# Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general

The observer as displayed in the light cones diagrams "exists" in a zero dimensional point between past and future? True of false?
Am I reading the diagram correctly? Yes or No?
True.

thanks...

As to the observers state of existence at t=0 duration I shall leave that to you guys to work out...
Because no matter what HSP moment on the time line we are talking about it is always zero duration. [dimensional]

Past time is based on a certainty, while future time is based on uncertainty. The past has already happened, therefore it has been recorded in some way or another, such as in our memory. There is no mystery, within the limits of our understanding and all the odds are in, etc. One could say the past is determined. The future is not definitive, since it is still unfolding and the dice have not settled yet. The present is where certainty and uncertainty meet. This where the definitive relationships of the past are compared to similar things in the future that have yet to settle. One would need two sets of equations, one to reflect past determinism and the other for the future uncertainty. Where they meet, we have the present.

Something that I have thought about, concerning SR, that may be unique, is how does SR deal with randomness and uncertainty as it occurs between references? SR appears to work, just fine for cause and effect, like clocks ticking. However, randomness, although also occurring in time and space, it not sequenced in cause and effect. I would guess that one could apply SR to the average of random events but unique events may not be predictable in time and space since these are not based on cause and effect?

As an example of two references looking at an average of random events, say we have two factories built on earth, that are identical, right down to both factories averaging 10 defects per day. One factory is placed on a huge space ship and given a relativistic velocity such its time slows to half relative to the earth factory.

In a side by side comparison, the stationary factory will still have 10 defects per day, while the moving factory will appear to only have 5 defects per day from the stationary reference due to time slowing to half. What this also says is, in a side-by-side comparison, the stationary or the expanded space-time reference has a higher rate of entropy. Or the expansion of space-time, in the universe, is consistent with the 2nd law; cousin of random. The second law in light of SR would imply an expanding universe as a way to increase entropy.

The observer exists at all times. You can draw a hypersurface at any time on the light cone, the only difference is that those hypersurfaces won't have zero spatial dimension because they will mark out points at which events occurring at those times can either affect the observer at the present time, or be affected by the observer in the future. That's all the light cone represents, it marks out the positions and times at which there can be causes and effects related to the observer, and events occurring outside the light cone can only be inferred by the observer later in the future when signals from those events have had enough time to arrive.

it is NOT an argument...there is nothing to argue...just attempting to understand the issue of an observer existing at a zero dimensional point between past and future..
It is the claim of Physics that the observer exists at the zero point between past and future. If you are unhappy about it take it up with physics not me...
The claim of physics (this physics, at any rate) is that if you want to assign time and space coordinates to events, then you will assign time and space coordinates to events. One type of event is that an observer is at a given point at a given time.

This says nothing about the nature of existence. It doesn't even say anything about the nature of physical processes save that we are able to assign times and locations to at least some events.

thanks...

As to the observers state of existence at t=0 duration I shall leave that to you guys to work out...
Because no matter what HSP moment on the time line we are talking about it is always zero duration. [dimensional]
There is nothing to work out. He exists; it is axiomatic.

I can see we are at entirely cross purposes... shall post later ...

OK... maybe this approach may help get over the comprehension hurdle..

We have a ruler made of iron that has the following dimensions
length= 100 cm
width = 5 cm
thickness = 0.5cm
compare:
1. a time span of 10 seconds and the ruler exists.
2. a time span of 1 second and the ruler exists.
3. a time span of [1-0.888...] and the ruler exists
4. a time span of [1-0.999...] and the ruler does NOT exist.
5. a time span of 0 seconds and the ruler does not exist.

At all times the HSP has zero duration. [ between past and future for the ruler ]

so according to the theoretic's at hand at any given "click of the stop watch" [t=0] the ruler is non existent.
So based on the light cone diagram the ruler can not exist at any time as it must do so only between IT's past and future [zero duration]

This is what the light cones is telling me...

And I ask is there any math or science that explains that the ruler can exist but only if there is a continuum of time for it to exist in.
Because as it stands at any t= 0 chosen in a time line the ruler simply has "no time" to exist in.

Past-----------(0)------------Future

OK... maybe this approach may help get over the comprehension hurdle..

We have a ruler made of iron that has the following dimensions
length= 100 cm
width = 5 cm
thickness = 0.5cm
compare:
1. a time span of 10 seconds and the ruler exists.
2. a time span of 1 second and the ruler exists.
3. a time span of [1-0.888...] and the ruler exists
4. a time span of [1-0.999...] and the ruler does NOT exist.
5. a time span of 0 seconds and the ruler does not exist.

Why do you think this?

think what , precisely?
Why are you willing to accept that, for a ruler, we identify lengths that lie between points of zero length but you aren't willing to accept the same thing for duration?

Why are you willing to accept that, for a ruler, we identify lengths that lie between points of zero length but you aren't willing to accept the same thing for duration?
ahh good question...

yes because time duration is an utter determiner regarding the physics of something existing or not, and not just the math.
The use of the meter long ruler is only to highlight that distance is non-existent if time is of zero duration. Thus I see a contradiction in the light cone diagram where it suggests that the HSP has distance dimensions when in fact it shouldn't. And it is this apparent contradiction I am seeking a resolution to, and I am confident there must be one...

Years ago someone here, at sci forums (or was it the "other" forum ) mentioned a paper put forward by a renown physicist "Da Witter" or someone with similar sounding name but for the life of me I can not find any reference on the net...

t=0 duration means that distance = 0
This can be supported empirically by the phenomena of FTL Quantum entanglement as evidence by Quantum Mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

"Spooky action at a distance" ~A.E
It provides a possible theoretical mechanism for this phenomena of zero distance between two half particles...[where "apparent" distance exists but only if t= > 0 duration ]
and the potential of a generally entangled universe.

ahh good question...

yes because time duration is an utter determiner regarding the physics of something existing or not, and not just the math.
So what? The math is how we describe existence.

The use of the meter long ruler is only to highlight that distance is non-existent if time is of zero duration.
You shouldn't post under the influence of narcotics.

In the very same picture that you used to identify that an observer exists for 0 time, the observe is also 0 wide in whatever spacial axis you care to use.

Yet, oddly, you don't think to question that.

Could it be that you simply want to find a problem?

So what? The math is how we describe existence.

You shouldn't post under the influence of narcotics.

In the very same picture that you used to identify that an observer exists for 0 time, the observe is also 0 wide in whatever spacial axis you care to use.

Yet, oddly, you don't think to question that.

Could it be that you simply want to find a problem?

are you saying that at t=0 duration distance exists?
if so please explain... [ this is what the thread is about - finding an explanation as to how distance appears to exist when time duration is zero...btw ]

are you saying that at t=0 duration distance exists?
if so please explain... [ this is what the thread is about - finding an explanation as to how distance appears to exist when time duration is zero...btw ]
When we assign coordinates to events, we then can ask, "how far apart are these two events, at a given time"? This is what we are doing every time we line up a ruler with something that we want to measure. We are looking at where one end of the object matches up with one number and where the other end matches up with another number at one particular time (of 0 duration).

Are you saying that at t=0 duration distance exists?

So you're saying that when you get an answer, you ignore it?

think what , precisely?

#4 & #5. I see no reason they would be true.

Are you saying that at t=0 duration distance exists?

Of course. What you are saying is like saying at l=0, width can't exist. It makes no logical sense.

So you're saying that when you get an answer, you ignore it?
well when you address the actual question posted and not your own question I might...

Are you saying that at t=0 duration distance exists?
if so please explain... [ this is what the thread is about - finding an explanation as to how distance appears to exist when time duration is zero...btw ]