Very informative and coherent discussion. But as was mentioned all this happens within our Universal spacetime after the BB. But it also presents a question if the BB was an orderly event, which since has been devolving into chaos? IMHO, the BB was a chaotic event which ordered itself as it cooled, but which eventually becomes disordered again through continuing entropy. So, the only certainty we have is that time is inextricably connected to physical space as explained in the video discussion, but it does not address my fundamental question if time existed as an implaccable condition"before" the BB and the beginning of spacetime. I can logically only come up with the term "timeless permissive condition" of what David Bohm proposed as a zero point energy, a state of "pure potential" (the implicate) from which spacetime became Explicated in reality.
Thanks paddo, I never try to disprove accepted mainstream science. I can only ask about specific seemingly counter-intuitive theories. I particularly like the scientific expression "non-perturbative" action as it implies compatibility with both GR and QM. To me, the concept of time travel seems counter-intuitive as it implies a "perturbative" action. IOW, it is not simultaneous compatible with GR and/or QM. But this is at the limits of my imagination, due to my lack of in-depth knowledge of both GR and QM, a limitation which Neil Tyson so eloquently described in his video about some of the great thinkers in history.
Sure I agree, it certainly does seem counter-intuitive, but so to was non-absolute nature of time and space before 1905. Perhaps some genuine Einstein/Bohr/Feynman may come along before I kick the bucket and show us the nature of conditions that existed before t+10-43 seconds.....a validated QGT no less!
I lifted this quote from a credentialed member on another public science forum (I hope this is permissible), which explains why our mathematics fail during the Planck epoch and ends with the same conclusion of the necessity of a new theory. I need to study "symmetry breaking", it seems to me a very important aspect in the theoretical science of cosmology. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/unify.html
BTW, Billy, if you do the math of anything like velocity, you'd be left with a meaningless answer if you replace "time" with "inches of standard candle". (Hint: distance will cancel out of the equation.)
But what about the hour glass? It was used as a practical and reliable measuring device of time for centuries as was the sun-dial.
Sean Carrol's video speaks as I have of two types of "reality." Sean notes that we speak of time "all the time" - he said that time is the most commonly used word in English (I would bet "the" or "a" is.) so certainly has a "reality" and I agree - have called this S-reality (for subjective)** and Sean admits that time does not seem to be "fundamental" for most physicists; (Nor me as physic can be describe with out it - see my proof in post 28) but then goes on to suggests that time may have some "fundamental" role in a more advanced understanding as there is an "arrow to time." - Specifically Sean mentions and discusses (for a couple of minutes) the second law of thermodynamics as suggesting some day a better than current understanding of physics will let us understand why large scale nature now trends to have disorder always increasing. I did NOT insert "trends" - hear Sean say that at ~7 minutes into the video (and a few seconds later speak of this as a "tendency"). As I discussed in part (3) of post 299, (now blue text below) the second law only seems to be a law - a rigid truth. In fact it is just the "law of large numbers" of statistics - Same reason life insurance companies can make money and a million other things seem to obey the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermo is only statically true - not necessarily so. Not a good idea to use statics as proof of anything. For example if there are four coins in a well shaken cigar box the most probable state (half heads or half tails) when the shaking stops and I open the lid agrees with the 2nd law. (max entropy or disorder) but every eight time I shake and then look (on average) all are either head or tails up - strong violation of the 2nd law. If there are 100 coins in the box significant violation of the 2nd law will be rare (but not with zero probably all will be with heads or tails up). This "2nd law" support of time being real* and having a flow arrow ("from lower entropy to higher") is just statically true - the law of large numbers it is called in statistics. At the quantum level time if it flows at all, it flows either way. " SUMMARY: Sean Carroll and I are in complete agreement. Both acknowledge time is s-real. Because of the "arrow of time" (not present at the quantum level) and the second Law of thermodynamics, Sean expects that a more advanced understanding of physics will show that time is also O-real. I do not share this expectation, as I think the second Law of thermodynamics is already fully understood as just the "law of large numbers" in the theory of statistics.; and is easily violated when only small set of numbers are considered as I show in my post 299 quote above. I.e. Sean was correct in the video at ~1 minute from the end when he said the second Law of thermodynamics, APPEARS to be true. Another reason why I do not share Sean's expectation for a more advanced understanding of physics to show time is O-real (observably real for all) Is that the "t" commonly found in the equations of physics can be mathematically eliminated from the all. I.e. If Physics "ain't broke, (with respect to time), don't fix it." or hope for a more advanced version which will justify your intuitive believe that time must be more than just S-real. Mother nature is NOT bound by your beliefs. * {O-real as Sean suggests more advanced understanding of physics some day will.} ** I have even offered a neurological reason why humans believe time has s-reality. It has to due with fact you can actually experience the last few seconds of the past as if it were "now." - The more distant past can only be remembered. A good example of the statical nature of the second law is found in a wine glass dropped to the floor. That mass of SiO2 has many more ways to exist as broken pieces than as one unified whole. The laws of physics do not prevent that mass of SiO2 as broken pieces dropped to the floor from becoming a nice wine glass; however the expectation of that result happening is so low that even if done 100 times per second it would happen less than once in period a billion times longer than the 13.7billion years since the BB. When large number of atoms are involved, time is only seen as reversible in a film played backwards. (Smoke going down INTO the chimney.)
Chaos is a bias connected to long standing traditions. This tradition was already there before the Age of Enlightenment. For example, it was once assumed that life could spontaneously generate itself out of nothing; before the invention of the microscope. After enlightenment, science issue a logical explanation and discovered this once random assumption was quite logical and appeared from single cells once too small to see. The gods of mythology were considered whimsical and unpredictable; first laws of chaos came from religion. One believed they could not predict the universe, due to the random/whimsical nature of the gods who controlled the universe. Chaos and statistics is blind man's prophesy. We have a periodic table of the elements that does not change, unless humans add elements to it. This is not random. Chaos works at the margins, not at the foundations of matter. One could not define the substructure of matter if chaos ruled beyond the margins, since any system we came up with in the lab, would be one of infinite possibilities since nothing is assumed definite. In terms of statistics, order loads the dice of random, so the dice fall certain ways. This is possible because free energy is enthalpy minus entropy, with enthalpy being internal energy such as from forces. Enthalpy dominates entropy; forming a neutron star from diversified matter lowers random. Life, for example, depends on order, with the folding of proteins within the cells having a probability equal to 1.0. Statistical theory assumed the heat of the water and thermal vibrations would result in random protein folds. This biased lasted for decades but is not consistent with latest observations. Regardless of this data, the random tradition of life is perpetuated because of oracle dependency. Life narrows down chaos and entropy. Or in terms of time, life causes distance potential to convert to time potential as uncertainty is replaced with certainty. Here is an interesting thought experiment. Say we have 10 dice. One can calculate the odds for any given throw of the dice such as ten - 6's. Before the experiment begins, I will thrown these 10 dice, 100 throws. Then I will hand these dice to another person, who will officially begin the statistical experiment. Will their odds include my 100 throws, or will the odds begin at zero when they receive the dice? This question has to do with time already spent throwing the dice, before we officially set the time=0 to start the experiment. How does this hidden time potential impact the result; distance potential/uncertainty?
Good post wellwisher but the microscope was not of much import in establishing what became known (and loved by creationist) that life comes only from life law. I'm glad to be able to say that. As you know, I don't often say that about your posts. Also I tend to think the formation of solar systems from gas clouds is violation of the second law of thermo as Right-4U is, I think, suggesting happened spontaneously. In all these cases, violating it does require energy to be used. A baby is a violation too that mother continues to supply energy too even post birth. (When you get to end - you'll see I need to say something nice about ladies too.) Pasteur covered some old meat with cheese cloth that kept the flies off it so no maggots "spontaneously" arose from it as they did from the old meat in the un-covered jar. He did use a microscope to prove that left an right handedness was in the molecules. - Carefully separated a collation of some (tarta from wine, I think) very tiny crystals into two groups, re dissolved them separately and let them re-crystalize again. - Only new left handed ones came from the solution that was made with crystals from his selected, under the microscope, left handed group. BTW, you may know that "Mad Cow Disease" is caused by a very essential to life molecule, folded in a different way. How complex molecules will fold is some what predictable now, but very important to their biological properties. Joke (feminist may not want to read): Do you know why menstruation and menopause are called that? Answer: "Mad Cow Disease" name was already in use.
As an atheist I am not conditioned to such speculation, I come from the standpoint, that when energy of the magnitude of 10^19 is released in a condition of 10^37 K for a duration of 10-32 seconds it could not possibly have been orderly. All 4 fundamental forces were unified in a single forcem and the four fundamental forces did not exist for mathematical evolution. The was only a condition of permissiveness. Restrictive laws came later. I believe this was named the Planck Epoch. There were no fundamental causal laws which could bring order until cooling permitted symmetry breaking. But that came after the fledgling universe cooled enough to permit symmetry breaking and the fundamenta laws of nature as we know them emerged as separate forces. Only then did the evolution of the universe occur in an orderly fasion, but also became subject to Entropy. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/unify.html Quite true, but that was long after the Planck epoch, and after the formation of quarks, leptons and hadrons, necessary for the formation of atomic nuclei. And of course photons. Again I agree, but they did emerged in an orderly fashion billions of years after the BB, and it took a little more than water. While Hydrogen was one of the earliest elements, Carbon also essential for life, was a relative latecomer to the table of elements. These elements were emerged during the formative ordering process of universal spacetime. I am not proposing that the laws of entropy are not in effect degrading universal order. I am proposing that before we had an orderly universe there was a condition of of pure chaotic energy.
Statistics do not necssarilly need to adhere 100% to what is most likley. It's a fact that on most occasions, maybe 99.9% of the time, Insurance companies will always make a profit. But it has also been known that in times of severe weather phenomenon in certain areas, Insurance companies have gone bankrupt. The second law of thermodynamics and entropy has never yet been known to vary or deviate from what we commonly expect of it. That's why it is a Law. When that happens, then you can speculate to your hearts content about statistics. Otherwise I see that type of argument as a cop out. And Sean, amongst most other physicists agree that time is real. In summing, what Sean said..... http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/ In one sense, it’s a silly question. The “reality” of something is only an interesting issue if its a well-defined concept whose actual existence is in question, like Bigfoot or supersymmetry. For concepts like “time,” which are unambiguously part of a useful vocabulary we have for describing the world, talking about “reality” is just a bit of harmless gassing. They may be emergent or fundamental, but they’re definitely there. (Feel free to substitute “free will” for “time” if you like.) Temperature and pressure didn’t stop being real once we understood them as emergent properties of an underlying atomic description. The question of whether time is fundamental or emergent is, on the other hand, crucially important. I have no idea what the answer is (and neither does anybody else). Modern theories of fundamental physics and cosmology include both possibilities among the respectable proposals. Others like Thorne, Smolin, Sagan and Hawking have said similar.
Yes, when some guy peddles woo, I will call him out. I don't care whether you think he's a Saint, if he's pimping pseudoscience that has no supporting evidence I will challenge it. Why don't you start a thread on Hawking radiation, and I'll rip it to shreds. Newton and Minkowski and Einstein are on my side, not yours. I'm the one who's been quoting A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It seems as if Julian Barbour still hasn't read it. I'm not fixed or stubborn or egocentric. You are. You believe in popscience nonsense and dismiss anything that challenges your conviction. Yes, and every now and then I "show ignored posts" to see if I ought to respond to any challenge. As for what Fraser said, I've said matter is made of energy, and that space and energy are the same thing. here we go, take a look at gravity works like this. See this bit: "Einstein’s stress-energy tensor has an energy-pressure diagonal, and to envisage pressure you need to step up from a rubber sheet to three-dimensional space. Imagine it’s like some gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly, then you insert a hypodermic needle and inject more jelly to represent the mass-energy of the Earth." The jelly represents energy, and space. I've stressed the point in other versions of this essay. Re Sean Carroll saying "I have no idea what the answer is and neither does anybody else". Phooey. Plenty of people understand time. When Sean Carroll says "nobody knows", he's peddling mystery, he isn't referring you to the likes of Julian Barbour, and he's trying to portray himself as the expert. He isn't. Re your comment about the nature of conditions that existed before t+10-43 seconds, start a thread and I'll tell you what I can.
Really, you are calling someone out for peddling woo? And this time the someone(s) have real credentials. They are all dead..., and probably turning over in their graves right now. Who besides yourself believes this? Correction jelly is potential energy (all that sugar). But that one is closer to true than most of your comments. Are you saying you were there? Or you have a theory? Or..., how do you know.., anyway?
Whoa, even I missed that. You should start a thread - just like the time travel one - in order for you to tell people that are less learned than you.
Your delusional qualities are well know Farsight, and they have got you banned elsewhere. I notice you have not listed your own "non existent" achievements. It actually seems you are just continuing with your delusional crap. No, I believe generally what the most reputable experts have to say. Because that makes the most sense. You post nonsense. Do better. You're a laugh a minute Farsight. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you were half as smart and as half as knowledgable as what you think you are, you would not be here. But it's places like this and other forums that have not as yet banned your nonsensical tripe that are your only out let, so we need to bare the brunt of that crap. Your delusional dreams and fairy tales as to what you believe reality to be, will never go anywhere, and just gradually fade away as you get older, and more and more people continue laughing at you.
Those sound like fighting words, Farsight. Don't take it sitting down! In fact, get Billy to help you eliminating the time value within 10^-43s after the Big Bang.
In my very humble non medical opinion, Farsight's condition appears to be getting worse. Although, it has been awhile since I have heard him mention his TOE. Someone needs to start a thread on that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. People with credentials are the people who get away with peddling woo. For example Sean Carroll has been peddling an evil-twin universe where time runs backwards. Max Tegmark has been peddling a universe made of mathematics. It's woo. If I came out with garbage like that it would be kicked into pseudoscience faster than light. I'm the one who quotes 'em to back up what I tell you. Go and look at the stress-energy momentum tensor. Note the shear stress term. That's to do with elasticity. Because I understand time, and because of that I understand the speed of light, and because of that I understand gravity, and because of that I understand black holes. And the early universe is likened to a black hole. You know, people talk about singularities. So I understand something about the early universe. Not everything. Just something. Like I said to paddoboy, start a thread on it and I'll tell you what I can. I'm not delusional. I get banned elsewhere by the likes of quarkhead, who gives useless "explanations" because his physics knowledge is scant, and he can't bear to be corrected. And by the way, you're the one who believes in fairy tales. Like time travel.
Of course not. if they did they would be deterministic, not statically variable. However the results of a large number of identical trials, like "honest" coin flips, will however deviate from half heads by an increasing smaller percentage as the number grows larger. That is the "law of large numbers" and it makes the Second law of thermo" true or the Tendency to be true as Sean Carroll said at about 7 minutes into his video and APPEAR to be true / the case near the end of the video. - Note I give references to him not my interpretations of his POV as you do. I have asked more than once for you to quote him (with reference link) saying what I called (1) & (2) statements in prior post 811. - You have not done that, nor given even closely related quotes of him. Not true. The deviation is sometime large when the numbers are not. I gave example of four coins shaken in a cigar box and noted that 12.5% of the time (on average) you open and look, they will all be showing the same side. Each time you add another coin, they all come up the same way half as frequently. but even with 100 coins it the box they still can - it is just that such a large percentage violation / deviation from the predictions of the "second law" are increasingly rare. - I.e. the "second law" is just the "statistical law of large numbers." A more important and much larger violation of the 2n law is our highly ordered solar system that came out of the complete chaos of a gas cloud. Get your vision checked - I'm just telling facts. Not true. In the first minute (between 0:55 & 1:10 to be exact) of his video has says that most physicist do NOT think the time is fundamental. Yes both Sean & I think that - that the subjective time many speak of ( some totally ignorant of physics) - that time does have what I call subjective reality (S-reality} I don't know what they would emerge from with Objective reality (O-reality) if their "t" has been eliminated for ALL equations of physics, as it can be - see post 28.
First, I don't think that Physics & Math has an about the science moderator right now. With the new platform there does not appear to be any showing up in the staff list. So you have been lucky.... Moderation seems mostly to be about rules and conduct rather than science. Most of what you post should never leave Alternative Theories, let alone be sent there. Second, as pointed out by many members on many occasions that last sentence above should be, The one who misinterprets cherry picked quotes.
