Yes. On a graph we may have x,y,z AND the value that is stored at that location (time.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just had breakfast 9am Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for the link at end of your post Physicist Argues Time Is Real Headline above says it all and appears to back my understanding of TIME So at least you and I appear to have our ideas from dialing physicist Will read in detail your link, again thanks and hopefully learn more about this puzzle Unlike the above. Because I refuse to continue to supply answers to S questions and recieving nothing in return characterised it as above. Problem as I saw it I was willing to stay around with my bat and ball while S was putting on about how he had a bat and ball but never put up Much as I said about theist who keep saying ' yes we have evidence ' but coming up empty handed A quick note for you to chew on before I get back in more detail I take the position that EVERYTHING Universe wide does indeed happen at the same instant, called NOW. YES space is and the distance of space and the maximum speed of light, which is the maximum speed of the transfer of information, gives the illusion of TIME To be continued Cheers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
exchemist: I can't help you with that. I think my knowledge of quantum mechanics is probably comparable to yours in this regard. The various versions of the uncertainty principle follow in QM from the non-commutativity of the relevant operators. I think there is probably a connection there, as you do, but I haven't followed up on exactly what the connection is. Maybe Q-reeus can actually do something useful for a change and help with this. Or somebody else.
No - no such animal as time with direction. You should know it's a human thought just as a expression to convey a idea. Plus a direction would not be a property One event following another is AGEING of the WHOLE of the Universe with we always see the local effect Shock - horror - wash your mouth out - you have just given succour to theist and their claim of a non physical invisible smart man in the sky be physical to be real never said it had to be - but but but has to be detectable Is detectable as is gravity, though both invisible. Not a problem The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville My reference for you, highly recommend Agree but as I understand no method of detection has been devised as is the same for inches Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks, in a way, James R for confirming my observation elsewhere we are personal foes. You have the clear advantage in this rat infested sewer known as Sf, of having a loyal coterie of shits eagerly coming in to bat for you: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/divide-and-confuse-backfires.162132/ Now, concerning the on-topic matter of connecting (one of) Noether's theorems to HUP, I have no real expertise there and defer to what e.g. Wikipedia has to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_variables I could link to other sites where there are various opinions not always agreeing, but why bother.
Not so much looking for a 'cause' for time, but does time depend on something else to exist in the first place. I'll return to your post a bit later, didn't want you to think that I didn't appreciate you taking the time to explain this as you have. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Like I said, the issue of time is controversial, but I see it as a part of the multi dimensional frame work we call spacetime. I also see such effects as change, movement etc, as occurring in time, not causing time. We also see effects we label as caused by a magnetic field...we feel the effects that we label gravity...we also obviously see the aging process...we call that time. we see both space and time as variable concepts, dependent on our FoRs, and also how in some ways they are interchangeable. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html And of course your universal now can never really be put to any test, because the speed of light is finite. We can never determine a universal now, only a now as defined by the speed of light. Think about it. Here's another rundown on time.... https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/
Will try to get to your reference later thanks I don't follow how a Universal NOW is defined by the speed of light Only the INFORMATION about what is happening on the other side of the Universe is not available to us We, I would contend, obviously exist NOW, as does the other side of the Universe at our NOW, except if it just happens to have been destroyed, but you understand what I mean. What you appear to be advocating is we have our NOW and the other side of the Universe has a different NOW at a different moment My thinking is NOW does not work like that Again we only lack the INFORMATION due to the speed of light limitation (ie distance) We don't lack the moment ie NOW The NOW is Universal Got to run Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You don't believe in time but you do believe in NOW. What are the properties of NOW, with data and links please. I'll be waiting.
Would be strange not to believe in NOW since I live, as does everyone else, in NOW As for PROPERTIES, pick all, I mean ALL, every single atom of the Universe, list the properties of everything in existence in the Universe, bundle them all together, that bundle of properties represents reality and as such are the properties of NOW As for data and links, will let you select your favourite item which exists in the same reality as yourself NOW is the only reality in existence (unless anyone has another they can produce) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We all certainly live in a personal now, but they need not be the same. My cousin living on planet X orbiting Proxima Centauri version of now, will not be recognised by me until 4.5 years later.
True, but but but you have just confirmed light left from cousin, coincidentally, as light left from yourself at a Universe NOW moment, the only difference being location that being your not be the same Both light beams pass and cousins arrives to yourself and your light beam arrives at cousin, both beams AGED 4.5 light years old, which is exactly the same amount of AGE as you each have accrued to arrive together at the current Universal NOW moment As for being same, not sure what you are trying to say What I note - you and cousin are separated by large distance and it takes 4.5 light years before information from each other reaches the other Sorry do not see TIME See two light beams each AGED 4.5 light years and both lock step in reality from the start of each journey to the finish Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay, I'm finally ready to get into this lol Not so much a cause, as much as does time need energy to exist? I don't know why that is confusing to me. I know. But, I understand this reply based on you thinking that I was asking if time has a cause. Ahhh...gotcha. Okay. But wait, doesn't energy come in different ''forms?'' Light, motion, heat, etc...when I think of energy, I think of those ''forms'' of energy. Going with what you're saying, let's see if I get this correct -- energy is essentially the power to do work, whether that power is fueled by heat, light, or motion? Sorry. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why is it a problem? We simply don't know what occurred or existed before the BB, so why would that be a problem? We should rely on our confidence, even if it's limited. We didn't create the limits. Okay, I see...but why couldn't time and energy legitimately exist before the BB, we simply couldn't observe it? Is it because it brings up the question of infinity? I wonder if we'll ever have definitive answers. But...we can keep striving to learn more. Thanks, James for replying, and sorry to bring you more questions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Time and energy could exist before the Big Bang. That is unknown territory. My view is that time isn't a "thing". It's an emergent quality (as they say) rather than fundamental.
I just did a quick google search...and you are not alone in your thinking. Time emerges from ''entanglement.'' Just another quantum mystery, I reckon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Every time that I think I'm getting somewhere, the rug gets snatched from under me!
But that's not a flying rug. We can imagine a flying rug but we know they are not real. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Best understood imo by our overwhelmingly supported model we call the BB, that is space and time [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds. How they existed [if they did] at that first quantum/Planck instant is unknown. Take that along with the fact that the BB is only applicable to the observable universe.
Did you know that the BB model isn't universally accepted, but it's the most encouraging model that we have to help us understand the evolution of the universe? I'm not a naysayer, just adding that, though.
