Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kharakov · 11-18-2002, 02:57 PM

How would we tell if the base rate of time fluctuated? Since we are all in the same time zone, so to speak...

crocodile deathroll · 11-18-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
hi ya all, itz been a long time since I had this iidb window open...

The rate of time... As previously posed is an interesting question. Does this seem to imply how long does it take to move out of the NOW window. What I am saying is how many lowest level (QM) change-sequences are available before any matter recedes into the past which is a non-volatile, inactive expression of previous change - a memory.

Would this be the base rate of time? Then this base rate would be the fastest rate at which change can occur at any level and it SHOULD TELL the physical story of the phenomena of TIME.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

The NOW window is no more that a space-time frame of reference the come to one observer's conscious attention.

The sense of "the rate of time" is reduced down to the neural processes in the brain.
If you were travelling at 99.999999999% the speed of light, then the neural processes in your brain relative to mine will slow down almost to a stop, but in your mind they will be working normally - hence the twins effect.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]

crocodile deathroll · 11-18-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kharakov:
How would we tell if the base rate of time fluctuated? Since we are all in the same time zone, so to speak...

Only your observation puts us in the same time zone.

But it would be interesting if someone placed a mirror near Alpha Centaurii and you used a powerful telescope to observe your reflection.
What you would be observing would not be as what you may of looked like 8.5 years(approx) into the universal past but just 8.5 years back in "your" past.

You also should consider psychological time in that there was 14 billion years between the big bang and your birth and did that seem like 14 billion years to you?

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]

wdog · 11-18-2002, 05:40 PM

tron,

Quote:

Perhaps you could give an example? I suspect that for any example you give, the description of the phenomenon will turn out to only be an approximation. In other words, this "uncertainty" of yours is simply an artifict of the equations, and not a physical reality as quantum phenomena likely are. In any case, it has no bearing on the nature of time.

the weather, solar system, etc. Of course it is an artifact of the equations, but as far as we can tell the equations tell the whole story. It is the same as the hidden variable problem of QM. Either you need a new math or a new physics, until then we think it is uncertain.

Quote:

There is simply no way to describe the universe without using a time dimension. Just try it. Now, the common sense view of time has the present as a unique entity moving from the past to the present, but this leaves us with the rate question: "At what rate is the present moving forward in time?" As far as I can tell, the only viable answer is that the present is not moving fowards in time, and to reject the idea of a unique present altogether. From an individual perspective, these two views of time would be indistinguishable, but one has the virtue of avoiding the rate question

In early QM there was the schroedinger and heisenburg picture, the heisenburg leaves out t and is more general. People looking to the general theory of everything are saying to leave out t as well as said the link someone posted a while back. I can find it again if you want, it is the one on quantum cosmology.

The rate question is settled by general relativity, it is completely relative. There is no way to measure any sort of absolute time.

Mr. Sammi · 11-19-2002, 07:02 AM

I gotta disagree because simultaneous soliphists can grab at the same book on the library shelf. Mabye there is no absolute clock we can find at this moment BUT there seems to be an absolute sort of time engraved in all our mass energy combinations because each independent process is able to interact with each other in a regular manner in the space-time continuum. The space-time continuum seems to be the absolute here.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Gauge Boson · 11-20-2002, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
The space-time continuum seems to be the absolute here.

Sorry, but you can't back that up. Substantivilism (spacetime exists independent of matter/energy) has several problems (1). So does relationism (spacetime does not exist independent of matter/energy) (1). It may even be that one is true for space and the other for time.

(1) "A Hole at the Heart of Physics", Scientific American, vol. 287, no. 3, September 02: Time special issue. Musser, George.

Mr. Sammi · 11-20-2002, 04:53 AM

Sure I can back that up. The connotation of the entire space-time complex leads one to believe in the natural regular order of the Steece (space-time continuum). This means because of the regular nature across the Steece any matter/energy combination introduced in the steece will behave in the same regular manner.

The proof of this can be deduced from a simple example of gas burning the same in all cars and every car driving the same (except for the smoothness of the rides). Some cars do not jump or fly in the night.

This means additionally that the simultaneity across the steece does portend a regular order and through the phenomena of simultaneity which will invariably be a time factor reasonably error-free across the steece.

Does any of this make sense?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Sidian · 11-20-2002, 02:54 PM

what is the attraction to a discrete universe?

is it because we have nifty theories that only work in a discrete universe?

is there rationale behind a discrete universe of is it just the linch pin of these theories so we assume it works?

i can't think of anything that would point to a discrete universe only things that point away.

Gauge Boson · 11-20-2002, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
Sure I can back that up.

The reason you cannot back that statement up is because nobody can (yet?). No physicist knows the answer to this problem and both hypotheses are being pursued. Here is an excerpt from the article I cited:

Quote:

In the late 1980s philosophers John Earman and John D. Norton of the University of Pittsburgh argued that general covariance has startling implications for an old metaphysical question: Do space and time exist independently of stars, galaxies and their other contents (a position known as substantivalism) or are they merely an artificial device to describe how physical objects are related (relationism)? As Norton has written: �Are they like a canvas onto which an artist paints; they exist whether or not the artist paints on them? Or are they akin to parenthood; there is no parenthood until there are parents and children.� He and Earman revisited a long-neglected thought experiment of Einstein�s. Consider an empty patch of spacetime. Outside this hole the distribution of matter fixes the geometry of spacetime, per the equations of relativity. Inside, however, general covariance lets spacetime take on any of a variety of shapes. In a sense, spacetime behaves like a canvas tent. The tent poles, which represent matter, force the canvas to assume a certain shape. But if you leave out a pole, creating the equivalent of a hole, part of the tent can sag, or bow out, or ripple unpredictably in the wind. Leaving aside the nuances, the thought experiment poses a dilemma. If the continuum is a thing in its own right (as substantivalism holds), general relativity must be indeterministic � that is, its description of the world must contain an element of randomness. For the theory to be deterministic, spacetime must be a mere fiction (as relationism holds). At first glance, it looks like a victory for relationism. It helps that other theories, such as electromagnetism, are based on symmetries that resemble relationism. But relationism has its own troubles. It is the ultimate source of the problem of frozen time: space may morph over time, but if its many shapes are all equivalent, it never truly changes. Moreover, relationism clashes with the substantivalist underpinnings of quantum mechanics. If spacetime has no fixed meaning, how can you make observations at specific places and moments, as quantum mechanics seems to require? Different resolutions of the dilemma lead to very different theories of quantum gravity. Some physicists, such as Rovelli and Julian Barbour, are trying a relationist approach; they think time does not exist and have searched for ways to explain change as an illusion. Others, including string theorists, lean toward substantivalism. (1)

(1)"A Hole at the Heart of Physics", Scientific American, vol. 287, no. 3, September 02: Time special issue. Musser, George.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gauge Boson ]

tronvillain · 11-20-2002, 11:19 PM

wdog:

Quote:

the weather, solar system, etc. Of course it is an artifact of the equations, but as far as we can tell the equations tell the whole story. It is the same as the hidden variable problem of QM. Either you need a new math or a new physics, until then we think it is uncertain.

Whether there is true randomness in systems like the weather depends entirely on whether or not there is true randomness at a fundamental level. If atoms and molecules are strictly determined, then the weather is strictly determined. If atoms and molecules are probabistically determined, then the weather is probablistically determined. Any randomness which does not the result of fundamental law is pseudo-randomness.

Now, as far as we can tell the equations tell the whole story? Not when it comes to the weather - no rational person think equations describing the weather are anything but an extremely crude approximation limited by information and computing power. It might be true about the solar system, but since the solutions themselves are approximations the possible existence of branch points is not shown to be a physical reality.

Quote:

In early QM there was the schroedinger and heisenburg picture, the heisenburg leaves out t and is more general. People looking to the general theory of everything are saying to leave out t as well as said the link someone posted a while back. I can find it again if you want, it is the one on quantum cosmology.

Ah, but what exactly does it mean to "leave out t"? To me, appears to mean rejecting the idea of a unique moving present and embracing the idea of past, present, and future as a unified whole. In other words, it is perfectly consistent with my view. What do you think it means?

Quote:

The rate question is settled by general relativity, it is completely relative. There is no way to measure any sort of absolute time.

It does no such thing. Oh, it shows that there is no way to measure any sort of absolute time, but that does nothing to address the rate question. As long as the "present" is said to be moving forward in time, the question remains.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-18-2002, 02:57 PM	#101
Kharakov Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fidel Posts: 3,383	How would we tell if the base rate of time fluctuated? Since we are all in the same time zone, so to speak...

11-19-2002, 07:02 AM	#105
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	I gotta disagree because simultaneous soliphists can grab at the same book on the library shelf. Mabye there is no absolute clock we can find at this moment BUT there seems to be an absolute sort of time engraved in all our mass energy combinations because each independent process is able to interact with each other in a regular manner in the space-time continuum. The space-time continuum seems to be the absolute here. Sammi Na Boodie ()

11-20-2002, 04:53 AM	#107
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Sure I can back that up. The connotation of the entire space-time complex leads one to believe in the natural regular order of the Steece (space-time continuum). This means because of the regular nature across the Steece any matter/energy combination introduced in the steece will behave in the same regular manner. The proof of this can be deduced from a simple example of gas burning the same in all cars and every car driving the same (except for the smoothness of the rides). Some cars do not jump or fly in the night. This means additionally that the simultaneity across the steece does portend a regular order and through the phenomena of simultaneity which will invariably be a time factor reasonably error-free across the steece. Does any of this make sense? Sammi Na Boodie ()

11-20-2002, 02:54 PM	#108
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	what is the attraction to a discrete universe? is it because we have nifty theories that only work in a discrete universe? is there rationale behind a discrete universe of is it just the linch pin of these theories so we assume it works? i can't think of anything that would point to a discrete universe only things that point away.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.