So who is our expert on time?

[Marvin the Martian]

Over the weekend I thought I would study up on time. I have to say that time is a harder concept than Quantum Mechanics. In the good old days, time was a stream flowing from less entropy to more entropy. It all makes sense.

Today, well, that doesn't seem at all to be the case. It appears the modern idea is called the "block universe". Everything in the universe that has happened, and will ever happen, all happen at the same "time". In other words, there is no time as we know it.

This all flows from Relativity. Einstein was a believer, when a friend died Einstein said that no one should be sad as the friend was also still alive since all versions of "time" are equally valid.

One interesting component is the idea that the universe cannot be expanding. If someone were to leave our universe and look at it, they would see a full sized static universe. There wouldn't be a big bang, there wouldn't be whatever the end is, and no expansion. All of that would be inside "the universe" that they are looking at.

So when we dig up a dinosaur skeleton today, the fact of the matter is that the dinosaur is still alive. Here is another link on the idea.

So after a weekend of giving myself a headache trying to study this concept, who here is the time expert that will explain what seems to amount to a retelling of Schrodinger's cat. If time doesn't exist and all nows are equally valid, how did the dinosaur bones get into the location for the researcher to find them?

 

[iu_a_att]

Over the weekend I thought I would study up on time. I have to say that time is a harder concept than Quantum Mechanics. In the good old days, time was a stream flowing from less entropy to more entropy. It all makes sense.

Today, well, that doesn't seem at all to be the case. It appears the modern idea is called the "block universe". Everything in the universe that has happened, and will ever happen, all happen at the same "time". In other words, there is no time as we know it.

This all flows from Relativity. Einstein was a believer, when a friend died Einstein said that no one should be sad as the friend was also still alive since all versions of "time" are equally valid.

One interesting component is the idea that the universe cannot be expanding. If someone were to leave our universe and look at it, they would see a full sized static universe. There wouldn't be a big bang, there wouldn't be whatever the end is, and no expansion. All of that would be inside "the universe" that they are looking at.

So when we dig up a dinosaur skeleton today, the fact of the matter is that the dinosaur is still alive. Here is another link on the idea.

So after a weekend of giving myself a headache trying to study this concept, who here is the time expert that will explain what seems to amount to a retelling of Schrodinger's cat. If time doesn't exist and all nows are equally valid, how did the dinosaur bones get into the location for the researcher to find them?

Really cool stuff there. I thought the central point from relativity is that we shouldn't speak of time...rather we should speak of space-time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

A good part of our confusion stems from the way in which our language for talking about events grows out of our subjective (non-relativistic) experience.

Now, you are saying that all this becomes even more complicated when we talk about quantum mechanics? That sounds plausible to me given the apparent incommensurability between QM and relativity. But I would not qualify as even a well-informed rube on either topic. What I know I learned by falling asleep to videos by Sean Carroll and Richard Feynman.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Thanks. Now I’VE got a headache.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

You need to start by defining space. I asked Goat earlier and he said they have no good definition.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Really cool stuff there. I thought the central point from relativity is that we shouldn't speak of time...rather we should speak of space-time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

A good part of our confusion stems from the way in which our language for talking about events grows out of our subjective (non-relativistic) experience.

Now, you are saying that all this becomes even more complicated when we talk about quantum mechanics? That sounds plausible to me given the apparent incommensurability between QM and relativity. But I would not qualify as even a well-informed rube on either topic. What I know I learned by falling asleep to videos by Sean Carroll and Richard Feynman.

Yes, a "well-informed rube" would be my goal. I know someone who picked up a book promising to explain physics to the general public. He said it was completely unreadable and this guy was, for 2 years, a physics major.

Space-time would be the correct term. Just sloppy on my part. I limited my links to physicists, if one really wants a headache open up a search for "simultaneous time" and read philosopher's on the subject.

I have heard a theory that all advancement in physics has stopped because humans are not smart enough to know the laws they are seeking. I must admit, I think that sounds very plausible. As my good friend Bugs once said "I know this defies the law of gravity, but I never studied law".

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You need to start by defining space. I asked Goat earlier and he had no good definition.

Space - The final frontier is the classic description I am used to.

I would imagine the standard definition is something like an area of height, depth, width, and time (to account for space-time). In this instance it would be all height, depth, width, and time.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

Thanks. Now I’VE got a headache.

Drink some more kava. In your case, it'll help.

 

[iu_a_att]

Space - The final frontier is the classic description I am used to.

I would imagine the standard definition is something like an area of height, depth, width, and time (to account for space-time). In this instance it would be all height, depth, width, and time.

I think a great deal of our confusion is that our normal language is out of sync with the mathematical theories. The "block-universe" language is an attempt to speak more carefully in ways that are consistent with relativity. It really just means to describe a mathematical conception of the 4 dimensional universe. I very much like Carroll and Feynman's videos on the topic of entropy and time.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Drink some more kava. In your case, it'll help.

I actually had to google that. I suspected it was some sort of hipster drink.

I was right.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Over the weekend I thought I would study up on time. I have to say that time is a harder concept than Quantum Mechanics. In the good old days, time was a stream flowing from less entropy to more entropy. It all makes sense.

Today, well, that doesn't seem at all to be the case. It appears the modern idea is called the "block universe". Everything in the universe that has happened, and will ever happen, all happen at the same "time". In other words, there is no time as we know it.

This all flows from Relativity. Einstein was a believer, when a friend died Einstein said that no one should be sad as the friend was also still alive since all versions of "time" are equally valid.

One interesting component is the idea that the universe cannot be expanding. If someone were to leave our universe and look at it, they would see a full sized static universe. There wouldn't be a big bang, there wouldn't be whatever the end is, and no expansion. All of that would be inside "the universe" that they are looking at.

So when we dig up a dinosaur skeleton today, the fact of the matter is that the dinosaur is still alive. Here is another link on the idea.

So after a weekend of giving myself a headache trying to study this concept, who here is the time expert that will explain what seems to amount to a retelling of Schrodinger's cat. If time doesn't exist and all nows are equally valid, how did the dinosaur bones get into the location for the researcher to find them?

This is all way above my pay grade. So I’ll ramble a bit.

One of my takeaways from A Brief History of Time is that time has something to do with relative movement or relative change. Atomic decay suggests there is time. The movement of the planets, the solar system, and our galaxy relative to other bodies all suggest the passage of time. In theory I suppose that if the universe doesn’t move relative to something else there could be no time. But within the universe there is relative movement.

Hawking in the book Grand Design suggested the absence of time is impossible. He also discussed the concept of the "block universe" although I don't remember that particular phrase. He said it's possible the universe always was as it is and there was no big bang to kick things off.

I once asked somebody who is more knowledgeable than me about all this if there was no relative movement, could there be time? We had a fun discussion about what is time.

In your link, the author talks about if we go fast enough, we can go back in time. Well if there is no time, how can we possibly know how about going "fast enough"? I've heard and read about the theory about if we go "out there" far enough and fast enough we can see history. My question about that is that with all the relative movement in the universe, there is no point where we can see the past. The past is scattered all over the universe.

Enough rambling. I agree that thinking about this causes a headache. Alcohol is a good antidote.