The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

This documentary challenges our traditional questions about time such as; does it flow in one direction or does it flow at all? Does everyone experience the same now? Is time travel possible? Will time come to an end?
‪
astronomy, space, physics, time, science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Our perception of time is based on pacer cells within the human and animal brain. These cells act like the ticks of a clock, and are the brain's base reference for extrapolation and anticipation in time. Our theories of time have a connection to a unconscious projection of how the brain and natural mind deals with time.

One of the problems with concept of space-time is connected to the observation that clocks orbiting the earth have been shown to lose time. However, these same clocks do not lose space or size. In other words, once the clocks reach the earth for comparison, space-time time shows it had a discontinuity, since only changes in time are permanent. Space is totally reversible and reflects the new reference, only.

The idea of space-time being integrated is based on the idea of relative references that never meet. In this scenario there is no preferred reference. If they meet there is a preferred reference based on only one reference has a permanent time change. That main stream assumption of no preferred reference has been disproven by space clocks, but this lingers on because of a poor understanding of time. For time remain a permanent change, time needs to contain potential that is variable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No there isn't.

It's not an "assumption" nor has it been "disproven".

Word salad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain why the clock show a permanent change in time, but the size/space occupied the clock does not change? Rational arguments like hog wash are not scientific. The status quo can't depend on censor, alone, but has the highest burden of proof, unless it is wrong and being propped up.

Say we use an hour glass with sand orbiting the earth as the clock. Again time is observed to slow in this clock, when we measure this in the lab. This means there is more sand in the space hour glass, than in the earth hour glass; time slowed, even though both are the same size in the lab. One has more potential energy in the extra sand.

The mistake that is made is no preferred reference is assumed in situations where reference never meet. This allows one to assume anything. But the clock slowing down shows a real tangible change but only in one of the two references. Once they meet the illusion was no longer valid, but everyone seemed to miss this, except me.

Since distance or size of the clocks remain the same, when they meet, this could explain the basis for the no preferred reference assumption. There is no preferred reference in distance or space, but there is a preferred reference in time. Does this means space is fixed but space-time changes due to time potential; motion blur.

 

And again you show - completely - that you don't understand the basics of what you're talking about.
The clock from space shows a change from the viewpoint of the Earth-based one. And the Earth-based clock shows a change when viewed from the point of the "space clock".
Neither is "the real time" - thus there is no "preferred reference".

No it doesn't.
Each clock shows a change when viewed by the other.
Your mistake here is to assume (something you persist in accusing others of) that Earth's frame (reference) is somehow the "real" one.

And wrong again.
You the only one to notice that the "illusion is no valid" because you're clueless.

And wrong again.

 

Brian Greene is the probably the last person I'd ask about the subject. His brain is too rotted with traversable wormholes, reactionless and warp drives, perpetual motion machines and multiverses to offer a cogent response or explanation of how anything works. He should have given it up with The Last Mimsy.

"Does time flow in one direction or does it flow at all?"

Does energy propagate? Would you be able to tell the difference if instead of progressing outward from its source and spreading, it, instead flowed toward the source and concentrated?

It flows. It flows in from present to future. Case closed.

"Does everyone experience the same (instant of) now?"

Yes they do. It's because of entanglement. Your body contains over 10^24 pairs of entangled electrons, each one of them reaching across quantum fields faster than the speed of light to its entangled counterpart. Without entanglement, you, or even those electrons, would not exist at all.

"Is time travel possible?"

Only from the present to the future, which proceeds at different rates depending on state of relative motion or the presence of gravitational fields. Time travel to the past, or matter or energy propagation exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum is impossible.

Is discussing the subject of time on any forum on the internet possible?

Like other threads about time, I predict this one will run aground, and won't require very much "time" in order to do so. So the answer, evidently, is no. Prove me wrong.

 

A nice illustration of what I name mysticism in modern mainstream physics.

Instead of presenting all this philosophical considerations as what they are, philosophical speculation not very much related with physics, the physicists who make such speculations are presented as a sort of magicians who are able to understand the deep Nature of Time, as being something different from common sense tells us.

 

The interpretations of these physicists are taken to fit into the general "eternalism" slot in philosophy of time, which had its genesis with early, pre-Socratic philosophers like Parmenides. But "time" existing as a block or descriptively express-able as some framework of coordinates is not what eternalism rejects; only the "flow" from moment to moment (supposed slice to slice). Which is to say, for the contemporary eternalist, what speculation-free "all scientists agree with me" item could be submitted for globally transiting from one slice of the universe's huge worldline "worm" to the next slice so as to engender a cosmic-wide, co-ordered matching flux devoid of relational problems?

Presentism ("nowism") is the commonsense view of the passage of time being independent of cognition / experience (the latter in turn resulting from the web of connections in the worldline of one's extended brain slash body organization). IOW, presentism is a belief that slightly changed versions of the universe are literally and neatly coming in and out of being in a succession of distinct, global-spanning moments. Presentism eliminates a need for a moving agency in a "block-time" by discarding the block. But then the "flow" is apparently / ironically eliminated as well since there is no framework of existing moments to be transiting to. Just a continuing process of one state of the universe being replaced by another. Advocates of rival eternalism might consider presentism somewhat analoguous to ancient folk accepting the appearance of the Earth being flat at face-value (that is, minus any reflective thought and experiment).

The possibilism or "growing block-universe" view is a compromise between eternalism and presentism, where the past exists and "now" only fleetingly exists, but not the future. A consciousness-independent "flow" to time thus results from more cosmic "being" constantly added to the past. Sean Carroll, at least, has interpreted Lee Smolin's position in "Time Reborn" as that of possibilism. Which would make Lee Smolin part of a tiny minority of "physicists" who go against the grain of an eternalist stance ("physicists" referring to those scientists who have actually dealt with or studied Einstein's and others' work enough to apprehend the consequences that seem to fall out of such).

Whereas the eternalism (block-universe) view itself, of course, regards "[...] the apparent 'flow' of time from past to future [...as...] indeed an illusion, even if the time coordinate in our equations is perfectly real. There is an apparent asymmetry between the past and future (many such asymmetries, really), but that can be traced to the simple fact that the entropy of the universe was very low near the Big Bang — the Past Hypothesis. That’s an empirical feature of the configuration of stuff in the universe, not a defining property of the nature of time itself. Personally, I find the eternalist block-universe view to be perfectly acceptable, so I think that these folks [Smolin, etc] are working hard to tackle a problem that has already been solved. There are more than enough problems that haven’t been solved to occupy my life for the rest of its natural span of time (as it were), so I’m going to concentrate on those. But who knows? If someone could follow this trail and be led to a truly revolutionary and successful picture of how the universe works, that would be pretty awesome." --Sean Carroll, from "Preposterous Universe" blog, "The Reality of Time".

A fourth view of time might even be posited, depending on how Julian Barbour's publication "The End of Time" is to be interpreted. It perhaps embraces a stratified manifold model composed of variable (parallel) universe states which start / range from simple to increasingly complex (maybe like an enlarging pyramind of diverse universe states, with the stage before the Big Bang being the "point" at the "top"). In some kind of quantum darwinism competition of the fittest for which state gets to be the next "now", the most applicable states "battle" for that fully "real" status. For Barbour, time does not exist in the sense of there being a single, determined path as a framework; but not necessarily in the sense of lacking any structure of quasi-existential status at all. So it's neither presentism nor possibilism, since a kind of undetermined "future" of multiverse opportunity is featured (plus the "past" as a specific trail is not retained as in possibilism; all possible "former" states of the universe are retained without the special existence status of Barbour's competitively fickle, migrating "now").

 

Do you pretend to be better than Brian Greene? Get off the gas, bro.

No, case open. Go back to Richard Feynman and his explanations about cloud chamber phenomena.

So you are telling us relativity is a crock?

And what happens to the particles that "recoil into the past" in Feynman's diagrams? When was this settled ("case closed") or did I miss it?

As long as the worst trolls stay away, there should be no problem.

 

No, only that relativity is just the beginning

You can't tell if a particle has "recoiled into the past" unless you understand what is happening on the INSIDE of a particle. What it is that causes energy to become bound into a particle in the first place is something Feynman and QED never gets around to explaining. Particles of matter themselves, if stable, are without time or decay, but their trajectories and energies beyond the frame in which time is frozen is comparable in many respects to the changes in the energies and wavelengths of varieties of unbound energy.

A particle that "recoils into the past" demonstrates that event by becoming pairs of photon energy. Time essentially does not exist inside the particle while the energy is bound, so that outcome (reverting to energy pairs, or to other particles and then energy pairs) is unavoidable should the arrow of time actually run in reverse on the INSIDE of a particle. There is no physical reason we should ever expect that time dilation for bound energy inside of a particle of matter is the same as it is for unbound energy outside of it. This is an elementary lesson of relativity.

You are proving my prediction. Get off my gas. I've given therapy to people whose entire belief system collapsed and became suicidal after watching Brian Greene episodes of NOVA. I can't stand to watch any of them. The Last Mimsy (a "B" scifi movie) was the best entertainment he ever made, and also his most scientifically credible dramatic work.

 

Havn't watched the doco as yet but will certainly later on today and comment on.
[1]Time is real...Time stops everything from happening together. Space is real.....Space stops everything from being together.
They both exist, and although not a physical entity one can grab with your hand, they exist and are experienced by all.
The Interesting probable question, is is time fundamental?
In asking that, we should realize that time [as we know it] started at the BB, along with the evolution of space [as we know it] Henceforth to be known as spacetime.
[2]Time travel is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR, in fact GR gives solutions as to how it maybe achieved.
[3]There is no universal now, as Aid has said, and to say there is, is totally wrong in light of what we know.. The only relevant constant is "c"


Here is a link with Sean Carroll discussing time.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

Here's another couple by Kip Thorne....



and finally Carl Sagan
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html
"Time travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws of nature."

 

I like Sagan's take:

"It might be that you can build a time machine to go into the future, but not into the past."

And thanks to you, paddo, I can now enjoy Kip Thorne again. He's actually easier to watch than Greene. Can't thank you enough.

At least one of Thorne's predictions (exotic matter) eventually was observed. That's more than enough to justify a lifetime of wild speculation, and then some. More than that, some of his other speculations are really not all that bad. I may have just used one.

Greene makes no new predictions; just gives us graphics of aliens riding bicycles.

 

Yes, like a voice in the wilderness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not really sure what it is with you and Dansharwen.
Is it the fact that these notable physicists, which you both derisively decry with remarks such as "pop science presenters" or such, are there due to their achievements, and are qualified, and are recognised in academia as giants in their field. Is it envy, jealousy and revenge that these notables have achieved something, while you pair linger forever in oblivion on a minor science forum.

Understandable why you both haunt this place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can't read his books either. Yes, I did try.

 

The question was whether every "now" is contemporaneous to all observers. Relativity says "no".

Typically the word "particle" means "point-like" for which there is no concept of "inside". Further, particles are subject to quantum-world effects, something Brian Greene elaborates on. But this is not connected to the Feynman diagrams and what they were addressing.

The question has to do with the collision of two particles, only one of which is travelling in real time.

The frame in which time is frozen? And the rest of that sentence makes no sense.

Uh... the question is whether there such a thing as a collision between particles travelling in opposite senses on the timeline. If so, then this is the place to look for answers to the thread. I see no relevance to the photon here.

Cite?

Cite?

Yikes.

 

Time is the ordering of the movement of objects in space. In three dimensions.

 

It says nothing of the sort. Quantum entanglement was known to Einstein, even though it is not currently considered a part of relativity theory. It should be, because the "now" of entanglement is the same to all observers. Furthermore, this is as invariant as the speed of light. To be invariant, EVEN c must have a counterpart that is stationary in QFT. The aether is not a candidate for this relation.

You are correct as far as QFT currently goes. The Ehrenfest paradox was resolved (by me) in another thread. An offshoot of this resolution is that time dilation is infinite for the energy that is bound inside of a particle of matter. ANY particle of matter. Just as it almost is for a photon traveling at c in a vacuum.

All matter (and antimatter) is created from energy events involving photons of slightly higher energy than the combined masses. Somehow, this idea has been forgotten. But if time is frozen in a particle RIGHT NOW, then in order for it to travel backwards in time, it must revert to energy, even if that occurred 13.7 billion years ago, it will happen in the wink of an eye if the reversal of time is successful.

The answers for both of your Cite? questions is relativity theory. I'm not making this stuff up.

We don't have very much further to go.

 

Greene's aiien at the other end of the universe riding a bicycle AWAY from the Milky Way will NEVER see anything from our distant past. He's riding his bicycle the WRONG way.

What kind of stupid version of science, or anything else is that supposed to represent? That isn't relativity theory.