Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Waspie_Dwarf

Recommended Posts

The implications of this would be that 'the present moment' is a universal constant.

That is demonstrably untrue.

See here for more information. Or any textbook on special relativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is demonstrably untrue. See here for more information. Or any textbook on special relativity.

Yes, I know this. But is the 'now' different than relativity of slmultaneity? What I mean is something different than the relative observation of events depending on one's reference frame. Look at it this way, when two observers who are separated in space experience an event, while they disagree on the exact time it occurred, will both agree for them the event happened in their 'now', or their present moment.

In this sense, everyone's 'now' occurs at the same moment, no matter what their clocks say or how time is dilated in their reference frame relative to someone else's reference frame. If observer A experiences an event in his frame of reference at 12:00 by his clock, and instantly communicates this information to observer B in a different frame of reference, the present moment is the same for both observers.

At 12:10, when observer B experiences the event and instantly communicates this information to observer A, the present moment is also the same for both observers. The only difference is, observer A and observer B experienced the same even at different times on their clocks.

So, both observers are always experienceing the same present moment or 'now'. The relativity of simultaniety only relates to observers experiencing an event relative to their clocks, and does not relate to their sense of the present moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, both observers are always experienceing the same present moment or 'now'. The relativity of simultaniety only relates to observers experiencing an event relative to their clocks, and does not relate to their sense of the present moment.

Every observer has their own sense of ``now'', but the whole point of ``now'' is that it separates history from the future.

The whole point of ``relativity of simultaneity'' is that if two unrelated events, A and B, occur -- i.e. two events whose space-time separation is such that light from one event will not hit the other event -- you can always find one observer who will claim that A happened before B, and another observer who will claim that B happened before A.

Logically, there was a progression of moments of ``now'' between A, B, and the present for one observer, just as there was a progression of moments of ``now'' for the second observer between B, A, and the present.

But since the order of history is different for the two observers, how can you claim that ``now'' is the same for both unless the two observers are currently in the same place at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically, there was a progression of moments of ``now'' between A, B, and the present for one observer, just as there was a progression of moments of ``now'' for the second observer between B, A, and the present.

But since the order of history is different for the two observers, how can you claim that ``now'' is the same for both unless the two observers are currently in the same place at the same time?

When A observes the event in his present moment, is this not this the same present moment for B before he observes the event? The time by their clocks in which A and B observe the event is irrelevant to both of their experiences of the present moment.

post-50472-0-07853600-1401555689_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you prefer, to talk to yourself five years in the past or five years in the future? :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you prefer, to talk to yourself five years in the past or five years in the future? :3

For myself, five years in the past I was pretty much the same as I am now. Five years in the future? I'd be scared to do that, but curiosity would probably get the better of me.

I'd rather talk to myself when I was a kid. I'd learn a lot more from him than I would from me as an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what does it mean? I'm a firm believer in wormholes (fractures), but I also believe they can't be controlled or directed to a certain time or place (no notes to yourself in the past). Would I ever enter one if I saw it? Yes. But only in a certain death situation--like if a huge 18 wheeler was baring down on me, and I had nowhere else to go. But just out of curiosity? Absolutely not. I'm not that curious.

Welcome to UM authorsue i enjoyed reading your post. You have an interesting visual, do you have any other emotions about wormhole dynamics?

I heard a story about a whole heap of soldiers that walked into a fog in Gallipoli never to be seen again. I wonder if wormhole weapons might be possible...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If at some point before human extinction we figure out how to time travel, do you think it would be illegal to go back in time? Like they only go forward in time and then back to the time they left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If at some point before human extinction we figure out how to time travel, do you think it would be illegal to go back in time? Like they only go forward in time and then back to the time they left.

I personally don't think time travel into the past is possible, I also don't think wormholes could be used for time travel.

We could travel into the future using time dilation, though. This might be considered illegal by those who actually live in the future. What society would want a bunch of primitives arriving as immigrants? Unless the future is a desolate wasteland that needed re-population.

Too bad for the voyagers into the future. Whatever they find there they can never go back to their own time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think time travel into the past is possible, I also don't think wormholes could be used for time travel.

We could travel into the future using time dilation, though. This might be considered illegal by those who actually live in the future. What society would want a bunch of primitives arriving as immigrants? Unless the future is a desolate wasteland that needed re-population.

Too bad for the voyagers into the future. Whatever they find there they can never go back to their own time.

At what point will / can modern communications experience time dilation? Or even our own reflections? Both transmit at light speeds dont they? Is it possible then that the past can also exist somewhere, sometime in the future?

Might that explain ghosts? Daydreaming? Or even memories? Are memories our minds way of tapping into and recieving past transmissions? Would a bad reception result in a bad memory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see us moving at all in time; the present is always the present.

I know that doesn't seem to fit with Lorenz Transformations and the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the observer, but I think our usual way of seeing these transformations is probably a conceptual convenience and the setup can be rearranged where there is no time "dimension" at all. I'm no physicist and this is just my intuitive feel, but it seems a lot simpler than imagining a sort-of "present front" moving through the time-space continuum at varying rates depending on frame of reference.

You might be right, it might be impossible to travel to the past or future. Perhaps our universe is locked in an infinite 'now'

Edited by taniwha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be right, it might be impossible to travel to the past or future. Perhaps our universe is locked in an infinite 'now'

If the universe was locked into an infinite "now" then there would be no past.

The fact is that we are all travelling forwards in time at a rate of 1 second per second.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is that travel in time seems an illusion generated from the fact that things change and that so often the changes are measurable (we are able to set up correspondence between changes and clocks and thereby predict change).

To me this is a more intuitive view of time, but I'm aware it would at least appear to have problems with modern physics viewing time as a peculiar sort of dimension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the universe was locked into an infinite "now" then there would be no past.

The fact is that we are all travelling forwards in time at a rate of 1 second per second.

It's a matter of interpretation. One could as well say the future is traveling backward toward us at a rate of 1 second per second. The "now" lasting a Planck unit perhaps if time is quantized.

Here we're talking of time as a "something" that flows or jerks along. What is this "something" that we think of as past or future? We exist in this "something" as the "now". What is this "now" we are imbedded within?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this is a more intuitive view of time, but I'm aware it would at least appear to have problems with modern physics viewing time as a peculiar sort of dimension.

I don't think your view of time is incommensurate with modern physics.

Clearly some aspect of time is like a dimension, since I can ask "when do you want to go?" just as readily as I can ask "where do you want to go?"

But this aspect is not linearly connected to the internal changes that an object can undergo (since travelling at different relative speeds induces different relative rates of internal change).

This second aspect of time is more closely related to entropy than it is to ``coordinate time''.

To the best of my knowledge, the connection between these different aspects of time is not fully understood, and I think your viewpoint is a reasonable perspective for ``entropic time'' - which only seems to be linearly related to ``coordinate time'' since we rarely experience things at relativistic speeds.

It's a matter of interpretation. One could as well say the future is traveling backward toward us at a rate of 1 second per second. The "now" lasting a Planck unit perhaps if time is quantized.

Interesting idea... does that imply that the future is predetermined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think your view of time is incommensurate with modern physics.

Clearly some aspect of time is like a dimension, since I can ask "when do you want to go?" just as readily as I can ask "where do you want to go?"

But this aspect is not linearly connected to the internal changes that an object can undergo (since travelling at different relative speeds induces different relative rates of internal change).

This second aspect of time is more closely related to entropy than it is to ``coordinate time''.

To the best of my knowledge, the connection between these different aspects of time is not fully understood, and I think your viewpoint is a reasonable perspective for ``entropic time'' - which only seems to be linearly related to ``coordinate time'' since we rarely experience things at relativistic speeds.

I don't see why the relationship between entropic and co-ordinate time cannot be linear, sepulchrave?

The assumption it is not seems to be based on every object 'sharing' a frame of reference in co-ordinate time - but this may not be true. Co-ordinate time may be unique for every object in the relativistic universe.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have progressed so much yet such basic things seem incomprehensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea... does that imply that the future is predetermined?

If the future were predetermined, then in a sense the future has already happened. Perhaps our experience of the passage of time is psychological.

I keep having this idea that all time has already happened and it all happened in an instant. This might be logical if time is the primary dimension. Why would all space exist and time only exist partially, moment after moment? Is there a law of nature that determines the duration of moments or events, the 'speed' of time?

Maybe there is a particle, like the Higg's, that acts like a viscosity that slows time down to a manageable duration. If not it may be reasonable to speculate that all time has already happened, as I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the relationship between entropic and co-ordinate time cannot be linear, sepulchrave?

The assumption it is not seems to be based on every object 'sharing' a frame of reference in co-ordinate time - but this may not be true. Co-ordinate time may be unique for every object in the relativistic universe.

[Emphasis mine.]

I would argue that is the definition of coordinate time. The unique time for every object is that object's entropic time.

``Coordinate time and coordinate space'' is how I (or you, or any single observer) describe the Universe that I observe from my own perspective.

Every object has its own entropic time, just like most physical objects have their own lengths, widths, heights, etc. These are intrinsic properties of that object and presumably do not change if I ``look'' at the object from a different perspective.

But I also describe these objects based on my own coordinate system; my couch is ``over there'', my dentist appointment is ``next week'', etc.

If I prepare a bunch of identical objects, then set some of those objects moving at relativistic speeds (relative to myself), then it will appear that the relativistic objects' dimensions and aging will be different compared to their identical twins that are not moving at relativistic speeds. If the moving objects slow down to non-relativistic speeds then their dimensions and aging regain the regular appearance (linear time, Galilean scaling of dimensions based on distance) as their identical twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Emphasis mine.]

I would argue that is the definition of coordinate time. The unique time for every object is that object's entropic time.

``Coordinate time and coordinate space'' is how I (or you, or any single observer) describe the Universe that I observe from my own perspective.

Every object has its own entropic time, just like most physical objects have their own lengths, widths, heights, etc. These are intrinsic properties of that object and presumably do not change if I ``look'' at the object from a different perspective.

But I also describe these objects based on my own coordinate system; my couch is ``over there'', my dentist appointment is ``next week'', etc.

If I prepare a bunch of identical objects, then set some of those objects moving at relativistic speeds (relative to myself), then it will appear that the relativistic objects' dimensions and aging will be different compared to their identical twins that are not moving at relativistic speeds. If the moving objects slow down to non-relativistic speeds then their dimensions and aging regain the regular appearance (linear time, Galilean scaling of dimensions based on distance) as their identical twins.

Yes, but agreeing on an observation does not necessarily mean that observation is shared.

There are psychological and physiological factors in co-ordinate time, which may suggest this sense of time is not 'shared' - but is unique and relative to the individual and the specific circumstance it exists in. This is not about occupying different relativistic frames of reference - a la an object moving at relativistic speed compared to another at rest.

"Next week", for example, can carry a different perspective if the person is looking forward to a trip to the theatre, than a person waiting for surgery for a serious cardiac condition. This is an example of the psychological difference in co-ordinate time. For a physiological difference, we might look at what "next week" means to an elephant versus a mayfly.

What you are suggesting is that "next week" carries the same sense of perspective for all as a single observer. I argue that this is not necessarily the case, but is dependent on the observer.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but agreeing on an observation does not necessarily mean that observation is shared.

There are psychological and physiological factors in co-ordinate time, which may suggest this sense of time is not 'shared' - but is unique and relative to the individual and the specific circumstance it exists in. This is not about occupying different relativistic frames of reference - a la an object moving at relativistic speed compared to another at rest.

"Next week", for example, can carry a different perspective if the person is looking forward to a trip to the theatre, than a person waiting for surgery for a serious cardiac condition. This is an example of the psychological difference in co-ordinate time. For a physiological difference, we might look at what "next week" means to an elephant versus a mayfly.

What you are suggesting is that "next week" carries the same sense of perspective for all as a single observer. I argue that this is not necessarily the case, but is dependent on the observer.

I agree completely.

I guess I wasn't very clear in my previous post...

Reality seems largely independent of any single observer's perspective. Objects seem to have intrinsic properties, such as size and age, that multiple observers with different perspectives will agree upon (after correcting for their particular perspective).

I am saying that ``coordinate time'' is a single observer's map of events. Every observer has their own set of coordinates, with all the subjective variations that go with it.

``Entropic time'' is the real property (i.e. age) of an object.

I am only arguing that the connection between an object's intrinsic entropic time and a person's particular choice for coordinate time is not always linear - even if that person has been very methodical, objective, and precise in constructing their coordinate time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think time travel into the past is possible, I also don't think wormholes could be used for time travel.

We could travel into the future using time dilation, though. This might be considered illegal by those who actually live in the future. What society would want a bunch of primitives arriving as immigrants? Unless the future is a desolate wasteland that needed re-population.

Too bad for the voyagers into the future. Whatever they find there they can never go back to their own time.

What about the basic concept of going back in time to when you build a time machine?

If a wormhole could be produced, and we could just pick one end up and put it on a spaceship, then travel on that spaceship at 99% of c for say 500 years in orbit of the earth and land again, would you not have both a wormhole into the future, and from the future back into the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The instant the wormhole opens, the present should start receiving information from the future. A quantum computer could do the same thing. It can open a wormhole. As soon as the first quantum computer is turned on, it will receive messages from the future as well as send messages to the past to try an open the wormhole.

If a quantum computer works off of superposition and a particle in superposition can be in multiple places and times at once, then someone in the future already has a working quantum computer and is trying to communicate with us and with those in their future. We just have to turn on the quantum computer in the present to receive information from the past and the future. The only draw back is that there must be a quantum computer operating in a different time.

Since IBM built the first quantum computer years ago, this has already been done and is classified. Why not?

Kinda like a Philadelphia Experiment using electrons instead of sailors.

How does a Quantum computer open wormholes? What they do is replace 1's and 0's with qubits that can be both at once achieving more than one state simultaneously, which obviously increased computing power and speed - how does that make a wormhole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be cool if you could time travel, except people would wreck the past and possibly make the future even worse (if that is even possible) Plus, there is a theory that if you travel through time, you would have to go trans-dimensionally, and when you make the jump back, you may end up existing within the same time and space as another object, leading you to have your head through a rock or a tree...ouch

Unless the film frame idea is correct.

One theory postulates that if you go back in time and shoot your Grandpa, he will wake up as normal the next day. The idea being that time is already recorded - like a roll of film, and you have only re-written one captured frame.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely.

I guess I wasn't very clear in my previous post...

I suspect our difference lay in how we used the word 'shared', and I can now see that our positions are not really different at all. Thanks for the discussion and for being patient! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.