Just to clear things up a bit Billy, that wasn't my quote...that was from a link. Apologies, if I'm failing to make the distinction between mine and other linked quotes clear enough.
I agree with you, excepting the phrase "single entity of endless time" which makes the concept of time as measurable quantity meaningless. (I draw here from a statement by a respected scientist, that any equation which results in infinity is by definition impermissible and remains @ 0) However I am fully agreed with the concept of "timing" as a measurement of duration of an event in space. This is why we now are able to measure the duration (timing) of many events in space and fundamentally associate the mathematical accounting of "time of duration" with the observable dynamic chronologies occurring in and of space. Beyond our event horizons of the Universe, and perhaps in some Supermassive Black Holes the concept of timing the duration of a specific event beyond these event horizons becomes moot. IMO, the closest we can come to naming a causal and permissive condition can only be expressed as a mathematically and probalistically implied timeless (0 state) potential before an (any) event is allowed to become manifest, and provides an opportunity for "timing" that manifestation. In our universe time began along with the formation and evolution of physical space forming a dynamic single entity named "spacetime", rather than an endless static and unchanging 0 state. And I identify this as a "timeless permissive condition" rather than a "condition of infinite duration". Perhaps it is just a semantic distinction..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or you could consider that before the Big bang, that is dimension one, a dimension of unknown quantities, unknown properties and values. Questionable whether dark or light, but almost of certainty of at least particles and matter. Humanity - dimension 2, living within dimension 1, and timing the visual existence. Dimension 3- Multi-dimensional , dimensions 2, inside of dimension 1.
If I understand Bohm from several narrative accounts, he saw four fundamental conditions, leading to expression in Reality. Below is quote (note that it begins with Reality (as we know it) which Bohm named the Explicate Order, and works backward to a zero state condition or "infinite zero point energy", your "dimension one": I am confident that the term "insight intelligence" is made in context of the behavior of "energetic virtual particles" in a zero state equilibrium (also dubbed "quantum foam"). Physical particles could not yet exist in that environment. They became Explicated "during" the Inflationary Epoch, when space had cooled sufficiently to permit the formation of near massless physical particles such as "quarks", which are fundamental to the formation of atoms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark Please note also that time has no meaningful role (10−36 seconds) in this unfolding progression from "zero state pure energy" to its physical expression as space, time, and matter of our universe, which he named "the Explicate Order". My understanding is that this scenario is not in conflict with any of the currently held science of QM, GR, Particle/Wave Duality, and CDT (causal dynamic triangulation).
I actually missed that post...... It aligns perfectly with the simple Occam's razor interpretation of time I have used a few times. If we had no time, everything would happen together....which in effect is saying that the BB would not have happened. zgmc, I also see the following two statements by two different reputable physicists as telling it as factual as we can hope...... from: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html "Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation." And this one...... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ A Universe from Nothing by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff What some seem to be invoking in this thread is some deep philosophical understanding of what time is, and we just do not have one. On that basis IMO, they then want to dismiss time as unreal when it actually forms the framework of the Universe we inhabit along with space. In summing as agreed by Matt the unknown true nature of time, helps fuel the debates that arise, but by the same token most of those experts that I have mentioned...Thorne, Kaku, Carroll, Smolin, and Sagan are of the affirmative position. Farsight obviously will deride all as "pop science presenters" which in reality is a copout. All are professional experts, fully qualified in the subject matter. He of course can claim nothing. My eternal question remains..... Can anyone show me a world, Universe, realm where time does not exist.
Try to measure the passage of time inside of a black hole, with no reference points of observable mass.
Time passes as per normal.....from the FoR of someone that has fallen in..... He reaches the singularity in a short but finite time.
Like travelling to a different dimension of time, from one perceived time to another dimension of ''space time''. Example - If an alien life to us from another dimension of space and time were to enter our dimension of space and time, they would be lost. The would have no map of our dimension of space and time. They also would struggle to find their way home, unless they had worked out the refraction properties of black holes.
And the gibberish nonsense continues. I would stay to keep you honest and for the children's and other's sake....but even children would not be misled by your nonsensical claims.
I was translating what you said, ''time'' passes the same for you, but when you arrive at your destination , you are relative in another time. The other ''time'', might be at a much earlier stage of its evolution. You may even see dinosaurs. It is not time travel that exists, but the existence of a possibility to travel in ''time'' with ''time'', to a prehistoric evolution of the different dimension.
As layman in physics I'll go way out on a limb here. From what I am able to understand, Bohm postulated an initial condition of an infinite zero state energy which remains largely latent (except for quantum fluctuation) and to which no measurable time frame can be assigned and only a small part of this potential energy becomes expressed (explicate) in our universe. IOW, the formation of the physical universe and all that is in it only uses a portion of the total available potential energy. In a previous post I read that pairs of virtual particles often pop in and out of existence from an unobservable higher energy state, again without any measurable time frame assigned to it. I cannot comment on the possible effect of entropy on a pre-BB zero state infinite potential energy condition. As I understand, entropy is a physical phenomenon. If that is true then entropy would only apply to the explicate physical universe.
No...As I said, anyone falling into a BH will reach the Singularity in a short but finite amount of time. Although an observer outside the BH at a safe distance, can never see inside the EH, anyone falling in, can see outside, with the whole Universe appearing to be focused in a spherical topology above him. No extra dimensions needed. All a BH is, is highly critically curved space time with a singularity at its center in which all the mass resides.
Dear Pad,(write4u, theorist, quantum, tashja, billy, et al) I'm a bit out the loop here, (busy with other stuff), but catching up. but re your question With respect, you keep asking this, and i addressed this in my first post, #41 and in a couple of other direct replies to you, in particular #219 As I'm trying to suggest, you cannot miss the importance of really looking out for our innate confirmation bias, and the importance of trying to disprove our own position ( otherwise you wont see both possibilities), and the importance of applying the scientific method, doing experiments, making careful observations., and asking key questions to test, and test the opposite, of whatever we are assuming .. e.g. sit somewhere like a park, look around, and really ask yourself questions to test your theory, like... - do i actually see anything "come out of a future?" - do i actually see anything "go into a past?" -do i actually see "a future" arriving? -do i actually see "a past" receding? -do i actually see anything that i think is evidence of "time passing", that could not be more readily explained if "matter is in fact just existing, moving and interacting?" -if i put a cup on a table and push it left to right, do i see an effect in "the past", affecting "the future"? -do i see the cup move "over time", or am i just causing the cup to move left to right, because of how and where i am just pushing it? so, you ask the perfectly valid question... and the answer may be, "no", no one can possibly show you such a world if your are not willing to actively explore what you are shown. (the answer may also be "no", because no such world exists, but you cant personally be confident of this unless you check out possibility B for your self) Or, the answer may also be YES, i can show you that this world is a world in which things just exist and move etc, misleading us in to wrongly assuming a thing called time exists... if so, then ive constructed a detailed web site on the possibility, ( www.timelessness.co.uk) posted 15ish videos, and written the book, a brief history of timelessness. if you want an answer to your question, a video is the easiest way you can see the bare bones of the pov that may just open the door to really seeing a different possible paradigm. ( i cant make it any easier for you than just pressing play Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), can i ask, have you watched this youtube? -v glad to see the conversation is progressing thoughtfully and civilly, matthew marsden
" About 'A Brief History of TIMELESSNESS'. This channel is a logical and scientific breakdown of the misunderstandings leading to the possibly incorrect assumption that 'TIME' exists, and, disassembling the scientific chaos and confusion that arises, if it is actually is the case that time does not exist. 'ABH TIMELESSNESS' is NOT unscientific,or dismissive of scientifically sound knowledge. Instead it sets out to show how, if it is the case that everything is JUST here, constantly changing 'now', Thermodynamics, Relativity, QM, +every observed phenomena in the universe can be logically and scientifically re-interpreted TIMELESSLY, + in simpler terms than current reasoning, without paradox, confusion, or dismissing observed scientific truths. Matt welcome. For more info please check out the videos, website TIMELESSNESS.co.uk , and eBOOK (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007BV88TG) - DOWNSTAIRS @ THE KINGS HEAD" , or "ROYAL GREENWICH OBSERVATORY" videos are a good start. "
Thanks Krash, Hopefully you can see I'm not being closed minded, but I do genuinely think I have seen how time may only be an extremely useful system of thought and understanding, but not something that actually exists. And how the genuine essence of relativity etc can still be valid, though perhaps in that it only explains how things just are behaving everywhere, where moving at speed, and in warped space etc. ( if you check out the youtube "timeless answers to Professor Cox's science of DrWHO", I explain how our basic time travel scenarios might be interpreted, without time, and without paradox ) Mm
I completely agree with that concept of "timelessness". My problem was in expressing it in a clear and unambiguous way. Thank you for that clear and concise analysis. IMO, a fundamental "timeless condition" does not prevent change or the measurement of duration of observable change. For unobservable change duration cannot be measured, but does not prevent them from happening, even in a timeless condition.. All that is required is a "permissive condition that allows for change"
Matt...I have not watched your video as yet...Busy Saturday for me...things to do, places to see... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm really trying to view the concept of time as close as I can from a neutral position, but I keep arriving back at the affirmative position. eg: I 100% am sure we are not alone in the Universe...I believe that ETL exists somewhere, sometime, and at various levels of technological advancement. I base that belief on the near infinite numbers available and the stuff of life being everywhere we look. The official scientific answer though is "WE DONT KNOW" we have no evidence either way: [other than the stuff of life being everywhere, and the near infinite numbers] In fact if we did happen to be it, all alone in this great big cosmos, wouldn't it raise more questions that the alternative? And wouldn't the God Botherers have a field day! And while accepting we do not know the true reality of time, for similar reasons, I keep arriving back to the affirmative position. “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.” NEILS BOHR: Again I see this more as a difference in what people see as real. Space, time, spacetime, gravity, are all real.....The profound quantum effects that Bohr is speaking about is real.....The time that Einstein spoke of as being "a stubborn illusion" is real. I don't believe something needs to be physical to be real...I don't believe any entity to be real must be materialistic. At one time, when people spoke of the Universe, they primarily were talking of the matter/mass within the Universe. Today we know better. We know that spacetime, that fundamental background is the foundation stone of the Universe....It is the Universe from whence everything else evolved. TIME IS A PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSE, and the Universe could not IMO, exist without time...just as it could not exist without space. To even consider such a thing is not only counter-intuitive, but IMHO, sounds crazy. Perhaps I was conditioned with seeing time as real by the numbers of reputable books I have read...perhaps. But I could also point that finger at those that see it differently. Anyway, perhaps tonight or tomorrow morning I'll take the time [Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!] to watch the video.
This " time " thing keeps cropping up , constantly My perspective on this " concept " of time is this ; I think in terms not of us , or any observer of movement and then the order of movement , as a consequence of the observer But rather to the objects themselves Therefore to the objects themselves time is completely irrelevant The movement, the interactions it takes for things and life to do what they do and the consequence there of , is completely dependent of the nature of the object and/or objects involved , no matter the theory of " time " , and nor by " whom "
