Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:21 am

I have an astronomy question I was wondering if you could answer, or could point me in the right direction to getting the answer.

Hypothetically, if the past still exists and the future already exists – what would that say about matter/energy?

Scenario A:

The matter/energy of the past stays in the past, the matter/energy of the future is already there, and there is unique matter/energy in every moment. The matter/energy of each moment is not created in the “present” if the future already exists. Each moment (the universe, from beginning to end) must be created from beyond time.

Scenario B:

If the matter/energy of the past is the same matter/energy of the present and future, and the past/future exists (but outside the present) – then the past/future is empty of matter/energy (doesn’t that mean it doesn’t exist?)…. so then, the past/future doesn’t exist outside the present, or the matter/energy of the past is not the same matter/energy of the present/future (see scenario A).

But:

If prophets genuinely receive the future, then doesn’t that mean the future already exists? And being that prophets exist in the past of the foreseen future… doesn’t that mean the past still exists? If so, then scenario A must be true, or it must be possible for there to be a past/future (concept?) in God’s mind that is empty of matter/energy.

Do you see any kinks in my thinking?

"Now," if scenario A is right, from God's perspective, includes the whole universe from beginning to end. Say you represent that with a line. To us, we see one dot on the line at a time, moving from left (beginning) to right (end) ('cause that's how we read our books...). God sees all the dots at the same time -- He sees the line. His "now" is a line, our "now" is a dot.

My question is -- is matter/energy preserved in the line (scenario B, where the past/future is an immaterial concept in God's mind), or in the dot (scenario A)? If B, time travel is impossible. If A -- time travel is possible. You just switch some matter/energy between dots. But, that's a major tangent, now, isn't it? Makes me want to write sci-fi, haha. But, in the case of prophecy, no matter/energy switches around -- God just makes the necessary impressions on the prophet's brain so that s/he experiences the past/future as if it were present (that's one way of God's communication... He also just "tells" them Himself or through an angel).

I may have been (was in fact) wrong about that part in bold (or... right for the wrong reasons). If the past still exists, and the future already exists, then the dots are unchangeable (besides the fact that we co-created/-create them in the present, thanks to God), and any mixing between dots is preserved in the line (but, that mixing may not involve the exchange of matter/energy between dots, it could just be the communication of the future to the mind of a prophet, from beyond time). This means time-travel is impossible unless it is designed into the line from beyond time (God's perspective) (it could be either scenario A, where matter-energy is switched between dots, or scenario B, where there is no switching of matter-energy between dots, because only the present is material... but then that would mean that traveling out of the present is traveling into a mere concept of past/future, rather than into the material reality of past/future... and what would that be like?).

I was thinking... how do you switch matter/energy between dots (scenario A)... you'd have to have cooperation between people (or instances of your mad-scientist self) from two different dots. Simply, Sam Monday would have to switch places with Sam Friday (but it isn't that simple, because by the time Friday roles around, Sam's matter-energy is no longer identical to Sam Monday, and the switch wouldn't work). But, ultimately, it would take God's cooperation, for the reasons mentioned above. Maybe you wouldn't even need any scientific equipment to perform this. And... maybe... just maybe... you're doing this right now, and you just don't know it! Hahahahahaha! :lol: Reminds me of K-Pax.

To me, the universe could be "not deterministic" because it is "predetermined" (and so scenario A would fit, or it would fit that God has a concept of the past and future that are not 'material' -- a concept which includes emotions, reactions, experience, etcetera) -- have you read my "predestination and free will" thread?

For anyone wondering what this (the future already being predetermined by God) all might imply about free will...

The past has already happened and yet you had free will before it had already happened, right?

Why not apply the same reasoning to the future?

Whether or not it has already happened (scenario A), or God already knows how it is going to happen (modified scenario B), we still have free will, because He creates with our free choices in mind from beyond time.
Last edited by Ichthus77 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Postby Anthem » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:17 pm

Where God's involved, consevation of energy does not apply.
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Postby Fin666 » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:20 pm

Hmm intersting question.

I guess it depends what you mean by matter/energy.

The Energy of the universe is conserved. That much is true. But this doesn't really answer your question.

I think that the question doesn't really have an answer in modern physics because there is no concept of a 'now' in physics.

I see two possibilities:

A) The concept of a 'Now' is a human invention. So I guess that would mean our concept of 'time' as an ever evoloving now is also just an ideal.

B) Physics isn't complete and a complete theory of spacetime (or its replacement theory) would give us a mathematical interpretation of 'Now'. Of course its possible that this complete theory isn't really possible to right down as an equation.

If you ignore quantum physics I think A) is the most obvious answer. From A) I would also conclude that both the past and future exist and will always exist. S my A) would be the same as your A). This Is largly because classical physics is deterministic so as you say 'Each moment (the universe, from beginning to end) must be created from beyond time.'

But Quantum physics blows your Scenerio A) out of the water because we find that the universe isn't deterministic! But we could perhaps say that although the future is yet to be determined that the past is set in stone and therfore contiues to exist. Not sure I like that Idea though.

So now we consider B) I think this is probably the truth and also the more philosophically interesting option. I think the idea that only the now exists and that the past and future are just useful abstract terms that we have gotten use to using is far closer to the truth. But we can't escape the fact that this idea of spacetime is very useful and allows us to give meaning to the present.

I think, as with many things in physics/philosophy, it is a strange entanglement of ideas that we see as totally seperate but which are in actual fact seperately incomplete ideas and only when we can uniite them in a way that defies common sense will we realise 'the truth' e.g. space/time energy/matter wave/particle mind/body.

I think those examples are much more than analogies to the combination of the concept of an ever evoloving now and a fully determined past, present and future.

Hopefully I'm not losing anyone who reads this.

I'll try to explain. In quantum physics we have wave equations which are deterministic. So if we watch the wave equation of the universe from 'begining to end' its totally determined by the equation. But this wave equation really only gives us the probablity of finding the universe in any one of infinte states. So its only when we actually measure the position or momentum of a particle that we can say what it is the particle is doing.

This probabilistic measurement is what gives quatum physics all its bizzare qualities. But then we also get this inherent uncertainty in our measursements. What I think this signifies is that we never extually get rid of the wave nature of matter we just refine the picture of what is going on to a more 'particle like' picture.

So in conclusion: Senerio A) is wrong from the point of view of you being able to predict the future of any events in the future. But it has some truth in that the wave function remains determined.

I think there may be holes in your Senerio B) becuase matter energy is a worldline in spacetime and hence can exist at all points in space time past and present. But theres no satisfactory answer to your question only more and more interesting twists. But thats alot more interesting anyway.
Fin666
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Brighton, england, europe, the earth

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:24 am

Thanks for your replies. I wish I knew all that quantum math... I think it would be cool to dig into it if I ever get around to it. I wonder what all it would require.

This is from my astronomy professor (nice that we keep in touch)...

You have a knack for asking difficult questions. I'll take a stab at
answering.

Let us begin by challenging your hypothesis that the past and future exist.
This seems to be looking at past and future as though they were locations, instead of events.

The Special Theory of Relativity tells us that time is relative. That is to
say what time it is for me is not the same as time for you. Our times are
separated by our distance. If I were to synchronize clocks with you by
sending a radio signal at the top of each minute, then by the time you got
the signal my clock would have already advanced past the signal since it
took time for my signal to get to you. Time is thus not a universal thing,
it varies with location. Relativity says that even the rate at which time
passes depends on how you are moving.

So, the past does not exist, nor does the future, at least not as places
that you can visit.

Astronomical theory says that all the matter and energy of the Universe has remained the same since time first began. It simply has changed in
distribution.

So, neither scenario is accurate.

On the question of prophets, you might think of their revelations as simply statements of intent. Like I will fix ribs for dinner tomorrow. God tells His plans, and you can be sure they will come to pass.

They might also be statements about the inevitable consequences of actions already in progress. Like the guy who falls off the top of a tall building knows what is coming. One would presume that God knows how everything is and works, so He knows what is going to happen because it is a natural consequence of the current state of affairs. That does not mean the future exists.


I am still needing to go over that theory he mentioned. I never did get into it very deeply. It's kinda funny he's still explaining it to me like I'm in kindergarten. His reply (regarding the God part) is very encouraging. I'll be telling him that I treat the past/future as locations (half metaphorically) for the same reason space and time are treated together in "space-time".

A) The concept of a 'Now' is a human invention. So I guess that would mean our concept of 'time' as an ever evoloving now is also just an ideal.
--fin

"Now," if scenario A is right, from God's perspective, includes the whole universe from beginning to end. Say you represent that with a line. To us, we see one dot on the line at a time, moving from left (beginning) to right (end) ('cause that's how we read our books...). God sees all the dots at the same time -- He sees the line. His "now" is a line, our "now" is a dot.

My question is -- is matter/energy preserved in the line (scenario B, where the past/future is an immaterial concept in God's mind), or in the dot (scenario A)? If B, time travel is impossible. If A -- time travel is possible. You just switch some matter/energy between dots. But, that's a major tangent, now, isn't it? Makes me want to write sci-fi, haha. But, in the case of prophecy, no matter/energy switches around -- God just makes the necessary impressions on the prophet's brain so that s/he experiences the past/future as if it were present (that's one way of God's communication... He also just "tells" them Himself or through an angel).

To me, the universe could be "not deterministic" because it is "predetermined" (and so scenario A would fit, or it would fit that God has a concept of the past and future that are not 'material' -- a concept which includes emotions, reactions, experience, etcetera) -- have you read my "predestination and free will" thread in the Religion forum?

I have no clue what you mean by "worldline".
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Postby Fin666 » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:53 am

A world line is like the line god 'sees' as a line going through every human now. Far from not understanding you seem to have come up with it on your own!
Fin666
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Brighton, england, europe, the earth

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:00 am

Fin, well... it's pretty much common sense, I guess.

I think there may be holes in your Senerio B) becuase matter energy is a worldline in spacetime and hence can exist at all points in space time past and present. But theres no satisfactory answer to your question only more and more interesting twists. But thats alot more interesting anyway.
-- fin

Was that not replied to sufficiently with this:

To me, the universe could be "not deterministic" because it is "predetermined" (and so scenario A would fit, or it would fit that God has a concept of the past and future that are not 'material' -- a concept which includes emotions, reactions, experience, etcetera) -- have you read my "predestination and free will" thread in the Religion forum?


For anyone wondering what this (the future already being predetermined by God) all might imply about free will...

The past has already happened and yet you had free will before it had already happened, right?

Why not apply the same reasoning to the future?

Whether or not it has already happened (scenario A), or God already knows how it is going to happen (modified scenario B), we still have free will, because He creates with our free choices in mind from beyond time.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby capslockf9 » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:18 am

Ichthus wrote:I have an astronomy question I was wondering if you could answer, or could point me in the right direction to getting the answer.

Hypothetically, if the past still exists and the future already exists – what would that say about matter/energy?

Scenario A:

The matter/energy of the past stays in the past, the matter/energy of the future is already there, and there is unique matter/energy in every moment. The matter/energy of each moment is not created in the “present” if the future already exists. Each moment (the universe, from beginning to end) must be created from beyond time.

Scenario B:

If the matter/energy of the past is the same matter/energy of the present and future, and the past/future exists (but outside the present) – then the past/future is empty of matter/energy (doesn’t that mean it doesn’t exist?)…. so then, the past/future doesn’t exist outside the present, or the matter/energy of the past is not the same matter/energy of the present/future (see scenario A).

But:

If prophets genuinely receive the future, then doesn’t that mean the future already exists? And being that prophets exist in the past of the foreseen future… doesn’t that mean the past still exists? If so, then scenario A must be true, or it must be possible for there to be a past/future (concept?) in God’s mind that is empty of matter/energy.

Do you see any kinks in my thinking?



There is a "matter" that we shall call a star. Ten light years that "matter" desintegrated. But Right Now you see a star. It is as if you are seeing the past.
A person ten light years away from will see the star as you see it 'now"; while you see the star implosion.
So there can not be a past and a future at the same time - only a wave of some sort.
"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind." - Dhammapada
capslockf9
Thinker
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Pearland Tx

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:40 am

Capslockf9 -- Do you know how far away ten lightyears (this is a measurement of distance) is?

It seems to me that events in "now" can be ordered differently per observation, and all observations can be true (I'm not talking about eye witness testimony, of course), and if you put all the observations together, you get "now". It is not logically or mathematically contradictory to put events in different order relative to different observers. The observer does not make reality, so different observations do not equate to reality contradicting itself.

But, like I said previously, I still need to go into the theory of relativity.

And every time I said "dot" up there in one of my previous posts... I meant "point" -- lol, I frequently create "connect the dots" scenarios at work. The "dots" below are also "points" -- forgive me.

If B, time travel is impossible. If A -- time travel is possible. You just switch some matter/energy between dots. But, that's a major tangent, now, isn't it? Makes me want to write sci-fi, haha.


I may have been (was in fact) wrong about that (or... right for the wrong reasons). If the past still exists, and the future already exists, then the dots are unchangeable (besides the fact that we co-created/-create them in the present, thanks to God), and any mixing between dots is preserved in the line (but, that mixing may not involve the exchange of matter/energy between dots, it could just be the communication of the future to the mind of a prophet, from beyond time). This means time-travel is impossible unless it is designed into the line from beyond time (God's perspective) (it could be either scenario A, where matter-energy is switched between dots, or scenario B, where there is no switching of matter-energy between dots, because only the present is material... but then that would mean that traveling out of the present is traveling into a mere concept of past/future, rather than into the material reality of past/future... and what would that be like?).

I was thinking... how do you switch matter/energy between dots (scenario A)... you'd have to have cooperation between people (or instances of your mad-scientist self) from two different dots. Simply, Sam Monday would have to switch places with Sam Friday (but it isn't that simple, because by the time Friday roles around, Sam's matter-energy is no longer identical to Sam Monday, and the switch wouldn't work). But, ultimately, it would take God's cooperation, for the reasons mentioned above. Maybe you wouldn't even need any scientific equipment to perform this. And... maybe... just maybe... you're doing this right now, and you just don't know it! Hahahahahaha! :lol: Reminds me of K-Pax.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby capslockf9 » Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:29 pm

Ichthus wrote:Capslockf9 -- Do you know how far away ten lightyears (this is a measurement of distance) is?


Yes it is a very long distance.
You on this planet will see the star as it was( before; the light that broadcast it's demise arrives). You do not see the implosion because that light has not arrived yet.

That bit of light that you noticed will travel another light years. Upon reaching another planet another person there, he will now see the same star you saw. He is seeing the star while the new light arriving to your planet is announcing the implosion.

So there you have it; at the same instant over long distance he see what is basicly a past event of yours ; and meanwhile you think you are seeing the present.
Is the past and the present happening at the same time, or is time an illusion
"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind." - Dhammapada
capslockf9
Thinker
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Pearland Tx

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:17 pm

Capslockf9 -- okay, I understand what you're saying now. Some key words were missing from your initial reply.

In your most recent reply, the key words there are "the same instant". That instant is the "objective now"... for those imbedded in time. To observe events in a different order is not to say that the 'objective now' is happening in different orders. Both observations are true in the 'objective now'.

Unless I'm wrong... and I don't see how I can be wrong at this point. I do really need to dig into that theory (Einstein's).

Merry Christmas.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:01 pm

Do you know the kill-zone of an exploding or imploding star, by any chance? It would probably depend on the size of the star, but... do you think 10 light years is outside any star's kill zone?

This is interesting:

"General relativity predicts that in creating a black hole, matter compresses into infinite density (and zero value), a state called a singularity. However, general relativity and other theories of physics are known to be invalid in such a situation. A more comprehensive theory of nature must be developed to explain the state of matter in a black hole's singularity," (381, Discovering the Universe; Comins, Kauffman; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2005).

Apparently time slows down because of the density of the matter, according to that theory. I really don't get this. So... I'll be looking into it until I do, or until I can explain why it is wrong.

Getting off-line.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby capslockf9 » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:28 pm

Ichthus wrote: That instant is the "objective now"... for those imbedded in time.


The problem is believing in time as a reality. Those that see or think time will try to disect time into it's most minute point. Consequently even the point can be further divide. And that divide infinitly. They will never reach "the now".

Matter is the phenomena. Matter is a reaction to stimuli on our senses. A wave, or flux, or some kind of vibration in "space"cause us to percieve matter. One could find "the Now"; by looking for that crest or ebb.


[quote= "ichthus"] the matter/energy of the past is not the same matter/energy of the present/future (see scenario A). [quote]

And ; if we could go to the future the "matter"(relatives, pets etc..) that one sees there is the same ''matter" that one left in the past. Because in actuality there is no matter but some kind of perturbation. The "wave" that stimulated you to see the matter back home is also causing you to see matter again.
"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind." - Dhammapada
capslockf9
Thinker
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Pearland Tx

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:48 am

I dunno... I kind of don't think I have anything to say in reply. I think you're making stuff up, really. And that's okay. Have fun.

One thing I do know... if I ever understand all this, it'll be a miracle. I spent Christmas with my parents and had the most interesting discussion with my father about this, but... I still don't get it.

God is enormously awesome. I can't believe I actually said "mere concept" up there. I was thinkin'... maybe God's concreta is the present, and His abstracta is the past/future (modified scenario B). Only God knows... What I'm saying probably sounds really dumb when compared with the truth. *sigh* He's so amazing.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Chato » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:13 pm

Ichthus wrote:
Do you see any kinks in my thinking?


Ichthus wrote:"Hypothetically, if the past still exists and the future already exists – what would that say about matter/energy?


Why yes, "hypothetically" you can say anything you want.

capslockf9 wrote:There is a "matter" that we shall call a star. Ten light years that "matter" desintegrated. But Right Now you see a star. It is as if you are seeing the past.
A person ten light years away from will see the star as you see it 'now"; while you see the star implosion.
So there can not be a past and a future at the same time - only a wave of some sort.


Anyone can demonstrate this for themselves using "sound." When I was a kid, I briefly worked one summer as a caddy. On the first hole, we caddies stood on a hill and the Golphers used to shoot towards us. The sound of the shot would arrive AFTER the ball was hit. A very odd experieince. But in a small way, simulates the example you post of a star, and our ability to see the light. Obviously the sound was generated at the moment of contact - But to us, a few hundred yards away, we could only see the moment of contact, but the sound arrived later.

Dave
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"
Chato
Thinker
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:42 am

I've been trying to understand relativity. I imagine a clock in my left hand and and a clock in my right hand, one clock slower than the other (hence, the other faster) ... just because of differing masses effecting the rate of motion (again, using imagination) (I have reeeeally long arms, and reeeeally big hands)... this seems to equate "rate of motion" with "rate of passage of time". Relativity wants to say that the clock on the left has a different 'now' than the clock on the right, whereas to me, I am holding both clocks in my hands "right now". If there were no "right now" there would be no way to synchronize the clocks so as to be able to tell one is slower and one is faster (both relative to eachother). A clock ticking slowly and a clock ticking quickly are still ticking together... and that's now!

Chato's golf example... the sound and the thwack of club and ball seemed simultaneous to the golfer, but not the caddies... thus the conclusion that there is no simultaneity ... no objective now... but this is silly. One point of reference does not constitute a "now". "Now" is the sum total of all points of reference (all observations of the various orders of events).

Maybe I still don't get it.

I have more questions.

How is it possible, how does it make any sense that the universe is expanding? Perhaps it is just rearranging. Then again, the text says that in its expansion, more space-time is created -- I would ask how that is possible, but then we could ask that about the very first instance of space-time (God created it all, *ahem*). How can space-time be curved when it seems pretty invisible -- maybe the force of gravity just gives the illusion of space-time. Maybe light doesn't travel through space... just along gravitational paths. Maybe it isn't space that is curved... maybe it is just gravitational paths that are curvy... 'cause everything else is curvy. Somehow this is going backwards to Newton. I give up.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Chato » Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:42 pm

Ichthus wrote:
Chato's golf example... the sound and the thwack of club and ball seemed simultaneous to the golfer, but not the caddies... thus the conclusion that there is no simultaneity ... no objective now... but this is silly. One point of reference does not constitute a "now". "Now" is the sum total of all points of reference (all observations of the various orders of events).

Maybe I still don't get it.


Maybe, I don't get it, but my analogy was simply to show that simultanious events, may not be Observed simultaniously. Since light travels faster than sound, I SAW the golf ball being hit, but only heard the sound later. But even light has speed, so the previous example of watching a star, ten "light years" away. We see a normal star, even though the actual star just blew up - we will not see the "light" until ten years later. Ten light years being the amount of time that it will take light to reach us.

Ichthus wrote:I have more questions.

How is it possible, how does it make any sense that the universe is expanding? Perhaps it is just rearranging. Then again, the text says that in its expansion, more space-time is created -- I would ask how that is possible, but then we could ask that about the very first instance of space-time (God created it all, *ahem*). How can space-time be curved when it seems pretty invisible -- maybe the force of gravity just gives the illusion of space-time. Maybe light doesn't travel through space... just along gravitational paths. Maybe it isn't space that is curved... maybe it is just gravitational paths that are curvy... 'cause everything else is curvy. Somehow this is going backwards to Newton. I give up.


When the universe was "born," it's size was that of a baseball (basketball? Really small) So the explosion that created our universe led to it's "expansion." The force of that explosion is still working, and the universe is still expanding.

What I find really interesting about the theoery of relativity is that of the relationship between speed and time. Einsteins theory states that if you were going fast enough, time for YOU would be different than time for someone on the stationary object that you left. This was confirmed when the first astronauts experienced time differently than those on earth. They were traveling around 25,000 miles per hour, and over the course of a day or so, they gained two seconds of time. This experiment has been repeated numerous times with the same result. Relativeity tells us, that if you are going at a speed close to the speed of light, the change would be signifigant. If I recall, you, the treaveler might age a year, while those on earth might age scores of years. There is a formula to describe this. In some way "alien to me," you could, if you reached the speed of light, hardly age at all, while those on the stationary object could be aging thousands of years.

It's diffucult to understand without the math - I don't have the math - Bertrand Russel wrote an excellent book on the subject called, "One, two, three, relativity."

There are other peculiar aspects of releativity, for example, gravity affects time as well as speed. If it wasn't for the fact that all of this stuff was proved by expermiment, I would call them all nuts and go about my life... :(

Plus of course, there's plenty of work that remains undone.

Go figure.

Dave
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"
Chato
Thinker
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:30 am

I've been trying to conceive of the relativity theory (still) (the time weirdness). I am trying to think of it like two different identical movies playing at two different speeds, but when you are in either of the videos, it feels like it is playing at normal speed, whereas if you are outside the videos it looks like the videos are playing too fast or too slow (depending on the whole mass and motion thing). I don't know why it is like that, though, which makes me wish I knew the math. It sort of makes me think of the universe as a multiverse of differing time bubbles all interlinked by gravity.

Maybe, I don't get it, but my analogy was simply to show that simultanious events, may not be Observed simultaniously. Since light travels faster than sound, I SAW the golf ball being hit, but only heard the sound later. But even light has speed, so the previous example of watching a star, ten "light years" away. We see a normal star, even though the actual star just blew up - we will not see the "light" until ten years later. Ten light years being the amount of time that it will take light to reach us.


But relativity theory would say that since the apparently simultaneous events can be observed as not simultaneous, they were never objectively simultaneous, and were instead only apparently simultaneous -- there never was simultaneity (unless I misunderstand it). What I actually think is the case is that there is simultaneity along with all the other ways to slice it up (the order of events).

When the universe was "born," it's size was that of a baseball (basketball? Really small) So the explosion that created our universe led to it's "expansion." The force of that explosion is still working, and the universe is still expanding.


I thought a singularity is infinitely small? Then I watched this thing on the history channel or something that said it was the size of a ... crud I forgot what they called it. Something-atom. Super atom? I can't remember. Really small. I don't see how anything can expand if there is nothing in which to expand.

What I find really interesting about the theory of relativity is that of the relationship between speed and time. Einsteins theory states that if you were going fast enough, time for YOU would be different than time for someone on the stationary object that you left. This was confirmed when the first astronauts experienced time differently than those on earth. They were traveling around 25,000 miles per hour, and over the course of a day or so, they gained two seconds of time. This experiment has been repeated numerous times with the same result. Relativeity tells us, that if you are going at a speed close to the speed of light, the change would be signifigant. If I recall, you, the treaveler might age a year, while those on earth might age scores of years. There is a formula to describe this. In some way "alien to me," you could, if you reached the speed of light, hardly age at all, while those on the stationary object could be aging thousands of years.


That is totally awesome.

It's diffucult to understand without the math - I don't have the math - Bertrand Russel wrote an excellent book on the subject called, "One, two, three, relativity."


Seriously? The title sounds kind of "elementary school". One can only hope! lol! I don't find Russell's writing too difficult to follow, anyway.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Fin666 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:17 pm

Time dilation in special relativity is pretty easy to understand.
All you got to remember is that the speed of light is always the same no matter what speed your traveling relative to the source of the light. All of relativity comes from that one principle or rather the full principle that the laws of physics sgould be the same for all observers.

So time dilation. speed = distance/time. So if the speed of light is always the same we can say the time it takes light to travel along a distance is only depend on the distance not your speed relative to the source of light.

basically:

distance = time

So if we're stotionary relative to the light source(say in a space ship) and a wall the light bounces off before comeing back to the source we get this:

Image

But if the source is moving away from us(watchig the spaceship from earth) we get this:

Image

In the statioary case the distance travelled by the light is just h.
But in the moving case the distance travelled is greater than h.


So as distance = time the time is greater when the mirrors are moving. Time dilation.
No, not human. I'm a pict.

You sound like a mouse.

Not mouse. mouses are smoowl have little tails. Pict have no tail. Pict big grrr. Pict stamp on mouses.
Fin666
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Brighton, england, europe, the earth

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:46 am

Thanks, fin. Your signature is weird.

My text starts out saying that the length of an object decreases as its speed increases. If you're on the train, the length doesn't change, but if it moves past you, it is shorter. We're talking about one train. That train cannot both be "a certain length" and "shorter than a certain length" at the same time/instant/moment (A doesn't equal A). So -- what gives?

Same deal with moving clocks. A clock seems to tick more slowly passing by you than if you are in motion with it. The same clock is ticking at normal speed and at a slower speed at the same time/instant/moment (A doesn't equal A). What gives? Say we're all in the U.S.A. -- from our perspective, everyone in China is upside-down. That statement is silly. Now -- why does the ticking clock's time seem to slow down when it passes us (China upside down).... why isn't it instead that our time seems to slow down relative to the ticking clock (U.S.A. upside down)? Maybe nobody's time is slowing down, maybe nobody is upside down? Maybe everybody's time is slowing down, maybe everybody is upside down? Which 'maybe' is correct and why?

Same deal with mass increasing as the object moves faster, even though it does not acquire more matter. The same object has normal mass and greater mass in the same time/instant/moment (A does not equal A). What gives?

If time is slower when there is a greater concentration of matter, that means time is slower on earth than on the moon. Do these differing times link together like the mixing of salt and fresh water?

For a train passing by you -- mass increases, length decreases, time slows. If you're on the train -- mass, length, and time remain the same. So, the very same train remains the same AND changes mass, length, and time. What gives?

If all of this is accurate... then why do things break apart when entering a black hole? "All of the above" (my text) says the person on the object that is in motion doesn't notice time slowing, doesn't notice length decreasing or mass increasing -- nothing seems to change for them. Are people wrong about things being destroyed when they enter a black hole?

Does anyone see where I am going wrong in my thought process... what missing piece of the puzzle will help it all come into view?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Fin666 » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:37 am

Say we're all in the U.S.A. -- from our perspective, everyone in China is upside-down. That statement is silly.


Its not silly its true relative to you people in china are upside down. Thats just a fact. The same is true of time dilation or length contraction. Time and space are relative.

why isn't it instead that our time seems to slow down relative to the ticking clock


It would.

What gives?


Common sense.

length and time aren't absolute. The only absolutes are spacetime and the speed of light.
No, not human. I'm a pict.

You sound like a mouse.

Not mouse. mouses are smoowl have little tails. Pict have no tail. Pict big grrr. Pict stamp on mouses.
Fin666
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Brighton, england, europe, the earth

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:14 am

I bought Russell's "ABC's of Relativity" -- can't wait for it to arrive.

This is drivin' me bonkers... which is a very short drive for me. Hahaha.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:13 am

Russell's book didn't answer the original post for me, and there were a few parts I chuckled at, like "...it is very likely that the universe evolved from a highly condensed state, and it is even more likely that such a highly condensed state represents the earliest time about which there will ever be any scientific information. Whether such a state actually occurred is not at present under dispute. Unfortunately, some people are inclined to refer to the highly condensed state as 'the beginning of the universe' or 'the time when the universe was created' or something of that kind. These phrases mean no more than 'the earliest time about which there is ever likely to be any scientific information', and it is better to avoid them, because they carry undesirable metaphysical implications," (122). Where naturalists fear to tread? lol jk

So... I shrinked/modified the original post down to this, if any one would like to take a stab at it:

Is there a copy of all the matter/energy in the universe in every moment -- is that how it is possible to travel back/forward to the matter/energy that is in the past/future?

Otherwise, if once "now" passes, its matter/energy moves into the next moment, then the past no longer exists, and the future does not exist (physically) until it is filled with matter/energy.

That, or the matter/energy in now is destroyed and replaced with a new copy (its parts slightly arranged differently) the next moment and the past/future are still empty ... but who does the destroying/creating?

There is also a scenario that would end up with a build-up of matter, but I forgot what I was thinking about that. I think it was the idea that a new set of matter/energy is created for each new now, and the old matter from the old nows doesn't move into the past, but sort of... accumulates (we don't observe this, right?). I mean -- if you add up all matter/energy in each moment, is it more than the sum of the matter/energy in now? If not -- doesn't that mean the past/future is empty?

Also -- what is the 'size' of a moment in time? I know there are moments smaller than a second (a milisecond) and there must be moments smaller than that -- what is the smallest moment (what is a unit of "now"?)?


When discussing simultaneity, Russel says, "There is no difficulty about the simultaneity of two events in the same place," and goes on to say, "when we are defining simultaneity between distant events, we have no right to pick and choose among different bodies to be used in defining the point halfway between the events. All bodies have an equal right to be chosen. ... The universal cosmic time which used to be taken for granted is thus no longer admissable. ... For electrons in laboratories, quite different times would be wanted..." This makes me wonder--if two events observed by a human can be simultaneous--what about the electrons in that event? It seems that, to electrons, the events we witness are quite distant--so who are we to say they are simultaneous? In the next chapter, he continues with, "There is no longer a universal time which can be applied without ambiguity to any part of the universe; there are only the various 'proper' times of the various bodies in the universe..." and here's the punch-line... Russell is giving his take of Dr. A.A. Robb's "Theory of Time and Space" (granted, he says it may not be 'philosophically fundamental' -- I'd say maybe that applies to the entire theory?) -- "one event can only be said to be definitely before another if it can influence that other in some way." ba dum bum pshh! That tells me Robb and Russell (and Einstein?) must be guessing on this one! Still, his conclusion includes, "it was thought that we could describe the topography of the universe at a given instant in purely spatial terms. But now that simultaneity has become relative to a particular observer, this is no longer possible."

Let me ask you a question: is he saying there IS a "given instant" in the universe -- a "now" -- at which all the events of that little snapshot can be considered as... yes... "simultaneous"?????????

If so, please answer the questions in my quote above with that in mind. And have a groovy day.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby capslockf9 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:37 pm

Ichthus wrote:
Hypothetically, if the past still exists and the future already exists – what would that say about matter/energy?

.


The erroneous premise in that question is that time is a reality.

The univese we see is only one of many probabilities in this sea of energy. Matter manifest in the mind from the compressed regions in that pertubating wave.
(re: http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html )

-Einstien said matter is spatialy extended.
- Bohm did not think of particles as the fundamental reality, but quanta in a continuous field
-Alain Aspect found communication between photon happens instantly at faster then light.
- see Non locality.
- Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally.
-John Bell said - "That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multi-dimensional configuration space is the origin of the notorious 'non-locality' of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie- Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored."
-And Dr Milo Wolff a professor at MIT says spherical standing waves cause 'particles' .
-von Neumann agreed with Schrödinger in that consciousness particpates in the collapse of the wave.
-John Wheeler's tests proved that an electron acts as a particle when being observed and act as a wave when not being observed.

The only thing out there is a sea of energy. All possibilities are in that sea. The objects you see is not linear, that is to say they are not continious in existence; everthing pops in and out of your perceived universe. The colorless massless electron cloud turns back into a wave when not being observed.

Thus: Things manifest from that possibility wave. A thing could be a school bus. The school bus was only a possiblity until consciousness collapsed the wave. The kids and the oil in that bus also only existed as a possibilty The vegetation that made the oil (that oil was once atmospheric carbon dioxide) and the parents that made the kids also did not exist until that instantof collapse.
In order to manifest that bus you had to create all fifteen billion years it took it to get there.
"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind." - Dhammapada
capslockf9
Thinker
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Pearland Tx

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:13 am

Thanks for replying.

All you've told me is that you don't think the future exists yet.

Most of what you said is beyond my ability to ... well... confirm or deny.

I asked so many interesting questions you just ignored.

You're calling stuff energy and waves and stuff... can you answer my questions as if I meant by "matter/energy" what you mean by it?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:12 am

That 'collapsing into a particle when observed' thing sound like how a circle "collapses" into an oval when you look at it from a different angle. Doesn't mean you did something to make it change [or that we have some sort of ability to change really tiny aspects of the universe by the Power of Observation (poo)]--it's still a circle.

Please. Tell me what all this implies -- how it all answers my questions.

And I just read what you wrote a little more closely. "I" had to create all the years that led up to it? Riiight... wow... I wish I had seen that the first time. Thanks for wasting our time. If you feel like getting serious, let me know.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Next

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users