Discussion
Gaspode said:
Gene Vincent said:
Any and every event has a cause, it ceases to be an event if it has no cause!
Perhaps you had better stop. you are making a fool of yourself.
read my first post and get just that tad wiser than you were before doing so, don't fight knowledge, embrace it.
You can't even be bothered to read what I'm writing. I don't dispute that every event has a cause, I am making the point that it is possible for an event to have no measurable effect. To be thought a fool by such as you is no hardship.Perhaps you had better stop. you are making a fool of yourself.
read my first post and get just that tad wiser than you were before doing so, don't fight knowledge, embrace it.
you started with 'a non-causal event'... I have pointed out that there is no such thing in the Cosmos... and I'm right.
You've finessed or fiddled about with your definition immediately (and I'd still like to to provide an example of this 'non-event' event you mention)... put the spade down, stop digging, read my first post, get your head around it.
No hardship thinking it either.
Centurion07 said:
Gene Vincent said:
...where specifically is there a single statement that is wrong and present your reasoning.
Right there:Gene Vincent said:
right now we know everything there is to know about time
Like I said, you can't know what you don't know.
By magic a new property of time is going to appear, one that has never been seen before and all our calculations that took time into account are all wrong, magically, Computers will stop, nuclear weapons won't explode, power-stations stop putting out power...
You see what I mean?
If we had got this wrong for all these years, then I think we can safely say we'd have noticed...
Stop the mysterious and magical and get real, we know about time, we have done since about 1905, you're just catching up and failing, walk away from magic, it's fakery.
It is trange to think you could hold to there being something unknown about how time really is, we've looked deep into space with the Hubble, we've looked deep into the atom with CERN and no-one, not one single Scientist has ever found a new attribute to time, it is exactly as outlined in my first post, your 'woo' and 'magic' is not required.
Lets use a something you take for granted every day...
GPS, Sat-nav... time is so constant and immutable that we have to download the new times for the synchronisation to ensure accuracy, time remains immutable on board the satellite and on the receivers here on earth, but because Einstein had the zero relative time constant to work with he could produce the maths that mean it all works.
If time was in any way mutable, then GPS would not work for more than a few minutes as the clocks became unsynchronised.
No Human, no little green man on a some far distant planet, no matter how advanced can or could tell you more than is in my first post, it is what time is and relativity is just the effect of it being a single dimension alone and of itself and so have a 'point' existence, a 'now'...
GPS, Sat-nav... time is so constant and immutable that we have to download the new times for the synchronisation to ensure accuracy, time remains immutable on board the satellite and on the receivers here on earth, but because Einstein had the zero relative time constant to work with he could produce the maths that mean it all works.
If time was in any way mutable, then GPS would not work for more than a few minutes as the clocks became unsynchronised.
No Human, no little green man on a some far distant planet, no matter how advanced can or could tell you more than is in my first post, it is what time is and relativity is just the effect of it being a single dimension alone and of itself and so have a 'point' existence, a 'now'...
Bedazzled said:
A few stumbling blocks... Causality in the context of radioactive decay... Fenyman's anti-particles travelling backwards in time... Quantum fluctuations borrowing energy from the future...?
They are only stumbling blocks because in the past we didn't have the full picture of the interactions that gave the false impression of time deceits as knowledge increases in other areas these apparent breaks in the time continuum disappear as they fall one by one to their fuller explanation.The one thing that remains is that time is simply a meter or metric and only mutable by dint of mathematical conjuring.
In this respect the work of Gell-Mann is a place to start to fully comprehend the Feynman error, the interaction of the weak force, realised as energy, causes decay, that is why it's called radio-active, it is by its very nature electro-magnetic and as such is the motion of energy, motion is the cause of times presence, Quantum fluctuations do not borrow energy from the future, they simply occupy the QF in a particular way that causes the probability of energy to shift to accommodate the fluctuation.
Time remains immutable throughout.
I see the word " IF " as a magical word that acts like a gateway into many time dimentions of unreality.
Whats the likelyhood of the universe being on a time cycle? is it possible for that galaxies will at sometime collide and end and restart a new galaxy will start and enevitably us and a new time in space will begin?
Whats the likelyhood of the universe being on a time cycle? is it possible for that galaxies will at sometime collide and end and restart a new galaxy will start and enevitably us and a new time in space will begin?
Bedazzled said:
A few stumbling blocks... Causality in the context of radioactive decay... Fenyman's anti-particles travelling backwards in time... Quantum fluctuations borrowing energy from the future...?
I thought as you have some QFT knowledge you might want a slightly deeper explanation of the way in which the Cosmos won't allow time to be travelled or how it disallows any form of time travel.Now, if you recall my past posts I explained something about energy, in that it is a simple accounting process.
I've cut and pasted it from my earlier thread:-
[i]"ENERGY.
You have to get your head around the fact that energy is not in and of itself an object, although we speak of harnessing energy we don't we simply have to 'account' for it, energy is perhaps the truest 'numbers game' in physics, it ain't and never can be material.
This account is what we call the conservation of energy and it works like this:-
Remember in the two previous fields we talked of excitations (probabilities) they are quanta of energy and in an area at midday there are (say) 100 of them... the account must have 100 at 1pm also, even if they are not in the same place that they were at midday, that is all that energy is an account of use or as we call it, work!"[/i]
This is very important in our understanding of why time travel of any kind is not ever going to happen.
The sum total of all the energy and its equivalence in mass has remained the same since the big bang.
There is as much of it around in this Cosmos as there was in the Cosmos when it was as small as a pea.
There is a 'sum total' energy value, a sort of 'check sum' from moment to moment in the Cosmos.
This ensures the Cosmos works, it is essential.
Now if we look at time travel what you are doing in reality is taking the bit of energy that is you and your machine and adding it to the sum total of another time and subtracting that from the point in time you left.
This imbalance would almost certainly cause the entire Cosmos to unbalanced and fail.
This is what Hawking meant when he postulated the CPC (Chronology Protection Conjecture), the Cosmos protects itself from annihilation by this mechanism.
It is why we can say with the utmost certainty that time travel is nothing more than a pipe-dream.
In the last few years as our knowledge of how this Cosmos works has grown massively the certainty that time travel being an impossibility has grown exponentially.
What seemed a remote possibility just 5 years ago is today dismissed as being ridiculous, papers written are now nothing much more than statements of ignorance of how this Cosmos works in detail.
Gene Vincent said:
Now if we look at time travel what you are doing in reality is taking the bit of energy that is you and your machine and adding it to the sum total of another time and subtracting that from the point in time you left.
Why do i get a mental view of this,because i have just appeared in a place where a wall was in the past and beacuse that wall was there it has now been pushed out into areas that was previously taken by a floor or a door and now they have to be pushed out etc...
So the mental vision i have is of either 2 things that would happen as a result of time travel.
1) You appear in an area and cause everything to expand instantly which causes everthing that exists to cease.
2) You appear in a space that is already occupied either by a wall or space or air but instantly implode so that yourself is vanished into a black hole of your own making by trying to exist in that singularity of space.
(Just trying to get my head around it)
Edited by PeanutHead on Monday 13th August 13:46
Gene Vincent said:
Ahhh, you're talking about magic!
By magic a new property of time is going to appear, one that has never been seen before and all our calculations that took time into account are all wrong, magically, Computers will stop, nuclear weapons won't explode, power-stations stop putting out power...
You see what I mean?
If we had got this wrong for all these years, then I think we can safely say we'd have noticed...
What?By magic a new property of time is going to appear, one that has never been seen before and all our calculations that took time into account are all wrong, magically, Computers will stop, nuclear weapons won't explode, power-stations stop putting out power...
You see what I mean?
If we had got this wrong for all these years, then I think we can safely say we'd have noticed...
You have a somewhat baseless theory. It wouldn't be the first theory to be disproved and none of the previous were disproved by 'magic'.
PeanutHead said:
Gene Vincent said:
Now if we look at time travel what you are doing in reality is taking the bit of energy that is you and your machine and adding it to the sum total of another time and subtracting that from the point in time you left.
Why do i get a mental view of this,because i have just appeared in a place where a wall was in the past and beacuse that wall was there it has now been pushed out into areas that was previously taken by a floor or a door and now they have to be pushed out etc...
So the mental vision i have is of either 2 things that would happen as a result of time travel.
1) You appear in an area and cause everything to expand instantly which causes everthing that exists to cease.
2) You appear in a space that is already occupied either by a wall or space or air but instantly implode so that yourself is vanished into a black hole of your own making by trying to exist in that singularity of space.
(Just trying to get my head around it)
Edited by PeanutHead on Monday 13th August 13:46
We've never experienced such a thing, but the postulation that the Cosmos had many failed attempts at existence in the first place, quite possibly due to there being such an imbalance, then the prospects are grim indeed.
Bedazzled said:
I think that's a description of the mechanism, rather than the causality. As I understand it, radioactive decay is spontaneous and random, the decay of an individual particle cannot be linked to a causal event and can only be predicted in terms of probability (half-life).
There is a cause, a stable atomic structure is an high probability dependent item, the spontaneous breaking of symmetry by the weak force is due in part to quantum fluctuation within the atom itself, it is as if the atom was balanced at the top of a probability quotient and in QFT the fields themselves will combine (randomly) at affecting this precarious balancing act.Radio-activity is the result of some configurations of the atomic structure having a very sharp break-ramp, effectively they are their own worst enemies, the structure thay have adopted is a precarious one and just the slightest interaction with other fields cause the decay.
So there is a cause, but it was slightly hidden from us initially.
Bedazzled said:
... but I can't quite see the difference between a time traveller adding to the sum total energy, and a quantum fluctuation doing the same...? The books have to balance eventually, of course.
Re forwards time travel, I may be missing an important subtlety in the semantics, but the twins paradox demonstrates it is possible, actually inevitable; even if time is just an intrinsic measurement of movement, one twin will be older than the other, nonetheless.
Within a field continuum there is a quotient value of probability, in a Cosmos with no time traveller, any quantum fluctuation is balanced elsewhere, it is fairer to say that as fields interact forming items of huge probability quotients (things that have mass etc) that the result is the fluctuation you speak of.Re forwards time travel, I may be missing an important subtlety in the semantics, but the twins paradox demonstrates it is possible, actually inevitable; even if time is just an intrinsic measurement of movement, one twin will be older than the other, nonetheless.
Now, if you were to have asked almost any well versed Theoretical Physicist about this upto a couple of years ago he might well say that he can envision a time machine built today could travel forward in time but not back to a time before the machine was built and this was pretty much accepted, but that has simply gone now.
ETA. I do like your posts BD.
Bedazzled said:
Being picky rather than hawkish; although that's a very nice explanation of the mechanism, it still uses the word 'randomly' so cannot establish direct causality... Does it indicate our understanding of QFT is incomplete, or are the fluctuations truely random? I thought you had a determinist philosophy?
It is random in the probability sense, if we could observe the combined probabilities we could get somewhere close to predicting their occurrence, we simply have to accept that although it is random, for it to have effect there has to be the correct conditions for the phenomena.The radio-active materials have fields within that are inherently unstable, due to the manner of their assembly/make up.
Lead is stable and not radio-active, the fields within that mass are in some way modulated to absorption rather than radio-active decay, it is still subject to oxidisation, but that is chemical, radio-actively it is very stable and has a virtually flat break-ramp of decay.
Gene Vincent said:
Lead is stable and not radio-active, the fields within that mass are in some way modulated to absorption rather than radio-active decay, it is still subject to oxidisation, but that is chemical, radio-actively it is very stable and has a virtually flat break-ramp of decay.
In some way? what way is that then?If you say "I don't know" I'm bringing out the picture of Nelson from the Simpsons.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff