I don't understand you first sentence.
Your second; so 'ground zero' has no space ? And 'lift off' occured in no time ?
The limitations of the scientific method and scientism
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I don't understand you first sentence.
Your second; so 'ground zero' has no space ? And 'lift off' occured in no time ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I meant to say that time cannot exist independently as a thing in itself. Time is created with "a beginning" and chronological explication of reality. If I run 100' in 10 seconds, I create a timeline of 10 seconds while I am running. My starting point is t = 0 and my endpoint is t = 10. If I don't run but walk, this time line increases in length in direct proportion to my actual speed. Thus measuring time for me to travel 100' is dependent on my speed (action).
Time has meaning only to animals with the ability to understand spatial dimensions and anticipate a future action. This is why time is "relative" for all things within the universe. Every continuation of an action creates a separate timeline, inside the greater universal timeline. A quark has an extremely short timeline of existence. When it decays, it no longer "needs" time for its existence.
Time itself is an abstract concept, it does not exist independent of other things. Time is not a constant, a law, or a causal condition. Time has no meaning except when there is an action or change. Time comes into being (is created) as a result of other dynamic action and is a flexible measurement depending on dynamic action in spacetime. Even here Time is governed and restricted by SOL. Running or walking up an escalator at SOL, you reach the top always at the same time. This is a significant marker for the dependency of time by the restricted ability of reality to express itself in physical form. It takes time for something to become real! But this time is not taken from a larger storage of time, it is created during the event and "how long" it takes for this event to become explicate.
Perhaps the totality (near infinite number) of all individual timelines within universal time frame is the condition which Bohm call the "holomovement".
Yes, I'm not oblivious of the above, and yes, I've read David Bohms Implicate / Explicte order, holomovement, etc.
But before we go further afield, we should clear up the simple thing in front of us which remains cloudy.
In earlier posts you gave 'ground zero' and 'blast off' as some kind of support for 't=0' or 'zero time'. So I ask again - are you suggesting that ground zero has no space and that blast off has no time ? Let's clear that up for the moment.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
One "starts" counting anything at zero. Initial time before the event is t = 0, then the event occurs and change creates t = 1. You don't start at; t = 23 and p = 73 (perhaps in limited relativistic applications).
Before the beginning of this universe, there existed a condition of infinite potential @ p = 1 (singularity) and t = 0. Somehow, this dynamic (unbalanced) condition released the potential energy in a single mega quantum event known as the Inflationary Epoch @ t = 1 (Planck scale). Today, time is measured in increments from Planck Time to Light Years.
IMO, counting time is only useful to humans because we contemplate the past , the present, and the future.
As I said earlier, before we move on, I wnat to clear this up - and to know what you meant in your earlier post. I'm now asking a third time;
You gave 'ground zero' and 'blast off' as some kind of support for 't=0' or 'zero time'. Are you suggesting that ground zero has no space and that blast off has no time ? Let's clear that up for the moment.
Please address your specific references to ground zero and blast off, and don't deviate by telling me other things (which I may or may not agree with).
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ground zero was a metaphor to indicate a space coordinate where an event happened. Perhaps it was a poorly chosen.
The "blast off' of a rocket is preceded by a "countdown" toward t = 0 (t - 10, - 9, - 8, - 7, etc.). The act of "blast off" creates
t = 1, where it had been t = 0 (before the blast off).
I don't see why this concept of chronology presents a problem.
Zero time would exist when a condition of zero point energy exists.
Time exist when space exists, i.e. "spacetime" (Einstein). Without space there is no need for time, unless there is another, as yet undiscovered chronology beyond our event horizon.
Would you say that t=0 has a duration of zero.
That there is no time span between past and future......
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
t = 0 is the starting time, your point of departure, not your explication in reality, which is t = 1 . It is a measurement of an action from t = 0 to t = 1 (chronology) in spacetime.
The chronological unfolding of actions in spacetime (reality itself), the implicate becoming explicate, IMO happens in quantum increments. I guess that falls under Planck time.
Thus the Past, Present, and Future are quantum moments apart, the past reality being quantum causal to the present reality, which in turn is quantum causal to a future reality.
I submit the inability for photons to instantiate at superluminal speed as an indication of the absolute limit for physical reality in this universe to become manifest. In our physical reality, even massless particles cannot become explicit (travel) at greater than SOL, if I understand it.
This has persuaded me to see time as a necessary byproduct of chronological change (in reality) at any level.
yes t= 0 is often used to describe the "universes starting" point.
I wonder though if the "Planck" time unit is useful.
Described as follows in a wiki article.
This does not imply that light is at any moment stationary relative to massive objects. In fact it clearly states it is the the time it takes for light to travel at 'c' across the distance of a "Planck time" unit.
So one can conclude that there is a start and an end to a Planck time unit. [ The present moment (t=0) could in fact be any where between that start and end of a Planck unit. ]
To say that the moment between past and future may have a duration of a Plank Time unit would mean that light doesn't travel across a plank time unit and is somehow stationary during this unit. Which contradicts the meaning of a Planck time unit.
If light travels in a continuous movement with out pause at all then t=0 MUST be of zero duration.
The present moment between the past and future MUST be of zero duration.
Therefore the hyper surface [HSP] of Minkowski/Einstein Space time must be zero dimensional. t= 0 duration then d=0.
Future: t= 0 (+) infinitesimal
Now: t=0
Past: t=0 (-) infinitesimal
Yes it was - so far as proving or even indicating 't=0'
Yes, yes .. 10, 9, 8, etc .. I mean, why would you have to even say that ? Wouldn't you think that everyone including me would know that ? Yes, blast off, or as you now say, the act of blast of created (is) t=1. Not t=0. Again, another poorly chosen metaphor.
I didn't say it did. You are now giving common time lines above, the concept of which I didn't say presented a problem.
Here is the problem. Zero time. Zero time is just zero. No time. No atribute of duration. Zero time. Here is a basket. it has zero apples in it. No apples. No 'appleness' about it. Therefore, you cannot speak of apples about that basket, anymore than you can speak of an infinity of other things it is also vacant of.
Hmmm, yes, no, maybe .. I have some reservations about spacetime, but this thread probably isn't the place for it, though a while ago, I created a thread called 'Spaceime is a Fairytale. But let's not get too sidetracked here.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I submit that the (quantum) present is the timespan between the past and the future.
And how long would that time span be? Do you reckon?
.. and what is the difference between the "quantum present" and the "present" ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I used Planck length time unit intuitively. As a photon is a massless particle traveling @ c and known to travel a Planck length as a quanta. To me this sounds like a very short time for a "real" change to occur and may well be the limit of becoming explicate in physical reality, in an orderly chronology.
Seems to me Planck length is a fundamental quantum measurement.
The whole point is that light does travel in Planck length increments (there is your quanta) and it must do so in order to be observed in reality.
Does it travel in a continuous motion? How would we know?
I have a problem with that. It is in balance and balance is static not dynamic. There has to be a dynamic imbalance, a causality for change in 3D space coordinates (Planck lengths) to occur. The event takes (creates) time to complete.
Love it's elegant simplicity! I can understand it and is what I have been trying to say all along.
Is there a reason to believe there is something smaller than a Planck length which still could be counted as + or - ?
Almost sounds binary, which would mean that "half the time" we are not even real and in a state of quantum suspension.
On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
A Planck length is a abstract human artifact, designed purely for mathematical convenience...
Again what founding in reality is there for the "notion" of a Plank Time unit?
If it did not then the universe would "flicker" in unison. As all photons have a simultaneous existence due to their invariance. Absolute rest which is forbidden in SRT would then be "real" and this would invalidate SRT.
The fact that t=0 has zero duration doesn't imply that t = "eternity" has zero duration.
You get into a mix of philosophy and science when attempting to describe how it is that we can experience both absolute zero dimension [unconsciousness] and substance [4 dimensions (consciousness)] simultaneously.
And we certainly do that as humans all the time...
The fundamental flaw in the reasoning provided by the light cones and the HSP, IMO, is that if t= 0 duration then the HSP is non-existent [due to distances being also zero]. Yet if t= 0 has duration the absolute rest is acceptable.
A serious contradiction, yes?
If I am not mistaken, it would also invalidate the "Uncertainty Principle" which relies on the infinite reduction to zero duration of the HSP.
View attachment 6190
As an aside,
The funny thing is that it [The universe] is actually "trinary" not binary... and it is in being trinary that makes it all function with simplistic beauty.
When Info Tech learns how to use Trinary computing we would then have a much superior way of processing information than what is currently utilised [ binary systems ] IMO
Trinary = (-1), (0), (+1)
Binary = (0), (+)1
A crude example using alpha characters,
Binary: a,b,a,b,b,b,a,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,a,a,b,b,a,a
Trinary: a, ,b,a,a,a, ,a,b,b,b,a,b, ,a,b,a, ,a,a,b
where by the absence of info is a value
Last edited:
The fact is that zero is unique in that it is non-existent and yet existent at the same time.
Simple Example:
A line:
Left--------------------------|-----------------------------Right
To get from the left to the right one must pass through zero, neither left or right [ a pseudo Lagrangian point], yet to determine exactly where zero is is impossible as it doesn't exist. [refer "uncertainty principle" premise] [ Absolute balance & therefore, Absolute rest is Impossible ] [Dynamic, fundamental, imbalance - Metastability]
So zero exists as an abstract and reality simultaneously.
Past-------------------------|----------------------------Future
same issue....
Simple Example:
A line:
Left--------------------------|-----------------------------Right
To get from the left to the right one must pass through zero, neither left or right [ a pseudo Lagrangian point], yet to determine exactly where zero is is impossible as it doesn't exist. [refer "uncertainty principle" premise] [ Absolute balance & therefore, Absolute rest is Impossible ] [Dynamic, fundamental, imbalance - Metastability]
So zero exists as an abstract and reality simultaneously.
Past-------------------------|----------------------------Future
same issue....
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As a non-scientist I draw conclusions from bits and pieces. The notion that there is a separation of spacetime coordinates came from a NOVA program on Nano technology in computers, which may eventually allow for quantum computing. However there is an absolute limit to how close nano semiconductors can be packed together without energy "bleeding over" (short circuiting).
If time is a measurement of space, and space has an absolute separation of coordinates, then the shortest time interval would be the measurement of the length of separation of coordinates, i.e. spacetime units.
I am not sure if we have come up with anything smaller that can still be considered "functional" (in reality or the abstract) than Planck units.
Thank you, I did not know that. It does cast a new light on the notion of alternate quantum actions, which would alternate to maintain an illusion of continuity, but allows each "state" to create time for physical explication, like a relay race where a quantum packet is handed off to the next sprinter, without breaking continuity.
Yes, I understand that much.
Are we here not assuming that time is an independent aspect of the universe? IMO, the absolute value of t = 0 is a singular dimensionless spacetime coordinate. The relative value to other coordinates gives "t" its value, but it has no meaning unless there is dynamic change. t = x is a relative value from 1 to infinity, created with the change, etc., etc.
If I am not mistaken, it would also invalidate the "Uncertainty Principle" which relies on the infinite reduction to zero duration of the HSP.
But does it invalidate UP? I thought that the validation lies in the fact that it is impossible to measure both space coordinates and time intervals at the same time with certainty. It is a "open platform" where values are relative.
Trinary sounds wonderful to me, though perhaps in a different way. In a quantum world I see a quantum event as having three stages, the causal reality, the gathering of potentials, the expression in a new reality which is then causal to the next quantum event. A process which creates needs time to complete.
I hope this forum allows my admittedly "naïve" speculations, but I really appreciate being pushed to explain (in layman's terms) and clarify my own thoughts on this complex issue.
By that standard all of math is a pure abstraction and there is no physical interpretation of any formulas or diagrams.
You can't google, or just don't want to bring any facts forward to dilute your opinions?
Straight pseudoscience. Creating impossibilities from arbitrary unfounded principles that are completely divorced from actual physical science.
Huh? They're the things that are mostly flickering in and out of existence.
Actually you mean Galilean relativity.
That's pretty convoluted reasoning. It's sufficient to say that absolute position and velocity are pure abstractions of the kind you were referring to up above, with no physical interpretation. This inability to draw the line between good and bad science is what keeps you flailing away without being able to say anything even half true.
Also backwards. Whenever you write t=(a constant), it says nothing about duration. It's a reference to an infinitesimal moment, nothing more. t = "eternity" is a bad formulation, also meaningless. In most applications involving references to infinity you will encounter situations such as "the limit, as t approaches infinity, of f(t)", written:
$$\lim _{ t\rightarrow \infty }{ f(t) } $$
Except that physical dimensions and whatever you're talking about have nothing in common.
No, the result of an inability to correctly interpret the mathematical abstractions you believe have no physical interpretation.
But since your premise is false, so is the rest of your reasoning.
Except that what you're talking about is not mysterious or unknown, it's just not practical or useful in almost any application you can imagine. And this idea, a radix-3 number system, has no relevance to the universe no matter how much you oversimplify and invent explanations.
Much better is to rely on what's known to be true, where the best evidence is, then to go off and create fiction in place of attainable fact. Otherwise you'e off in the weeds of superstition, on your way to all things anti-science: pseudoscience, creation science, conspiracy theory and outright denial and/or deliberate ignorance.
Instead of proclaiming how things are, why not just ask the science and math folks here to help you understand basic principles?
The radix- 3 number system is entirely different to the trinary system I mentioned... can't you see that..?