the world will still rotate and the sun will still burn. Time was made by man to keep an accurate location in where they are perceiving to the day. We aren't moving in time. Time is moving around us, like the sundial.

Going into more basic things; if the sundial/watch/clock was never created, we would still go about our average day and be stationary. Plants wouldn't stop growing and the sun wouldn't stop burning.

devonin 08-2-2009 11:07 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Time was made by man to keep an accurate location in where they are perceiving to the day.
While we certainly invented the system of measurement (determining the length of a second, a minute, an hour etc) what is it measuring?

We invented the system for describing the length of objects, and arbitrarily created what a foot is, a meter, an inch, a mile, but you can't deny that length IS A THING THAT EXISTS even if we subjectively decided how to describe it.

Isn't the same thing occuring just as clearly with time? We devised, on our own, what the system of measurement is and how it works, but what is it measuring?

Reach 08-2-2009 11:17 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3171822)
While we certainly invented the system of measurement (determining the length of a second, a minute, an hour etc) what is it measuring?

We invented the system for describing the length of objects, and arbitrarily created what a foot is, a meter, an inch, a mile, but you can't deny that length IS A THING THAT EXISTS even if we subjectively decided how to describe it.

Isn't the same thing occuring just as clearly with time? We devised, on our own, what the system of measurement is and how it works, but what is it measuring?

Excellent points. I keep hearing this lately - that time doesn't exist - but nobody is ever willing to provide me with a framework of a universe that could possibly function without some variable time to account for the differentiation we see between one event that occurs, and another. People just think of time as what is measured by a clock, but you're absolutely right, that's not really what it is.

We just assume that this is the natural state of the universe by consequence of the fact that we are here, but we could take away time and see quite easily that the universe wouldn't exist...likewise the same with length, width etc.

Lamoc, if you'd care and still believe that time isn't real, describe how the universe could function in the absence of any physical way of differentiating between one quantum event and another - in layman's terms every event that can occur does occur, all simultaneously. This is essentially what happens to space and time right before the Big Bang...as space collapses into something resembling a singularity, time is also broken down (Because time is a component of space, as I described to Rich earlier), and as such events at that point cannot be differentiated. They occur on the quantum level without reason simultaneously.

This is part of the reason why physicists have no idea what happened prior to the big bang - none of our equations are capable of describing what happens at this point. Einsteins equations give non real answers, and other equations simply don't work at all because the components of space and time, normally present, disappear entirely.

You'll see you cannot describe the universe without time. It won't make any sense at all. Likewise you wouldn't be able to describe a universe where objects had no measurable size. It's a ridiculous proposition. Things obviously have measurable size, and this is a consequence of space. The same thing applies to time. All things have measurable time. If you want to argue otherwise, well, you're going against the grain in physics and any scientist would suggest you provide some research to back up your ideas :P

richy: 08-2-2009 10:19 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3171822)
but you can't deny that length IS A THING THAT EXISTS

Okay, let me begin this by saying that I completely disagree with this statement. Length is not a "thing" at all. It is a measurement of a "thing."

Like I said somewhere in one of these threads, a mile doesn't "exist" without land to measure and an ounce doesn't "exist" without matter to measure. If you think of time like that, time doesn't "exist" either without something to measure. To me it seems like just a way to tell a change from one configuration of all the matter in the universe at a given point in "time" from previous and future states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3171838)
Excellent points. I keep hearing this lately - that time doesn't exist - but nobody is ever willing to provide me with a framework of a universe that could possibly function without some variable time to account for the differentiation we see between one event that occurs, and another. People just think of time as what is measured by a clock, but you're absolutely right, that's not really what it is.

We just assume that this is the natural state of the universe by consequence of the fact that we are here, but we could take away time and see quite easily that the universe wouldn't exist...likewise the same with length, width etc.

Lamoc, if you'd care and still believe that time isn't real, describe how the universe could function in the absence of any physical way of differentiating between one quantum event and another - in layman's terms every event that can occur does occur, all simultaneously. This is essentially what happens to space and time right before the Big Bang...as space collapses into something resembling a singularity, time is also broken down (Because time is a component of space, as I described to Rich earlier), and as such events at that point cannot be differentiated. They occur on the quantum level without reason simultaneously.

This is part of the reason why physicists have no idea what happened prior to the big bang - none of our equations are capable of describing what happens at this point. Einsteins equations give non real answers, and other equations simply don't work at all because the components of space and time, normally present, disappear entirely.

You'll see you cannot describe the universe without time. It won't make any sense at all. Likewise you wouldn't be able to describe a universe where objects had no measurable size. It's a ridiculous proposition. Things obviously have measurable size, and this is a consequence of space. The same thing applies to time. All things have measurable time. If you want to argue otherwise, well, you're going against the grain in physics and any scientist would suggest you provide some research to back up your ideas :P

Reach, you have shown that you know a lot more about physics than I do, but I hate physics. After I finish physics 2 this coming semester I will be done with physics for good and I am really happy about that. Anyway, I know this argument is seemingly one based on physics principles, but the more I have thought about it the more I think it is kind of a ridiculous thread. Either the answer is "we don't know the answer" or a complex theory in physics that may or may not be true, which is a better answer in my opinion because even though it is most likely wrong (in my opinion), it is still definitely more likely to be the answer than "we don't know the answer."

All I know though is that the big bang sure as hell was not the *beginning*, even if things happened simultaneously before the big bang or whatever you were saying (which would sort of make sense if there was only energy and no matter) I think that everything we can see or touch in this universe has *always* existed. If that is true it will *always* exist. There was no beginning. There will be no end. Trying to find out all the details to something of that nature seems foolish. That being said, I know we will always seek the answers, or the "truth," and I am sure we will find out a *lot* more than we know now. I don't know, I think this is the end of the argument for me though.

Good luck finding the answers, if you ever do send me a pm or something.

devonin 08-3-2009 11:12 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Length is not a "thing" at all. It is a measurement of a "thing."
that exists.

richy: 08-5-2009 03:04 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3173280)
that exists.

What is your point?
Time is a measurement of change of something that exists, just like length is a measurement of something that exists. Independently length or time do not exist. That is the way I see it. Take away the existing "things" and suddenly length and time are meaningless. All I am saying is that I do not think that time is something that is independently a malleable thing that exists on its own. It is just a measurement.

devonin 08-5-2009 03:06 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
But it is a measurement OF SOMETHING. That something does exist. So you say "Time" is just the system of measurement we invented to measure ....what? What is the thing called that 'time' measures? Is that not, perhaps, also "time" ?

StyleKrong 08-5-2009 06:46 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Existence and time go hand in hand... time is basically the river and existence is a leaf being forced constantly down that river. Time is what forces change, and existence is all about things changing.

VulcanRevenge 08-6-2009 01:49 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
I think Richy is just trying to say simply that the measurement of time is something we human beings created, and it is! If we found another sentient species somewhere in the universe they probably define time completely differently. I think that's what Devonin is trying to say, is that even though we define it however we want, it's still something that exists (it's something that other species would have to acknowledge). I completely agree with that because time is a measurement of change, but it can be warped and altered to create a different effect (i.e. effects on objects going the speed of light).

Cavernio 08-6-2009 01:50 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
"Independently length or time do not exist."
Matter doesn't exist without energy, so that independent of energy, matter does not exist. Your logic concludes that matter doesn't exist.

cooke71892 08-13-2009 05:33 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
well, i believe that time is nothing more than our perception of the passage of events as our own consciousness passes over and through them. in truth, time is nothing but the speed of light that each of us personally manifests in our minds. because we all move at the speed of light, and to "time travel" is to get somewhere before your image, so therefore we consider faster than light travel to be time traveling. In truth, though, we have done nothing more than beat our image.

Reach 08-13-2009 09:57 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Our consciousness passes through events? What does this mean?

How is time the speed of light we manifest in our minds? Explain. Also, how is the speed of light something manifested in our minds when it is a physical, and not a mental phenomenon?

How do we all move at the speed of light? Last time I checked, there are some major physical problems with any object having measurable mass reaching a velocity of c.


Anyway, if you haven't gotten the picture yet, your post doesn't make any sense, so I think you've got some explaining to do.

ledwix 08-14-2009 05:30 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cooke71892 (Post 3187995)
well, i believe that time is nothing more than our perception of the passage of events as our own consciousness passes over and through them.

Time, however, has well documented physical relations to the world and is part of an even more fundamental physicality. (spacetime) Just as the image of a rabbit isn't the rabbit itself, our perception of passage isn't the passage (time) itself.

Quote:

in truth, time is nothing but the speed of light that each of us personally manifests in our minds. because we all move at the speed of light,
Time isn't the speed of light; more accurately, but maybe still not very accurately, you could say that we travel through spacetime at the speed of light, and since we don't usually experience relativistic speeds, we normally travel through time at about the speed of light.

Quote:

to "time travel" is to get somewhere before your image, so therefore we consider faster than light travel to be time traveling. In truth, though, we have done nothing more than beat our image.
Time travel is possible without exceeding the speed of light. We can get to the future without "beating our image." But really, study the theory of relativity; you will learn that you can never beat your image, because no object can be observed to be traveling fast enough to beat its image.

korny 08-14-2009 05:34 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Care to elaborate on what makes you so certain time travel is possible without it being proven?

ledwix 08-14-2009 05:37 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Are you referring to my claim on time travel or his, or both?

korny 08-14-2009 06:36 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Yours. I would've quoted you but wii internet can be dumb.

devonin 08-14-2009 08:25 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Get in a spaceship, travel away from the earth at some fraction of C, turn around, come back at some fraction of C. More time will have passed for those on earth than for you. You will have travelled into the future. 5 years go by for you, 50 go by for everyone else.

korny 08-14-2009 09:04 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
I guess I should have elaborated clearer. Traveling -back- in time was what I thought he was referring to.

devonin 08-14-2009 10:46 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by korny (Post 3188998)
I guess I should have elaborated clearer. Traveling -back- in time was what I thought he was referring to.

Quote:

Time travel is possible without exceeding the speed of light. We can get to the future without "beating our image."
Yeah, pretty sure time travel to the past isn't really feasible by science as we know it (unless....can we slingshot around the sun?)

Reach 08-14-2009 10:59 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Well yes Devonin, it is most likely that time travel into the past isn't possible. As I pointed out earlier, Space can be equated to time, because time is a property of space, so if you wanted to travel back in time you'd have to reverse space, and I'm not sure this makes sense to anyone here. I mean, it's the same reason why if you went into the future using the method you described, you aren't coming back.

Quote:

Time travel is possible without exceeding the speed of light. We can get to the future without "beating our image." But really, study the theory of relativity; you will learn that you can never beat your image, because no object can be observed to be traveling fast enough to beat its image.
You can beat your image to a destination, actually, if I recall correctly, using quantum entanglement techniques. Photons can be blasted through cesium gas tubes, and those photons appear to reach the end of the tube before even leaving the start, with measured velocities of more than 300 c.

However, none of the photon packets ever actually travel faster than the speed of light. No time travel occurs. The reason we observe this effect is because of quantum effects at the level of the photon, distorting it's behavior in the cesium medium. The phase velocites never exceed c, though. Very cool 8)

cooke71892 08-15-2009 02:41 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
well, what is heat?? heat is light in the infrared spectrum,meaning, that we, humans emit photons. and photons are sub-atomic particles sped up to the speed of light. yes, they gain infinite mass,but in doing so they become light, and when they vibrated they create what we call heat. and what i mean when i say we manifest it, i mean simply that time is the passage of events. we put a label on it, we try to measure it, time is nothing more than a word we made up. allit represents is the passage of micro events everyday through our five senses.

cooke71892 08-15-2009 02:45 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
well, what i meant when i said that was that the general consensus of time travel is nothing more than beating your image. and yes, obviously it can't be recorded, because you can only record the image. the closest thing we could get to time travelling is going out on a spaceship at sub-light-speed, then turning around. you would arrive some time in the future at a later period than the time you spent on the ship. sorry, i didn't think i would run into a challenge :)

stargroup 09-3-2009 01:15 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
I find it fascinating that some people here are actually trying to argue against the laws of physics.

Also, since I am inexperienced and probably stupid I'll give my two bits based off of my experiences and observations. If I'm wrong someone correct me ASAP.

Time travel to the past is not feasible (and barely plausible) because it contradicts the definition of time. In order for time travel to be possible, we have to assume that there are 3 dimensions of time (imagine a timeline as 1 dimension of time), or else there is no way to jump from one point to another. However, we can bend time slightly to make it appear as if we were traveling into the future. This is definitely plausible.

EDIT: wow I should've read the freaking posts right before me all I did was state was already said wonderful

Izzy 09-3-2009 01:29 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
The first three dimensions don't really exist let alone an actual dimension of time. Just because as people we claim an object to have a height and a width doesn't mean that the object actually holds that property outside of our own understanding of what height and width should be.

cooke71892 09-6-2009 02:23 AM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
outside our understanding is something we will never understand. and why doesn't it?? even if you draw a dot on a blackboard it still has the weight if the chalk dust, and in the space time continuim it holds a minute width and length. if not then there would be absolutely nothing, and if that were the case, this conversation also would never have happened.

Izzy 09-8-2009 08:54 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
Length and width aren't actually things beyond our own definitions of them.

cooke71892 10-14-2009 10:25 PM

Re: Time (and existence)
 
they are in quantum terms. you see, length is but what we make it, it is the total mass of a line going any given distance throughout space-time. i say mass because the longer the line, the heavier


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution