Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum time and space

space and time into a single continuum


hello everyone i like to share this video and it is about time and space.

i think what this video is saying that the past and present and future exist at the same time so if there is a way to jump between them your going to be able to be in any moment of the past and present and future

so what do you think any comments ?

Hi, and welcome.

Thanks for the great video. It's summed up in a few comments by three of those top-notch scientists:

"If you believe the laws of physics, there's just as much reality to the future and the past as there is to the present moment".

"The past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the present and the future, they're all existing in exactly the same way"

"The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion - however persistent"

Like quantum superposition, I accept it, but I can't grasp how it can be. It just is. I bear in mind R. Feynman's words: "If you don't like it, go somewhere else...to another universe".


Yes. It's just a big IF.

Terrific video, Open minded. It raises some interesting points which need some thought. For example:
How realistic is it to consider time as a succession of "moments"?
Are these moments quanta of time?
Does time flow?
What does it mean to say that the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion?

Some of these points we have already looked at, but a fresh "slice" could be good. Just stick with us, OM, you could provide the fresh input we need!

According to dictionaries, a moment is a particular point in time; but I guess that by 'quanta of time' you're refering to intervals of Planck time. Is there any reason to make a distinction here?

I can't imagine a way in which time could physically flow. Perhaps we could make an equivalent analogy, i.e. 'our consciousness flows though time'. But it seems to me that physics tells us: 'consciousness creates the illusion of time'; the illusion we experience as always passing from present to future, never to return to the past - since, according to physics, "the past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent".

To some extent this definition seems to settle the issue as to whether time is tensed or untensed.

John McTaggart (1908) produced a lengthy paper on the subject of how philosophers might consider time. Those brave enough to tackle this paper will find it at:

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.htm

For the benefit of those valiant souls who do undertake this task, it is worth mentioning that McTaggart’s “A Series” roughly equates to the tensed view of time; while his “B Series” roughly equates to the tensless view.

Stay with us, OM, we would hate to lose another new member after just one post.

Actually, this is a test: if McT doesn't put you off, nothing will.

Perhaps it is free will within the individual consciousness that picks possible or probable realities from the illusions of time/space correlations within the personal experience. No two people experience the exact same neural imprints tho they may agree on similarities. We would pick not only our own slices but include the close relationship of alternate viewpoints that are multiple, within the idea of mass consciousness and the view of no single identity.

This is an aside and is not intended to derail the thread, nor is it in any way critical;



so why do American speakers talk of "alternate" universes, viewpoints etc, instead of "alternative"?

I think most scientists and philosophers who talk of instants have something more specific in mind than the general dictionary definition. According to Peter Lynds it makes no difference how small you consider your "instants" to be.

Lynds says this of the “instant” in time: "Regardless of how small and accurate the value is made however, it cannot indicate a precise static instant in time at which a value would theoretically be precisely determined, because there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process. If there were, all physical continuity, including motion and variation in all physical magnitudes would not be possible, as they would be frozen static at that precise instant, remaining that way."

I can see how this might apply to untensed time, but not to tensed time.

More importantly they all exist at the same time.

The delayed choice quantum eraser has shown that over and over again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser)

What you do in the future can affect the past we have many QM experiments that show this.

Time is only one directional to us as the observer it is not directional to Quantum mechanics and in alot of ways it doesn't exist.

Sascha does a reasonable job at explaining it (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861)

Bill S:
your link gave a "not found" error. Do you have another?

Sorry about the link, I must have cut the "l" off the end.

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html

That should work.

Orac; Sascha's articles are great! So far I have read only the first, but I offer no prizes for guessing where this line of reasining could take us.

I'm struggling a bit with Sascha's second part. For example, a spot of additional clarification with the following paragraph would be a great help.

"Loosely speaking in the terminology of modal realism, which is in quantum physics the Everett relative state description, which is in turn also sometimes misleadingly called ‘multiple worlds’ or minds interpretations, or yet worse: “multiverse”: Our measurement of the electron being at x equals the ‘branch’ Bx coming out of its interference with all other branches Bx’ of the quantum universe, in each of which the electron is in another place x’."

It's a statement of Bells Inequality there can be no modal reality .. no two people or in general any observation see the same thing it's another cornerstone of QM.

It's deeper covered in his two articles

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_world_interpretation_splitting_wiener_sausage-80042
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/disproving_local_realism-79216

All you really need to consider is two people observing the same particle will never agree the particle observation how can this be?

Thanks Orac.

Would I be right in thinking that what Sascha is saying is that the many worlds interpretation is OK, as long as you accept it as a sort of explanation of quantum strangeness rather than an actual, physical, splitting of universes?

Yes all the universes have to coexist at the same time sort of at the same stage thats the weird bit.

They can't split and wander off differently because at any given moment you chose to do an observation in any of the universes the probabilty must cover all possibilities.

Hope that makes sense ... thats why they can't split and wander off in different ways.

So Everett's multiverse is much different from say a science fiction multiverse.

In the famous cat in the box QM thought experiment its only dead or alive. So now extend that out we have a cat in a box with a land mine, a vile of poison, a booby trapped pistol, a bowl of water and a bowl of food.

So the cat can be dead by poison, dead by land mine, dead by pistol, alive and eating and alive and drinking.

You would never know which until you observe and thats the point. Only later armed with an observation such as seeing the cat wandering around you realize it must have been in one of the two alive situations.

So observation defines or solidifies reality.

I have always had difficulty with the idea that a new, physical, universe was created, fully formed, each time a choice was made. It would be difficult for this to happen without FTL transfer of information. However, if these universes are only a way of explaining something we don't really understand about QM, credulity creeps back in.

QM like all theories was sort of right in the beginning but with more and more experimental results we now have much more detail filled in.

You are alive at a time like when aristole first realized the earth was not flat. The flat earth society still exists today because you need to accept things to be able to realize it isnt really flat and you eyes and alot of your senses are lying to you.

Most sort of laugh at flat earthers in a derogatory sense but they are no different to people not accepting QM. They are simply people who will not put the logic of observations ahead of there sensorary input.

In years to come we will sort of laugh at solid earthers in the same way because QM tells us quite explicitly that solid is a sensorary illussion to the same degree flat earth is.

What QM has become about is information and what QM seems to be about is rules about how that information relates. It does not participate in our 3D solid world but operates outside it and keeps the 3D solid world from running into anomolies.

Spefically the laws of QM would prohibit our universe splitting into new universes because you would be creating new information and that breaks the most basic tennant of QM.

This universe was born with all the information it can ever have it is a big version of our cat in the box above.

There was a rather nice recent article on this here

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...st-popular.html

And the most important realization is

=>We argue that the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds in a single geometry

Any other argument such as splitting is inconsistant with experimental results from QM.

You mean, the Earth isn't flat?
Back to the drawing board!

I'm not sure that I'm clear about the distinction between the multiverse and the many worlds.

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks, Bill S! If I had the least knowledge of programming languages I might have caught the error myself. Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.