Is time fundamental?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jan 23, 2022.

  1. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is in fact a mystery like most of cosmology.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting stuff! I'd never heard of Rayo's number - a number that can't be calculated!

    However, isn't that a cool shot in the game of trying to give a name to a number that is larger than someone else's named number - more woofing than math, physics or philosophy? Still interesting.

    I would suggest that your t=d/s direction needs work. I think the root issues of whether time is fundamental or emergent aren't that easy.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the math side of that question has been answered in a solid way.

    The issue is whether there is some aspect of this universe that is infinite.

    For that, I have heard nobody, including physicists, give a concrete result from observation.

    (Just stating it in a way that is absolute enough to be more easily discredited!)
     
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have heard physicists say that, whenever infinity shows up on mathematics, it just says they don't have a full understanding of the subject. I've never heard a physicist say that the universe or anything else is infinite. Understand that I'm not a physicist but I have a friend who is and he is willing to take my questions from time to time.
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  5. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Is time fundamental?
    SUBTOPIC: Time and Infinity
    ※→ WillReadmore, et al,

    I am bewildered at times. I felt more secure in my understanding of the natural laws (if we came legitimately call them that) in my sophomore year at OSU than I do today.

    (COMMENT)

    Many of the huge questions in physics might be better addressed in the arena of Metaphysics and Philosophy, as Dr Rayo demonstrates when he won the MIT Challenge, then they might be in the traditional spheres. To be honest, I was lost in the first two sentences in Rayo's Proof. But the panel at MIT said it met the criteria for a winning solution.

    Anymore, Philosophy has become a logic playground, rather than a metal platonic exercise. Of course, I have a very hard time envisioning a "Google" - let alone a "Googleplex" or the construction of Up Arrow numbers. I was surprised to learn of practical numbers names beyond the increments of septenquinquaqintillion (10^174).

    IF relativity is correct, THEN the fabric of space may not be inset incremental sizes. The fabric of space is expanding. And IF that is true THEN the distance between two threads of the fabric of space will grow, the CONSEQUENCE is that light will take longer to travel from one thread to the next, as seen by the outside observer. BUT, you are correct (I think). The formula t=d/s (more correctly thought of as f = v / λ) is a constant that is impacted by the changes. The computation of the frequency of light 10 Billion years ago (from a fixed position) will be exactly the same from our perspective today. But the outside observer at a fixed point will see the wavelength change. This is an example of Prof Einstein's thought experiment of the train moving at the near speed of light. The passenger on the train will not see any change to themselves. But the outside observer will see a change in the passenger and the change in the frequency of the whistle. And you would be correct in that my Newtonian t=d/s is perfectly correct for everyday use, even space flight, but is more correctly involved when looking at the bigger picture t = 1/hf. where "h" is Planck's Constant. But I actually never had to use "Planck's Constant" outside the classroom. Even when shooting comm's lasers at the moon. We just say f = 1/t. or t = 1/f. They are inverses to one another. And that leads us back to the expansion of the fabric of space; which changes the frequency of the light (color) when surveyed by the outside observer.

    And that is probably the most boring paragraph you will ever read. And I am sorry to say, you cannot get that time back!

    Just My Thought,
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R

    PS: In general, we do not understand where the first energy came from, or where the fabric of space is expanding into. So, there may not be infinity, because the univverse is not done growing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2022
  6. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Is time fundamental?
    SUBTOPIC: Time and Infinity
    ※→ fmw, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    Just as Sir Isaac Newton had to invent (or discover - depending on your school of thought) a new form of mathematics (calculus) in order to explain his groundbreaking work (on falling objects), so it is that there may yet be another level high that the forms of math we have today (waiting to be invented or discovered). It took man well over 4000 years when Imhotep constructed the first pyramid using math, and ≈ six Centuries (or more) to discover (Arabic Numbers) the zero which paved the way for the decimal number system. It has only been less than four hundred years since Sir Isaac Newton put the fundamentals of calculus together. But at some point in the future, mathematics will yet evolve again and we will understand why it appears the laws of the universe are different between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And this will lead the way to another leap in science.

    A Denar will get you Starbucks Coffee,
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, a common case is that some theory ends up causing one to need to divide by zero - which is not defined - a fairly clear sign there is a mistake somewhere.

    I'll be interested to hear what you friend says!
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amen. Anyone not bewildered when hitting quantum mechanics is just not thinking, if you ask me. It can be worked through to the point of using it as a tool, of course, but good lord!

    Surely Rayo's number, googleplex, etc. are purely issues of math with no relationship to physics in any way. Physics doesn't care if someone names a number. And, these numbers doesn't depend on or describe any physical properties of the universe.

    I really believe that in physics, some of math is being used as a tool - a descriptive language that is highly useful in stating relationships, etc. Math as a language has the advantage that descriptions can be written succinctly and combined. Lucky for us, our physical universe seems to follow the same behavior everywhere - gravity, Planck's constant, speed of light, the properties of elements, etc. appear to be the same everywhere. So, descriptions in the language of math can be relatively simple and applied everywhere.

    But in math, physics is essentially irrelevant. Mathematics is a formal system where theorems may be proven true, as the system is fully defined. Axioms and the theorems that follow come from the system of math, not from science.

    No science can prove anything to be true, as our natural universe is not fully known to us. Newton didn't know about relativity. Today we don't know how quantum mechanics works, how the original energy of this universe became available, dark matter, etc. We only recently discovered a whole new force that is driving the expansion of the universe!
     
    Hey Now and RoccoR like this.
  9. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He says there is nothing infinite in nature. That it exists in mathematics is a problem with the mathematics, he says. He isn't a cosmologist. He specializes in super conductors. He may be the wrong physicist for you. I don't know any cosmologists. Sorry.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good answer!

    As I understand it, there are physicists who see evidence for this universe being curved in on itself. In that case one could pick a direction and go forever, maybe like drawing a line on a ball. Does that qualify as infinite? But so far, measurements seem to indicate the "flat" model. Of course measurements aren't perfect and even any slight measurement error could indicate a curved universe. A square millimeter on a basketball looks flat. "Flat" would have to be PERFECTLY flat, and claims of that kind of perfection are pretty much always frowned upon.

    A wiki level explanation of the question:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
     
  11. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A curvature doesn't indicate infinity.
     
    Hey Now, WillReadmore and RoccoR like this.
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,637
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It depends exactly what you mean by whether "time if fundamental" or "time is an illusion". To ask a question like this, you will have to ask it in such a way as to be completely literal and specific, without leaving ambiguity of meaning.

    There are relative definitions (relative to things that could possibly be measured), and then there are philosophical interpretations which are not possible to measure.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2022
  13. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The universe may well be infinite in time [eternal] in that the expansion goes on forever. We don't know yet.

    If the multiverse exists there may be an infinite number of universes. But we don't know yet.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2022
  14. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is another interesting twist on this. Religion, philosophy, and science, have grappled with the problem of the beginning. How did we get something from nothing.

    The simplest answer is, we didn't. There are alternate theories that make moot the "something from nothing" paradox. An infinite multiverse is one solution to this problem. And while we can't argue a multiverse is likely because it solves logical problems, there is evidence for a multiverse and it may solve the big problem. While there was a beginning to our universe, it bubbled up from the quantum foam of the infinite multiverse, which exists outside of time as we know it.

    String theory also offers an alternative explanation. The Big Bang may have been a change of state, and not a beginning. The universe may have existed as a 10-dimensional hypersurface that for some reason collapsed into the 4 dimensions we know, with the other 6 being hidden and responsible for the forces in nature. Of course if this is true, then the universe will surely change state again. Perhaps the universe oscillates between 10 dimensions, and 4+6, in cycles of tens of billions of years or more - just wild speculation but a fun idea.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  15. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To me, the real beauty of the multiverse solution is that it may explain the values of the physical constants.

    If physical constants like the speed of light, Planck's Constant, the gravitational constant, and a slew of other such as

    [​IMG]

    were any different, if they varied in value just a tiny bit, atoms could not exist and the world could not exist. How did we get so lucky that the physical constants have just the right values to make a universe filled with matter and suns and planets; that makes life possible? The odds of this happening by chance are astronomical but we have no explanation. No theory can predict their values. We have struggled for over a century to come up with a theory that predicts these values to no avail. We had to discover them through experimentation and have no idea why they have the values they do.

    The multiverse could explain this. For every universe like ours that has matter and suns and planets, where the physical constants all have just the right values for everything to exist, millions or billions or trillions of failed universes popped up from the quantum foam. The physical constants that randomly emerged made matter impossible in those failed universes. But in ours, the physical constants are just right through the laws of large numbers. Everyone once in a billion or trillion times, it is bound to happen.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  16. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Space/time changes, time is a variable..

    I love gravity detectors, we get hit by gravity waves, and that changes time. That suggests time is an artifact of our perception. Clocks allow us the illusion of order, but that's all it is, an illusion.
     
  17. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People need to understand that much of science is a mystery. Scientists offer up theories but few of those theories end up as settled science. Personally I prefer the multiverse as an explanation for the observed expansion of our universe but I'm in a minority. The big bang folks coupled with dark energy have the biggest following. In reality it is all a mystery. It shouldn't bother people that there are physical mysteries. There are plenty of them to be bothered about.
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  18. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Big Bang coupled with Dark Energy? The multiverse theory is not inconsistent with the Big Bang. In fact it explains why the Big Bang happened. And dark matter isn't a theory. It is a name for something unidentified that is creating vast gravitational fields. We know it is there because we can see the effects it has on other bodies.
     
  19. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I switched between dark matter and dark energy.

    Dark matter we see the gravitational effects.

    Dark energy is a name we use to identify the unknown cause of the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. It isn't a theory. It is a name for an observed phenomenon that we don't understand.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
    RoccoR likes this.
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I were bothered by any of this, it would be that people might get the idea that all science is like theoretical physics, where almost nothing can be proven or disproven, and where few ideas are likely to change our lives in any way.

    The experimental sciences are very different in those respects.
     
  21. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. Nobody argues that the heart is a pump that circulates blood around the body.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK. But, I don't like your example, as that was known a long time ago.

    Today we have stupendous healthcare solutions engineered from modern science, just to stick to the medical field.

    - Just being sure that the amazing progress of modern experimental sciences is considered.
     
  23. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I simply made an example of settled science. I think you view it as settled science as well.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You know, death, itself, could be an illusion maybe we don't die after all Maybe it occurs just like the ancient sages of the East tell us that we keep coming back until we reach Enlightenment at which point we become eternal
     
  25. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no evidence of that at all. Not even a whisper of evidence. Just a religious belief.
     

Share This Page