Another Time question

[warpus]

So me, you and Jupiter are just objects floating in the Space Time broth? Its like a Cosmic Chunky Campbells soup? I dunno, I dont see it that way. I cant help thinking of Space and Time as being seperate. Time (the eternal Now) had to exist before Space did, IMO.

In physics, spacetime is a model that combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single construct called the space-time continuum, in which time plays the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining the two concepts into a single manifold, physicists are able to significantly simplify the form of most physical laws, as well as describe the workings of the universe at both supergalactic and subatomic levels in a more uniform way.

In Galileian mechanics, this is just a formal option, but in Einstein's special relativity, space and time are not possible to separate. The notion of space depends on observer, as instantaneous events depend on the reference frame.

I trust Einstein to be right

 

[C~G]

Time and space are one and the same.
The link given is a good read.

Dot is one-dimensional, line (with multiple dots) is two dimensional, box (with multiple lines) is three dimensional, box moving (with multiple arranged boxes) is four dimensional. I know the last one requires some brainwork but each dimension requires different kind of explanation.

Consciousness just mixes it all together into one giant universal cocktail resulting like pointed out earlier quite a hangover once gulped in.

 

[RameNoodle]

I wonder, is any of this related to the theory of time travel in A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine Le'engle? Because they spoke of quite a bit of the theory of time in that novel.

 

[Sidhe]

I trust Einstein to be right

Be carefull he did come up with a few howlers like the cosmological constant and he was dead wrong about quantum mechanics, although he was a founder of the theory he didn't like probability without classical certainty. Generally and specially he seems to be right though.

To be honest there's enough head scratching in physics without trying to fathom what exactly time is, I like the simple dictionary definition, it's a concept or the poetic moving image of reality that's all I really care to know. Which is odd cause I like talking philosophy about other areas of physics. Maybe I just like my time consistant and relativistic, who knows?

 

[punkbass2000]

I've got a different metaphor, see how you like it.

Imagine a 3-dimensional large region with its own unique natural laws. Call it Zedland. It could be a universe unto itself or it could be a unique region within our universe - start by thinking of it as a region within our universe. The region is inhabited by thinking beings who generally think of themselves as two-dimensional beings (X and Y dimensions) who all "move" in concert, at a fixed "rate", up through the third (Z) dimension. Due to the laws of their psychology, they often have firm knowledge of what lies below them (negative Z position relative to them), but they can only extrapolate and speculate about what lies above them. "I wonder what the upture holds," one says. "You should take some downstory courses, those who do not know downstory are doomed to up-peat it," another replies.

Except for some subtle fluctuations which are undetectable to these beings - but which allow Earth scientists to learn about this region - the region is completely static. When humans learn to decode their language, there is much philosophical confusion on Earth about the Zedlanders. Why are the Zedlanders so schizophrenic - the bottom part doesn't know what the top part is doing? Yet the top part does know (at least the major facts about) what the bottom part is doing? And why don't they just die of boredom in their region where nothing significant ever happens?

Along comes an Earth scientist who looks amazingly like Stephen Hawking, and explains it all. There is a natural law unique to Zedland which is very much akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, except that it applies through (that region of) space rather than time. Because zentropy increases in the positive Z-direction, information from lower Z locations can be reliably stored and retrieved in higher locations but not vice versa. Thus, Zedlanders can "remember" what is below but not what is above. This has enormous implications for their psychology. It even explains why they post threads on their internet called "Why is Zed special?"

I rather enjoy this analogy.

 

[WillJ]

I just read the whole thing, that is some heavy sh** man

It's heavy? Damn, I was hoping "Time, Consciousness, and Quantum Events in Fundamental Spacetime Geometry" would be a light read.

I've got a different metaphor, see how you like it.

Imagine a 3-dimensional large region with its own unique natural laws. Call it Zedland. It could be a universe unto itself or it could be a unique region within our universe - start by thinking of it as a region within our universe. The region is inhabited by thinking beings who generally think of themselves as two-dimensional beings (X and Y dimensions) who all "move" in concert, at a fixed "rate", up through the third (Z) dimension. Due to the laws of their psychology, they often have firm knowledge of what lies below them (negative Z position relative to them), but they can only extrapolate and speculate about what lies above them. "I wonder what the upture holds," one says. "You should take some downstory courses, those who do not know downstory are doomed to up-peat it," another replies.

Except for some subtle fluctuations which are undetectable to these beings - but which allow Earth scientists to learn about this region - the region is completely static. When humans learn to decode their language, there is much philosophical confusion on Earth about the Zedlanders. Why are the Zedlanders so schizophrenic - the bottom part doesn't know what the top part is doing? Yet the top part does know (at least the major facts about) what the bottom part is doing? And why don't they just die of boredom in their region where nothing significant ever happens?

Along comes an Earth scientist who looks amazingly like Stephen Hawking, and explains it all. There is a natural law unique to Zedland which is very much akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, except that it applies through (that region of) space rather than time. Because zentropy increases in the positive Z-direction, information from lower Z locations can be reliably stored and retrieved in higher locations but not vice versa. Thus, Zedlanders can "remember" what is below but not what is above. This has enormous implications for their psychology. It even explains why they post threads on their internet called "Why is Zed special?"

10 char

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I trust Einstein to be right

My money is on Einstein too.

The notion of space depends on observer, as instantaneous events depend on the reference frame.

As soon as you begin reading about this stuff, you start coming across references to the 'observer', who lays down the foundations of Time and Space by simply observing. Who is this observer supposed to be? Is it us?

 

[Sidhe]

My money is on Einstein too.

My money's on Mich Kaiko better odds everyone bets on a long shot once in a while.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Michio Kaku? He's Da Man! He's the new Carl Sagan

So come on man, youre one of the science guys, who's 'The Observer'?

 

[C~G]

who's 'The Observer'?

I suggest you should read Daniel C. Dennett and alike more if you want the answer to that question.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I suggest you should read Daniel C. Dennett and alike more if you want the answer to that question.

Theres lots of material there

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/pubpage.htm

Lots of interesting stuff there, but I clicked on something randomly, and he was explaining how theres no such thing as the soul. Kinda turned me off.

I dont see why the science guys would have a problem with this question. After all, its science which is bringing an observer into the picture, so whats so unreasonable about asking who the observer is?

 

[Sidhe]

I'm afraid I'm unaware of most philosophical material on the subject of time, from a special relativity point of view the observer is the frame of reference from which dilation of time is observed, it is us.

Special relativity is a bit of a mind **** but once you get your head round it it makes sense. Look it up if your interested it's fairly standard physics these days.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

From MRMs excellent link:

Newton's laws of motion and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism adequately explain our everyday, large scale “classical” world. However at small scales in the "quantum realm" (and the boundary between the quantum and classical realms remains mysterious) objects may exist in two or more states or places simultaneously—more like waves than particles and governed by a "quantum wave function". This property of multiple coexisting possibilities, known as quantum superposition, persists until the superposition is measured, observed or interacts with the classical world or environment. Only then does the superposition of multiple possibilities "reduce", "collapse", “choose” or "decohere" to specific, particular classical states.

Either that is a true statement, or it isnt. If it is, or if it cant be disproven, then doesnt it beg the question, 'Who is the observer?'

 

[C~G]

I thought you were seeking much more philosophical answer to "observer" question.

You have read David Deutsch, I presume?
If not, I recommend him.

 

[Sidhe]

From MRMs excellent link:


Either that is a true statement, or it isnt. If it is, or if it cant be disproven, then doesnt it beg the question, 'Who is the observer?'

we are in that quote it is our detector decohering an electron and colapsing the wave function, we become aware of the result when the said electron strikes the back plate and gives us a measurable effect after incidence.

There are some excellent sites on light and electron superposition and defraction grating effects, the question of how a minute series of holes or a single hole in a plate can disturb the path of a photon or electron is fundemental to the understanding of quantum mechanics, problem is it's not really fully understood; Feynman died still being unable to resolve the copenhagen interpritation and the inherent chaos it introduces into physics.

I've forgotten what the experiments are called? My brain has died? If I remember google them, they're mind blowing.

EDIT: the two slit experiment.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html

This web site is excellent I've read it before, best explanation I've seen on the net.

Mostly from another website forget where.

The 2 slit experiment

Various other experiments (such as the photoelectric effect) had demonstrated that light interacts with matter only in discrete, "quantum"-sized packets called photons

If sunlight is replaced with a light source that is capable of producing just one photon at a time, and the screen is sensitive enough to detect a single photon, Young's experiment can, in theory, be performed one photon at a time -- with identical results.

If either slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the screen, over time, create a pattern with a single peak. But if both slits are left open, the pattern of photons hitting the screen, over time, again becomes a series of light and dark fringes. This result seems to both confirm and contradict the wave theory. On the one hand, the interference pattern confirms that light still behaves much like a wave, even though we send it one particle at a time. On the other hand, each time a photon with a certain energy is emitted, the screen detects a photon with the same energy. Under the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory, an individual photon is seen as passing through both slits at once, and interfering with itself, producing the interference pattern.

The two slits must be close to each other (about 1000 times the wavelength of the source), otherwise the spacing of the interference fringes would be too narrow to discern the interference pattern.

A necessary condition for obtaining an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment concerns the difference in pathlength between two paths that light can take to reach a zone of constructive interference on the viewing screen. This difference must be the wavelength of the light that is used, or a multiple of this wavelength. If a beam of sunlight is let in, and that beam is allowed to fall immediately on the double slit, then the fact that the Sun is not a point source degrades the interference pattern. The light from a source that is not a point source behaves like the light of many point sources side by side. Each can create an interference pattern, but the interference patterns of each of the many-side-by-side sources does not coincide on the screen, so they average each other out, and no interference pattern is seen.

The presence of the first slit is necessary to ensure that the light reaching the double slit is light from a single point source. The path length from the single slit to the double slit is equally important for obtaining the interference pattern as the path from the double slit to the screen.

Newton's rings show that light does not have to be coherent in order to produce an interference pattern. Newton's rings can be readily obtained with plain sunlight.1 More rings are discernable if for example light from a Sodium lamp is used, since Sodium lamp light is only a narrow band of the spectrum. Light from a Sodium lamp is incoherent. Other examples of interference patterns from incoherent light are the colours of soap bubbles and of oil films on water.

The width of the slits is usually slightly smaller than the wavelength (&#955 of the light, allowing the slits to be treated as point-sources of spherical waves, and reducing the effects of single slit diffraction on the results.

In general, interference patterns are clearer when monochromatic or near-monochromatic light is used. Laserlight is as monochromatic as light can be made, therefore laserlight is used to obtain an interference pattern.

If the two slits are illuminated by coherent waves, but with polarizations perpendicular with respect to each other, the interference pattern disappears.

Essentially photons exist in a superposition of themselves which means that in a two slit experiment with a single photon, the photon travels through both slits in a superposition and interferes with it self to produce the banded interference patterns, but if you actually measure which slit the photon travels through it is determined and there are no interference patters(that's pretty bizarre don't you think?) look into the Schrodingers cat thought experiment if you wish to get an insight about what this means.

The upshot of this of course is that we cannot know what position light or anything else in a wave is without measuring it and this collapses the wave function into a value, Before that it exists as a series of possible wave functions and interacts as such. Thus the posit that there is nothing deterministic about light, or anything that interacts in particle wave duality, such as electrons etc. at a fundemental level the interactions of matter cannot be determined, they are truly chaotic, in that we cannot predict what state they are in without opening the box to find out if the cat is alive or dead. When we do this the wave function decoheres and we get no insight into it's composition

 

[warpus]

As soon as you begin reading about this stuff, you start coming across references to the 'observer', who lays down the foundations of Time and Space by simply observing. Who is this observer supposed to be? Is it us?

Observer = anyone who observes.. me, you, the pope, Carl Sagan, etc.

I dont see why the science guys would have a problem with this question. After all, its science which is bringing an observer into the picture, so whats so unreasonable about asking who the observer is?

There is nothing that would indicate that an observer requires a soul in order to be 'an observer'

 

[Bill3000]

An observer doesn't even have to be living. It is just something that interacts with the environment to be observed to obtain information from it.

 

[Ayatollah So]

An observer doesn't even have to be living. It is just something that interacts with the environment to be observed to obtain information from it.

But does it have to be classical? To quote Bozo quoting "MRMs excellent link":

This property of multiple coexisting possibilities, known as quantum superposition, persists until the superposition is measured, observed or interacts with the classical world or environment.

So... how is it that some things are "classical", if it's all made of quantum bits and pieces?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sounds kind of fishy to me too. Its like theyre saying "Reality requires an observer, except when it doesnt."