You are assuming in your question that the other universes have a 3+1 geometry. If, instead, they have a 4+0 geometry, there would be no time. For example, they might be Riemannian manifolds as opposed to Lorentzian.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
*shrug* ok, then you can feel free to remain ignorant about this.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
At least we now have a start. I suspect that my intuitive sense of a no beginning to the universe is reflected in the intuitive way BBT deals with a beginning.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Forget about the 'Riemannian manifolds as opposed to Lorentzian', what is the 0 in 4+0 geometry?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I do not agree to there being no reality represented by the concept of universal time, my intuition says it is reality.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
It is not infallible but serves me well.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You really aren't doing yourself any favours.
Now you're fitting time into 3-dimensional space? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
So you keep asserting.
Which quite clearly says it's a hypothesis. I've already pointed out that quantised time has been proposed hypothetically (#2,898). You claimed it was definite, current science.Chronon - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model.
Nothing on the "quantum matrix" beyond space-time either.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
When your intuition clashes with the evidence, your intuition loses. Mine too, it's not personal.
The problem is that we have no reason at all to think that human intuition will be any good at all at the fundamentals of the universe, why would it be? It evolved to keep us alive in very limited circumstances as far as the whole universe is concerned.
Quantum mechanics breaks everybody's intuition, yet you are using a device to post here that wouldn't work unless it was substantially correct.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If the history of physics has shown us anything, it most definitely is that "intuition" is quite worthless when dealing with physics that isn't part of our every-day experience (being medium masses traveling at medium speeds).
Our intuition literally goes out the window when we start dealing with extreme masses, extreme gravity, extreme speeds, the quantum level of sub-atomic particles, etc.
Literally almost nothing that happens there is "intuitive".
Au contraire, almost everything that happens there is counter-intuitive
I would say that we simply need to modify our intuitions. After you 'get it', the strangeness of relativity and QM become more 'intuitive' in the sense that you can 'intuit' what will happen. But it is still very, very strange from an 'ordinary' perspective.
Intuition is fine as far as it goes. But when discussing these topics, it *will* break down and give wrong answers unless you learn to modify it in the face of contrary evidence.
Quantum mechanics is very counter intuitive at the beginning (and even later), but it is demonstrably how the universe around us works.
Your intuition is breaking down when it comes to issues of curved spacetime and the different concepts all described by the word 'beginning'. In particular, you seem to be fixated on the idea that time is independent of the universe.
A time coordinate. So, in 4+0, there is no time. In 2+2 there would be two dimensions of time (and two of space).
This also is assuming the total manifold is of four dimensions (like ours). There is no reason to assume this. it is possible to have, say, a 5+3 geometry: five dimensions of space and 3 of time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm reminded by something Brian Greene once said in some talk or lecture...
It's been some time that I've seen it, but the crux of it stuck with me. Paraphrasing:
I would absolutely love it if I could intuitively understand quantum mechanics. But it's just so alien to us.
Consider I throw this bottle of water to you. You could easily catch it, even only using one hand. And you will be able to intuitively figure out where you have to place your hand and when to close it in order to successfully catch it. And you'll do that in pretty much a split second. You don't need to break out a piece of paper and start doing calculations using a physics formula to account for gravity and air resistance, inputting the angle at which I throw it, the force with which I throw it, the curve it will take under the influence of gravity and air resistance,... Nope. Instead, you pretty much can intuitively figure out where the bottle will end up just by watching my throwing motion.
You can't do that with a neutrino being spit out by something. I would love to be able to. But we don't live at the quantum level, we don't have that experience. To catch a neutrino, we instead need multi-billion dollar equipment and machines and a team of many brilliant scientists to build and operate said machine.
We Never Know
No Slack
We Never Know
No Slack
"quite possible some other universe doesn't have time at all"
How do they even exist then?
shunyadragon said:
Chronon - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model.
It is clearly a hypothesis that has been supported by by observations of time in Quantum Mechanics. You failed to present any alternatives that Quantum time is not supported by the evidence. I do not claim that all the questions concerning time are resolved, but on the other hand you have offered nothing concerning what Quantum time is not/
Chronon - Wikipedia
Work by Caldirola
A prominent model was introduced by Piero Caldirola in 1980. In Caldirola's model, one chronon corresponds to about 6.27×10−24 seconds for an electron.[4] This is much longer than the Planck time, which is only about 5.39×10−44 seconds. The Planck time may be postulated as a lower-bound on the length of time that could exist between two connected events[citation needed], but it is not a quantization of time itself since there is no requirement that the time between two events be separated by a discrete number of Planck times. For example, ordered pairs of events (A, B) and (B, C) could each be separated by slightly more than 1 Planck time: this would produce a measurement limit of 1 Planck time between A and B or B and C, but a limit of 3 Planck times between A and C.[citation needed] The chronon is a quantization of the evolution in a system along its world line. Consequently, the value of the chronon, like other quantized observables in quantum mechanics, is a function of the system under consideration, particularly its boundary conditions.[5] The value for the chronon, θ0, is calculated as[6]Formula not shown in post see reference.
From this formula, it can be seen that the nature of the moving particle being considered must be specified, since the value of the chronon depends on the particle's charge and mass.
more to follow . . .
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I never made that claim. At least get the claims that you did not understand correct. And no. You have shown that you are at least as dualistic as anyone. Probably more so.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Which is why my analogy is the positive number line. Zero is neither negative nor positive so it would not be in that number line.
Yes there are different views concerning time and many unanswered questions concerning the nature of time. It is too controversial to assert your view that there is no time. If you are describing the nature of time on the smallest scale you are in one view or another correct. I believe it has been accepted by most scientists accept that what we know as time in our universe does is only a relative relationship to change in space on the large scale. It is still useful in science. At the smallest scale time is illusive and many theoretical approaches drop time from the conclusions. Hawking resorted to imaginary time to get things to work.
Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?
Many different approaches to the riddle of quantum gravity have been proposed over the years, ranging from string theory and superstring theory to M-theory and brane theory, supergravity, loop quantum gravity, etc. This is the cutting edge of modern physics, and if a breakthrough were to occur it would likely be as revolutionary and paradigm-breaking as relativity was in 1905, and could completely change our understanding of time.
Any theory of quantum gravity has to deal with the inherent incompatibilities of quantum theory and relativity, not the least of which is the so-called “problem of time” – that time is taken to have a different meaning in quantum mechanics and general relativity. This is perhaps best exemplified by the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, devised by John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt back in the 1970s. Their attempt to unify relativity and quantum mechanics resulted in time essentially disappearing completely from their equations, suggesting that time does not exist at all and that, at its most fundamental level, the universe is timeless. In response to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, some have concluded that time is a kind of fictitious variable in physics, and that we are perhaps confusing the measurement of different physical variables with the actual existence of something we call time.
Imaginary Time
While looking to connect quantum field theory with statistical mechanics, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking introduced a concept he called imaginary time. Although rather difficult to visualize, imaginary time is not imaginary in the sense of being unreal or made-up. Rather, it bears a similar relationship to normal physical time as the imaginary number scale does to the real numbers in the complex plane, and can perhaps best be portrayed as an axis running perpendicular to that of regular time. It provides a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space, so that it is possible to move forwards and backwards along it, just as one can move right and left or up and down in space.Despite its rather abstract and counter-intuitive nature, the usefulness of imaginary time arises in its ability to help mathematically to smooth out gravitational singularities in models of the universe. Normally, singularities (like those at the center of black holes, or the Big Bang itself) pose a problem for physicists, because they are areas where the known physical laws just do not apply. When visualized in imaginary time, however, the singularity is removed and the Big Bang functions like any other point in space-time.
Exactly what such a concept might represent in the real world, though, is unknown, and currently it remains little more than a potentially useful theoretical construct.