The Problem of Time leads to a Problem of Energy for the Universe

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 09:48 AM

It has nothing to do with causality. In fact, as I have explained to James, the idea of causality might be misunderstood because relativity states that evolution is a symmetry, motion does not exist and true time evolution is not a fascet of geometrical theory.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 01-11-12, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mister

It has nothing to do with causality. In fact, as I have explained to James, the idea of causality might be misunderstood because relativity states that evolution is a symmetry, motion does not exist and true time evolution is not a fascet of geometrical theory.

Energy is action the same as anything else.. time is action.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 09:56 AM

Yes, but past and future do not exist. That is an explicit dependance of these theories we discuss. You can't have the notion of things having an evolution where causation is implied simply because the past does not exist, alongside the future.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 10:11 AM

So far I think the time problem of physics and the zero-energy universe are the perfect candidates towards the understanding of the universe if we take the equations of relativity seriously and the assumptions drawn from Noether's Theorem.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 01-11-12, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mister

Yes, but past and future do not exist. That is an explicit dependance of these theories we discuss. You can't have the notion of things having an evolution where causation is implied simply because the past does not exist, alongside the future.

Past, and future not existing simplifies actions having an opposite reaction. X + -X = 0... Y + -Y = 0... Z + -Z = 0. So you should be happy with the simplest answer that equal opposites = 0. Somehow you are trying to complicate the answer when in fact you are simplifying the answer.

Even though you have removed time, I will complete the explanation.. Time is IN/OUT.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 10:34 AM

I think I understand what you are saying, loosely.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 10:35 AM

I just have a problem with the word causality, even though I have a soft spot for determinism.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 01-11-12, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mister

I just have a problem with the word causality, even though I have a soft spot for determinism.

Well I haven't even mentioned either. It's a different subject. Chaos.

**Motor Daddy** · 01-11-12, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mister

I just have a problem with the word causality, even though I have a soft spot for determinism.

It's impossible to violate causality.

Example. You are in NY and your brother is in Florida. You both agree that at exactly 12:00 you will both start traveling towards each other.

Regardless of how fast you travel towards him, you could not get to him before he starts traveling. You could travel 100 trillion times the speed of light and you could not get to his location at or before he starts traveling. In other words, it is impossible for you to travel fast enough to violate causality, regardless of the speed in which you travel.

You say you travel at 10^5,000 times the speed of light to get there? You still get there after 12:00!!!

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

It's impossible to violate causality.

Example. You are in NY and your brother is in Florida. You both agree that at exactly 12:00 you will both start traveling towards each other.

Regardless of how fast you travel towards him, you could not get to him before he starts traveling. You could travel 100 trillion times the speed of light and you could not get to his location at or before he starts traveling. In other words, it is impossible for you to travel fast enough to violate causality, regardless of the speed in which you travel.

You say you travel at 10^5,000 times the speed of light to get there? You still get there after 12:00!!!

What makes you so sure?

For instance, it may turn out that particle's violate causality all the time.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 01-11-12, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

It's impossible to violate causality.

Example. You are in NY and your brother is in Florida. You both agree that at exactly 12:00 you will both start traveling towards each other.

Regardless of how fast you travel towards him, you could not get to him before he starts traveling. You could travel 100 trillion times the speed of light and you could not get to his location at or before he starts traveling. In other words, it is impossible for you to travel fast enough to violate causality, regardless of the speed in which you travel.

You say you travel at 10^5,000 times the speed of light to get there? You still get there after 12:00!!!

That doesn't work if there is a minimal step distance.. which I think there is. I mean 10^5,000 times the speed of light steps over the final location. Which would be like trying to squash an ant on stilts with a 6ft step, and the ant 1 inch in front of you.

**Motor Daddy** · 01-11-12, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mister

What makes you so sure?

For instance, it may turn out that particle's violate causality all the time.

I am 100% positive because travel takes time! There is no such thing as "instantaneous" travel. Motion occurs over a duration of time.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

I am 100% positive because travel takes time! There is no such thing as "instantaneous" travel. Motion occurs over a duration of time.

Does it, so what happens if a particle comes across a wall in space, called a potential? If it wanted to conserve energy, it may decide to take the easiest root called quantum tunnelling. In this tested idea, a particle can disappear from one location and appear at another almost instaneously.

**Motor Daddy** · 01-11-12, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mister

Does it, so what happens if a particle comes across a wall in space, called a potential? If it wanted to conserve energy, it may decide to take the easiest root called quantum tunnelling. In this tested idea, a particle can disappear from one location and appear at another almost instaneously.

Like magic, huh?

You say "almost instantaneously." Do you mean instantaneously, or do you mean a duration of time elapses?

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 01-11-12, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

Like magic, huh?

You say "almost instantaneously." Do you mean instantaneously, or do you mean a duration of time elapses?

Time means to a distance. You have stated speeds which have no distance, so no time. Lets use the game 'Frogger' as an example. The frog can jump onto logs, so logs are the minimal distance to reach the other side of the pond. Your speeds are beyond the other side of the pond, so it means that you are already at the other side of the pond before you move.

**Motor Daddy** · 01-11-12, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

Time means to a distance. You have stated speeds which have no distance, so no time.

Wrong. A speed is a result of the past distance traveled in the past time elapsed. You start at a specific place and time in the absolute frame, you travel for a duration of time, and you end at a specific place and time in the absolute frame, all the while every object in the universe travels during that time. That is motion. Motion does NOT occur unless a duration of time elapses!

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 01-11-12, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

Wrong. A speed is a result of the past distance traveled in the past time elapsed. You start at a specific place and time in the absolute frame, you travel for a duration of time, and you end at a specific place and time in the absolute frame, all the while every object in the universe travels during that time. That is motion. Motion does NOT occur unless a duration of time elapses!

Motion requires minimal step distance. Infinite regression takes you out of our dimension if you go faster than the minimal step distance. It doesn't happen.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 11:51 AM

I think the concept of motion = time is wrong. Perception = time, motion = symmetry.

**Motor Daddy** · 01-11-12, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

Motion requires minimal step distance. Infinite regression takes you out of our dimension.

There is 4 dimensions, x,y,z, and t. That is, volume and time. You have to start at a location, and a duration of time later you are at an end location, which could be the same location if you didn't travel during that duration of time. You seem to imply an object can be at a location, and at the same time (no elapsed time) be at another location. Prove it. Prove that a point of an object can be at 2 separate locations at the same time, ie, the object is at 2,2,3 at 12:00 and it is also at 45,59,29 at 12:00.

**~~Reiku~~** · 01-11-12, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

There is 4 dimensions, x,y,z, and t. That is, volume and time. You have to start at a location, and a duration of time later you are at an end location, which could be the same location if you didn't travel during that duration of time. You seem to imply an object can be at a location, and at the same time (no elapsed time) be at another location. Prove it. Prove that a point of an object can be at 2 separate locations at the same time, ie, the object is at 2,2,3 at 12:00 and it is also at 45,59,29 at 12:00.

Are you asking if a particle actually can be in two places at one time?