Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Could Time Ever Stand Still?

Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 8:27:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

A clock in a moving frame of reference will appear to be running slow from a stationary reference frame. If we measure a time interval t_0 in a moving frame of reference, we can calculate the duration t in the stationary frame of reference using the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation suggests that if you could travel at the speed of light, then time would appear to be stopped. However, you can't travel at the speed of light, so you can't travel fast enough.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 10:45:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 8:27:40 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

A clock in a moving frame of reference will appear to be running slow from a stationary reference frame. If we measure a time interval t_0 in a moving frame of reference, we can calculate the duration t in the stationary frame of reference using the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation suggests that if you could travel at the speed of light, then time would appear to be stopped. However, you can't travel at the speed of light, so you can't travel fast enough.

So, let me get this straight: If I were stationary, and I were able to see a clock's travelling at the speed of light, it would appear to be stopped, or if I were travelling at the speed of light, time would appear to be at a stand still? Correct?

If the clock were in a spaceship's travelling at the speed of light, would not, also, the spaceship appear to be stopped, since the clock and the spaceship are travelling at the same rate?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:36:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 10:45:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/22/2014 8:27:40 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

A clock in a moving frame of reference will appear to be running slow from a stationary reference frame. If we measure a time interval t_0 in a moving frame of reference, we can calculate the duration t in the stationary frame of reference using the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation suggests that if you could travel at the speed of light, then time would appear to be stopped. However, you can't travel at the speed of light, so you can't travel fast enough.

So, let me get this straight: If I were stationary, and I were able to see a clock's travelling at the speed of light, it would appear to be stopped, or if I were travelling at the speed of light, time would appear to be at a stand still? Correct?

If the clock were in a spaceship's travelling at the speed of light, would not, also, the spaceship appear to be stopped, since the clock and the spaceship are travelling at the same rate?

It really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers, and it would be more accurate to say that the time dilation when travelling at the speed of light is undefined. If we were to define the time dilation as above, then we run into a whole bunch of problems and inconsistencies, for example the intersection of world lines.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:49:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:36:12 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 10:45:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/22/2014 8:27:40 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

A clock in a moving frame of reference will appear to be running slow from a stationary reference frame. If we measure a time interval t_0 in a moving frame of reference, we can calculate the duration t in the stationary frame of reference using the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation suggests that if you could travel at the speed of light, then time would appear to be stopped. However, you can't travel at the speed of light, so you can't travel fast enough.

So, let me get this straight: If I were stationary, and I were able to see a clock's travelling at the speed of light, it would appear to be stopped, or if I were travelling at the speed of light, time would appear to be at a stand still? Correct?

If the clock were in a spaceship's travelling at the speed of light, would not, also, the spaceship appear to be stopped, since the clock and the spaceship are travelling at the same rate?

It really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers, and it would be more accurate to say that the time dilation when travelling at the speed of light is undefined. If we were to define the time dilation as above, then we run into a whole bunch of problems and inconsistencies, for example the intersection of world lines.

In saying time dilation is undefined, are you saying the slowing of time is undetectable, by the observer, or time, itself, is undetectable?

In saying the slowing of time is undetectable, by observation, then, time dilation makes no sense. In saying time, itself, is unobservable, then, it would follow, there is no observation; for, observation requires time.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:13:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 8:49:17 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:36:12 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 10:45:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/22/2014 8:27:40 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

A clock in a moving frame of reference will appear to be running slow from a stationary reference frame. If we measure a time interval t_0 in a moving frame of reference, we can calculate the duration t in the stationary frame of reference using the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation suggests that if you could travel at the speed of light, then time would appear to be stopped. However, you can't travel at the speed of light, so you can't travel fast enough.

So, let me get this straight: If I were stationary, and I were able to see a clock's travelling at the speed of light, it would appear to be stopped, or if I were travelling at the speed of light, time would appear to be at a stand still? Correct?

If the clock were in a spaceship's travelling at the speed of light, would not, also, the spaceship appear to be stopped, since the clock and the spaceship are travelling at the same rate?

It really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers, and it would be more accurate to say that the time dilation when travelling at the speed of light is undefined. If we were to define the time dilation as above, then we run into a whole bunch of problems and inconsistencies, for example the intersection of world lines.

In saying time dilation is undefined, are you saying the slowing of time is undetectable, by the observer, or time, itself, is undetectable?

In saying the slowing of time is undetectable, by observation, then, time dilation makes no sense. In saying time, itself, is unobservable, then, it would follow, there is no observation; for, observation requires time.

When v = c, the Lorentz factor is 1/0. Blindly plugging this into the equation to calculate time dilation gets you infinity, which could be interpreted as time being frozen to an observer travelling at the speed of light. But the Lorentz factor is only meaningful for velocities below the speed of light. Blindly plugging in the speed of light for velocity to get infinity is no different from blindly plugging in twice the speed of light to get an imaginary answer; sure you can calculate what you'd get, but the answer isn't a physically meaningful description of the universe. This is what I mean when I say time dilation is undefined.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:10:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?

No. If you were traveling at the speed of light in a spacecraft and you looked down at me on Earth walking around (pretend this is possible) then yes time has stopped for me from your frame of reference in the spacecraft. However in the spacecraft time is still proceeding as normal, so time has not stopped.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:13:54 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:49:17 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:36:12 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 10:45:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/22/2014 8:27:40 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

A clock in a moving frame of reference will appear to be running slow from a stationary reference frame. If we measure a time interval t_0 in a moving frame of reference, we can calculate the duration t in the stationary frame of reference using the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation suggests that if you could travel at the speed of light, then time would appear to be stopped. However, you can't travel at the speed of light, so you can't travel fast enough.

So, let me get this straight: If I were stationary, and I were able to see a clock's travelling at the speed of light, it would appear to be stopped, or if I were travelling at the speed of light, time would appear to be at a stand still? Correct?

If the clock were in a spaceship's travelling at the speed of light, would not, also, the spaceship appear to be stopped, since the clock and the spaceship are travelling at the same rate?

It really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers, and it would be more accurate to say that the time dilation when travelling at the speed of light is undefined. If we were to define the time dilation as above, then we run into a whole bunch of problems and inconsistencies, for example the intersection of world lines.

In saying time dilation is undefined, are you saying the slowing of time is undetectable, by the observer, or time, itself, is undetectable?

In saying the slowing of time is undetectable, by observation, then, time dilation makes no sense. In saying time, itself, is unobservable, then, it would follow, there is no observation; for, observation requires time.

When v = c, the Lorentz factor is 1/0. Blindly plugging this into the equation to calculate time dilation gets you infinity, which could be interpreted as time being frozen to an observer travelling at the speed of light. But the Lorentz factor is only meaningful for velocities below the speed of light. Blindly plugging in the speed of light for velocity to get infinity is no different from blindly plugging in twice the speed of light to get an imaginary answer; sure you can calculate what you'd get, but the answer isn't a physically meaningful description of the universe. This is what I mean when I say time dilation is undefined.

Thanks.

Another question I have is if a photon, at rest, has no mass, does that mean the photon does not take up space.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:50:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Thanks.

Another question I have is if a photon, at rest, has no mass, does that mean the photon does not take up space.

Photons are treated as point particles (they have no mass and no size). But things are a bit more complicated due to the dual wave-particle nature of light; when light is treated as a wave, then it has a wavelength and an amplitude, although even then it probably wouldn't be accurate to say that light/photons take up space.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 8:10:36 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?

No. If you were traveling at the speed of light in a spacecraft and you looked down at me on Earth walking around (pretend this is possible) then yes time has stopped for me from your frame of reference in the spacecraft. However in the spacecraft time is still proceeding as normal, so time has not stopped.

I've read from the perspective of a photon (if a photon had a perspective,) no time would lapse from the point of emission to the point of absorption.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 10:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:56:39 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:50:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Thanks.

Another question I have is if a photon, at rest, has no mass, does that mean the photon does not take up space.

Photons are treated as point particles (they have no mass and no size). But things are a bit more complicated due to the dual wave-particle nature of light; when light is treated as a wave, then it has a wavelength and an amplitude, although even then it probably wouldn't be accurate to say that light/photons take up space.

Thanks. I appreciate the time you've taken to answer my questions. I think sharing knowledge with each other is one of the greatest gifts we can give.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 1:00:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:10:36 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?

No. If you were traveling at the speed of light in a spacecraft and you looked down at me on Earth walking around (pretend this is possible) then yes time has stopped for me from your frame of reference in the spacecraft. However in the spacecraft time is still proceeding as normal, so time has not stopped.

I've read from the perspective of a photon (if a photon had a perspective,) no time would lapse from the point of emission to the point of absorption.

I have never heard that before. It seems illogical as the frame of reference the photon is observing from is also moving at the same speed so time would be passing by.

On a side note: I think the problem with these problems (well for my brain anyway) is that often it is difficult to think on the scales that these observations are occurring. Its like normal everyday viewpoints and then quantum observation require two very different and counter intuitive views.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 6:34:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 1:00:49 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:10:36 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?

No. If you were traveling at the speed of light in a spacecraft and you looked down at me on Earth walking around (pretend this is possible) then yes time has stopped for me from your frame of reference in the spacecraft. However in the spacecraft time is still proceeding as normal, so time has not stopped.

I've read from the perspective of a photon (if a photon had a perspective,) no time would lapse from the point of emission to the point of absorption.

I have never heard that before. It seems illogical as the frame of reference the photon is observing from is also moving at the same speed so time would be passing by.

On a side note: I think the problem with these problems (well for my brain anyway) is that often it is difficult to think on the scales that these observations are occurring. Its like normal everyday viewpoints and then quantum observation require two very different and counter intuitive views.

I don't know the credibility, of this site, but here is the web address: http://www.askamathematician.com...

For me, it seems, in some cases, they defy logic.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 7:45:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:34:36 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/24/2014 1:00:49 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:10:36 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?

No. If you were traveling at the speed of light in a spacecraft and you looked down at me on Earth walking around (pretend this is possible) then yes time has stopped for me from your frame of reference in the spacecraft. However in the spacecraft time is still proceeding as normal, so time has not stopped.

I've read from the perspective of a photon (if a photon had a perspective,) no time would lapse from the point of emission to the point of absorption.

I have never heard that before. It seems illogical as the frame of reference the photon is observing from is also moving at the same speed so time would be passing by.

On a side note: I think the problem with these problems (well for my brain anyway) is that often it is difficult to think on the scales that these observations are occurring. Its like normal everyday viewpoints and then quantum observation require two very different and counter intuitive views.

I don't know the credibility, of this site, but here is the web address: http://www.askamathematician.com...

For me, it seems, in some cases, they defy logic.

Interesting site, I will check it out some more.

Thanks.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:31:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

We hardly have any information on what constitutes time. How can this be answered now?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:31:02 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

We hardly have any information on what constitutes time. How can this be answered now?

Movement through space.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I challenge any of you to prove that time exists at all.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

For a photon, the point of emission and absorption are the same instant. Photons do not exist in the dimension of time.

As a massive object, you must exist in time, and cannot travel at c.

With that said, as I understand it, when we break either the dimensions of time or space down to their smallest units, we start to get incredible uncertainty in defining what matter looks like. By decreasing the scale of space, we get a "froth" of spacetime in which effects like quantum tunneling and spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles become commonplace. If you shake up a soda and break the seal, you can't look at any particular point in the foam and definitively say it is "liquid" or "air" because it is frothing all over unpredictably. That is how spacetime looks at the planck-level.

Similarly, time is equally as uncertain. As we slow time down, particles stop existing as points and instead become smears. Hypothetically, if you were to stop time like some science fiction movie, you wouldn't be able to walk around a bunch of well-defined objects, they would all become agitated and undefined smears of matter and energy that got more erratic as you approached a complete stop. I believe this ties in with Sum Over Histories, where particles are thought of as averages of all their possible paths through spacetime. Without time to define their average, they exist in all possible locations and a completely stopped time would yield infinitely uncertain positions for any particle.

The existence we know of only has meaning in aggregate. When individual particles are isolated and analyzed, they have no meaning. When we say that the Uncertainty Principles tells us that the better we know the position of a particle, the less we know it's velocity, we aren't just saying that this is a logistical limit of the technology we have - it is an inherent characteristic of matter itself. Even and omniscient God with infinitely precise tools could not give you a precise location and velocity of a particle - Uncertainty is built right into the structure of the universe, and is a defining attribute of it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 7:11:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:49:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

For a photon, the point of emission and absorption are the same instant. Photons do not exist in the dimension of time.

As a massive object, you must exist in time, and cannot travel at c.

With that said, as I understand it, when we break either the dimensions of time or space down to their smallest units, we start to get incredible uncertainty in defining what matter looks like. By decreasing the scale of space, we get a "froth" of spacetime in which effects like quantum tunneling and spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles become commonplace. If you shake up a soda and break the seal, you can't look at any particular point in the foam and definitively say it is "liquid" or "air" because it is frothing all over unpredictably. That is how spacetime looks at the planck-level.

Similarly, time is equally as uncertain. As we slow time down, particles stop existing as points and instead become smears. Hypothetically, if you were to stop time like some science fiction movie, you wouldn't be able to walk around a bunch of well-defined objects, they would all become agitated and undefined smears of matter and energy that got more erratic as you approached a complete stop. I believe this ties in with Sum Over Histories, where particles are thought of as averages of all their possible paths through spacetime. Without time to define their average, they exist in all possible locations and a completely stopped time would yield infinitely uncertain positions for any particle.

The existence we know of only has meaning in aggregate. When individual particles are isolated and analyzed, they have no meaning. When we say that the Uncertainty Principles tells us that the better we know the position of a particle, the less we know it's velocity, we aren't just saying that this is a logistical limit of the technology we have - it is an inherent characteristic of matter itself. Even and omniscient God with infinitely precise tools could not give you a precise location and velocity of a particle - Uncertainty is built right into the structure of the universe, and is a defining attribute of it.

So, would you say without time space doesn't exist?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:50:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 7:11:41 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:49:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

For a photon, the point of emission and absorption are the same instant. Photons do not exist in the dimension of time.

As a massive object, you must exist in time, and cannot travel at c.

With that said, as I understand it, when we break either the dimensions of time or space down to their smallest units, we start to get incredible uncertainty in defining what matter looks like. By decreasing the scale of space, we get a "froth" of spacetime in which effects like quantum tunneling and spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles become commonplace. If you shake up a soda and break the seal, you can't look at any particular point in the foam and definitively say it is "liquid" or "air" because it is frothing all over unpredictably. That is how spacetime looks at the planck-level.

Similarly, time is equally as uncertain. As we slow time down, particles stop existing as points and instead become smears. Hypothetically, if you were to stop time like some science fiction movie, you wouldn't be able to walk around a bunch of well-defined objects, they would all become agitated and undefined smears of matter and energy that got more erratic as you approached a complete stop. I believe this ties in with Sum Over Histories, where particles are thought of as averages of all their possible paths through spacetime. Without time to define their average, they exist in all possible locations and a completely stopped time would yield infinitely uncertain positions for any particle.

The existence we know of only has meaning in aggregate. When individual particles are isolated and analyzed, they have no meaning. When we say that the Uncertainty Principles tells us that the better we know the position of a particle, the less we know it's velocity, we aren't just saying that this is a logistical limit of the technology we have - it is an inherent characteristic of matter itself. Even and omniscient God with infinitely precise tools could not give you a precise location and velocity of a particle - Uncertainty is built right into the structure of the universe, and is a defining attribute of it.

So, would you say without time space doesn't exist?

It would appear so. When we peer down at the smallest pieces of matter, we find they aren't even there. Even if they were, the Uncertainty Principle precludes anything from having any determinable position and velocity (there are other sets of uncertain dualities as well). Stopping time creates similar uncertainty. The only way to resolve the relativity of light is to conclude that photons, at least from the vantage point of themselves, travel no distance in no time.

We don't have just one piece of evidence to suggest phenomena don't really exist, we have a whole scheme of experiments which revolve around the concept. One fascinating experiment that I have not been able to find since I watched it, unfortunately (sorry!), involves sending a certain particle through a tube into a central chamber, and then observing it after it exits. When the particle gets to the chamber, it can either stay the same or it can change to a different state. The chances are always 50% that it will change, so as particles are fed into the tube, half of them come out changed and half of them don't. Scientists were able to isolate the chamber from any chances of the particle being observed inside (again, it was a while ago when I read about it and I don't have the technical data to explain it further). Amazingly, when they changed the chamber in this way, effectively cutting it off from any chance of anybody being able to directly determine what state the particle could be in, the particles exited the tube at 100% in the changed state. The reason why this occurred, they concluded, is because the particle, once cut off from observation, existed in BOTH states simultaneously while in the chamber - which caused it always to exit in the changed state state, as opposed to a random 1/2 chance of either or.

The implications of this are that physics is determined by our ability to observe it, not by the physical phenomena themselves. There are lots of experiments to demonstrate this, like the two-slit experiment with photons. The only logical conclusion to draw from this class of experiments is that consciousness itself is not a phenomena in and of itself, i.e., a biological process dependent on the laws of nature. Instead, nature itself is a process of consciousness.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 11:29:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 9:50:29 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:11:41 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:49:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

For a photon, the point of emission and absorption are the same instant. Photons do not exist in the dimension of time.

As a massive object, you must exist in time, and cannot travel at c.

With that said, as I understand it, when we break either the dimensions of time or space down to their smallest units, we start to get incredible uncertainty in defining what matter looks like. By decreasing the scale of space, we get a "froth" of spacetime in which effects like quantum tunneling and spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles become commonplace. If you shake up a soda and break the seal, you can't look at any particular point in the foam and definitively say it is "liquid" or "air" because it is frothing all over unpredictably. That is how spacetime looks at the planck-level.

Similarly, time is equally as uncertain. As we slow time down, particles stop existing as points and instead become smears. Hypothetically, if you were to stop time like some science fiction movie, you wouldn't be able to walk around a bunch of well-defined objects, they would all become agitated and undefined smears of matter and energy that got more erratic as you approached a complete stop. I believe this ties in with Sum Over Histories, where particles are thought of as averages of all their possible paths through spacetime. Without time to define their average, they exist in all possible locations and a completely stopped time would yield infinitely uncertain positions for any particle.

The existence we know of only has meaning in aggregate. When individual particles are isolated and analyzed, they have no meaning. When we say that the Uncertainty Principles tells us that the better we know the position of a particle, the less we know it's velocity, we aren't just saying that this is a logistical limit of the technology we have - it is an inherent characteristic of matter itself. Even and omniscient God with infinitely precise tools could not give you a precise location and velocity of a particle - Uncertainty is built right into the structure of the universe, and is a defining attribute of it.

So, would you say without time space doesn't exist?

It would appear so. When we peer down at the smallest pieces of matter, we find they aren't even there. Even if they were, the Uncertainty Principle precludes anything from having any determinable position and velocity (there are other sets of uncertain dualities as well). Stopping time creates similar uncertainty. The only way to resolve the relativity of light is to conclude that photons, at least from the vantage point of themselves, travel no distance in no time.

We don't have just one piece of evidence to suggest phenomena don't really exist, we have a whole scheme of experiments which revolve around the concept. One fascinating experiment that I have not been able to find since I watched it, unfortunately (sorry!), involves sending a certain particle through a tube into a central chamber, and then observing it after it exits. When the particle gets to the chamber, it can either stay the same or it can change to a different state. The chances are always 50% that it will change, so as particles are fed into the tube, half of them come out changed and half of them don't. Scientists were able to isolate the chamber from any chances of the particle being observed inside (again, it was a while ago when I read about it and I don't have the technical data to explain it further). Amazingly, when they changed the chamber in this way, effectively cutting it off from any chance of anybody being able to directly determine what state the particle could be in, the particles exited the tube at 100% in the changed state. The reason why this occurred, they concluded, is because the particle, once cut off from observation, existed in BOTH states simultaneously while in the chamber - which caused it always to exit in the changed state state, as opposed to a random 1/2 chance of either or.

The implications of this are that physics is determined by our ability to observe it, not by the physical phenomena themselves. There are lots of experiments to demonstrate this, like the two-slit experiment with photons. The only logical conclusion to draw from this class of experiments is that consciousness itself is not a phenomena in and of itself, i.e., a biological process dependent on the laws of nature. Instead, nature itself is a process of consciousness.

So, time's being relative to observation would mean space is, too?

This reminds me of a quote attributed to Einstein:

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:09:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 11:29:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/3/2014 9:50:29 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:11:41 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:49:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

For a photon, the point of emission and absorption are the same instant. Photons do not exist in the dimension of time.

As a massive object, you must exist in time, and cannot travel at c.

With that said, as I understand it, when we break either the dimensions of time or space down to their smallest units, we start to get incredible uncertainty in defining what matter looks like. By decreasing the scale of space, we get a "froth" of spacetime in which effects like quantum tunneling and spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles become commonplace. If you shake up a soda and break the seal, you can't look at any particular point in the foam and definitively say it is "liquid" or "air" because it is frothing all over unpredictably. That is how spacetime looks at the planck-level.

Similarly, time is equally as uncertain. As we slow time down, particles stop existing as points and instead become smears. Hypothetically, if you were to stop time like some science fiction movie, you wouldn't be able to walk around a bunch of well-defined objects, they would all become agitated and undefined smears of matter and energy that got more erratic as you approached a complete stop. I believe this ties in with Sum Over Histories, where particles are thought of as averages of all their possible paths through spacetime. Without time to define their average, they exist in all possible locations and a completely stopped time would yield infinitely uncertain positions for any particle.

The existence we know of only has meaning in aggregate. When individual particles are isolated and analyzed, they have no meaning. When we say that the Uncertainty Principles tells us that the better we know the position of a particle, the less we know it's velocity, we aren't just saying that this is a logistical limit of the technology we have - it is an inherent characteristic of matter itself. Even and omniscient God with infinitely precise tools could not give you a precise location and velocity of a particle - Uncertainty is built right into the structure of the universe, and is a defining attribute of it.

So, would you say without time space doesn't exist?

It would appear so. When we peer down at the smallest pieces of matter, we find they aren't even there. Even if they were, the Uncertainty Principle precludes anything from having any determinable position and velocity (there are other sets of uncertain dualities as well). Stopping time creates similar uncertainty. The only way to resolve the relativity of light is to conclude that photons, at least from the vantage point of themselves, travel no distance in no time.

We don't have just one piece of evidence to suggest phenomena don't really exist, we have a whole scheme of experiments which revolve around the concept. One fascinating experiment that I have not been able to find since I watched it, unfortunately (sorry!), involves sending a certain particle through a tube into a central chamber, and then observing it after it exits. When the particle gets to the chamber, it can either stay the same or it can change to a different state. The chances are always 50% that it will change, so as particles are fed into the tube, half of them come out changed and half of them don't. Scientists were able to isolate the chamber from any chances of the particle being observed inside (again, it was a while ago when I read about it and I don't have the technical data to explain it further). Amazingly, when they changed the chamber in this way, effectively cutting it off from any chance of anybody being able to directly determine what state the particle could be in, the particles exited the tube at 100% in the changed state. The reason why this occurred, they concluded, is because the particle, once cut off from observation, existed in BOTH states simultaneously while in the chamber - which caused it always to exit in the changed state state, as opposed to a random 1/2 chance of either or.

The implications of this are that physics is determined by our ability to observe it, not by the physical phenomena themselves. There are lots of experiments to demonstrate this, like the two-slit experiment with photons. The only logical conclusion to draw from this class of experiments is that consciousness itself is not a phenomena in and of itself, i.e., a biological process dependent on the laws of nature. Instead, nature itself is a process of consciousness.

So, time's being relative to observation would mean space is, too?

I don't follow your question...

This reminds me of a quote attributed to Einstein:

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

All of the greatest thinkers end up coming to this general conclusion, Jesus being the most notable. Jesus taught us to stop favoring our "family" and start treating EVERYBODY like they were our family instead.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 1:09:23 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/3/2014 11:29:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/3/2014 9:50:29 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:11:41 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:49:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

For a photon, the point of emission and absorption are the same instant. Photons do not exist in the dimension of time.

As a massive object, you must exist in time, and cannot travel at c.

With that said, as I understand it, when we break either the dimensions of time or space down to their smallest units, we start to get incredible uncertainty in defining what matter looks like. By decreasing the scale of space, we get a "froth" of spacetime in which effects like quantum tunneling and spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles become commonplace. If you shake up a soda and break the seal, you can't look at any particular point in the foam and definitively say it is "liquid" or "air" because it is frothing all over unpredictably. That is how spacetime looks at the planck-level.

Similarly, time is equally as uncertain. As we slow time down, particles stop existing as points and instead become smears. Hypothetically, if you were to stop time like some science fiction movie, you wouldn't be able to walk around a bunch of well-defined objects, they would all become agitated and undefined smears of matter and energy that got more erratic as you approached a complete stop. I believe this ties in with Sum Over Histories, where particles are thought of as averages of all their possible paths through spacetime. Without time to define their average, they exist in all possible locations and a completely stopped time would yield infinitely uncertain positions for any particle.

The existence we know of only has meaning in aggregate. When individual particles are isolated and analyzed, they have no meaning. When we say that the Uncertainty Principles tells us that the better we know the position of a particle, the less we know it's velocity, we aren't just saying that this is a logistical limit of the technology we have - it is an inherent characteristic of matter itself. Even and omniscient God with infinitely precise tools could not give you a precise location and velocity of a particle - Uncertainty is built right into the structure of the universe, and is a defining attribute of it.

So, would you say without time space doesn't exist?

It would appear so. When we peer down at the smallest pieces of matter, we find they aren't even there. Even if they were, the Uncertainty Principle precludes anything from having any determinable position and velocity (there are other sets of uncertain dualities as well). Stopping time creates similar uncertainty. The only way to resolve the relativity of light is to conclude that photons, at least from the vantage point of themselves, travel no distance in no time.

We don't have just one piece of evidence to suggest phenomena don't really exist, we have a whole scheme of experiments which revolve around the concept. One fascinating experiment that I have not been able to find since I watched it, unfortunately (sorry!), involves sending a certain particle through a tube into a central chamber, and then observing it after it exits. When the particle gets to the chamber, it can either stay the same or it can change to a different state. The chances are always 50% that it will change, so as particles are fed into the tube, half of them come out changed and half of them don't. Scientists were able to isolate the chamber from any chances of the particle being observed inside (again, it was a while ago when I read about it and I don't have the technical data to explain it further). Amazingly, when they changed the chamber in this way, effectively cutting it off from any chance of anybody being able to directly determine what state the particle could be in, the particles exited the tube at 100% in the changed state. The reason why this occurred, they concluded, is because the particle, once cut off from observation, existed in BOTH states simultaneously while in the chamber - which caused it always to exit in the changed state state, as opposed to a random 1/2 chance of either or.

The implications of this are that physics is determined by our ability to observe it, not by the physical phenomena themselves. There are lots of experiments to demonstrate this, like the two-slit experiment with photons. The only logical conclusion to draw from this class of experiments is that consciousness itself is not a phenomena in and of itself, i.e., a biological process dependent on the laws of nature. Instead, nature itself is a process of consciousness.

So, time's being relative to observation would mean space is, too?

I don't follow your question...

If space necessitates time, and time is relative to observation, then, would that mean space is, too?

In other words, from a photon's perspective (if there were such a thing,) if no time lapsed between emission and absorption, wouldn't the concept of space be meaningless?


This reminds me of a quote attributed to Einstein:

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

All of the greatest thinkers end up coming to this general conclusion, Jesus being the most notable. Jesus taught us to stop favoring our "family" and start treating EVERYBODY like they were our family instead.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 2:43:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time is defined by relative motion. Atomic clocks count the oscillations of cesium atoms, but alternatively there must be some kind of motion for time to exist. Time ends when all motion ceases. The universe is dispersing and cooling, working towards the end of time. ... or at least that's the theory.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 5:34:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:10:36 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:27:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:13:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

Enji has summed this up very well. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light. Also, even if you were traveling at the speed of light time would still be progressing at the speed you are at.

So, time doesn't come to a stop, at the speed of light?

No. If you were traveling at the speed of light in a spacecraft and you looked down at me on Earth walking around (pretend this is possible) then yes time has stopped for me from your frame of reference in the spacecraft. However in the spacecraft time is still proceeding as normal, so time has not stopped.

I've read from the perspective of a photon (if a photon had a perspective,) no time would lapse from the point of emission to the point of absorption.

No distance is traveled either, it is stationary, a photon's perspective is timeless and dimensionless, all it could experience would be a singularity.

At least, this is what falls out of the Relativity Theory mathematics.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 7:09:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Keep in mind, these are hypothetical presumptions based on mathematical abstractions, but the fact is that Special Relativity theory does not apply in the case of a photon's reference frame. . Special Relativity is about rest frames relative to each other, it generalizes "inertial" frames of reference, and speaks to the relative observational perspectives. But within Special Relativity, a photon"s frame of reference can"t be defined because, it cannot have a rest frame so there can be no perspective from which to apply Relativity theory, there just isn't a frame of reference that can be applied to a photon within Special Relativity.

In Relativity, as in Classic Physics, movement and time are not experienced by the moving thing, they are necessarily applied to other things, an observer is always stationary from its own perspective because nothing moves relative to itself. In Special Relativity, photons are defined as having no rest frame, so when we apply relativity theory to a photon, we are really only speaking to the direction in which the formulas point, within the abstract mathematics of the theory, you can never actually reach the limits.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:33:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:37:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you were able to travel fast enough, would time come to a stop?

I read your post, then read an email, then came back and read your post again. It was exactly the same.

Hmmmm........
This space for rent.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 7:09:11 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Keep in mind, these are hypothetical presumptions based on mathematical abstractions, but the fact is that Special Relativity theory does not apply in the case of a photon's reference frame. . Special Relativity is about rest frames relative to each other, it generalizes "inertial" frames of reference, and speaks to the relative observational perspectives. But within Special Relativity, a photon"s frame of reference can"t be defined because, it cannot have a rest frame so there can be no perspective from which to apply Relativity theory, there just isn't a frame of reference that can be applied to a photon within Special Relativity.

In Relativity, as in Classic Physics, movement and time are not experienced by the moving thing, they are necessarily applied to other things, an observer is always stationary from its own perspective because nothing moves relative to itself. In Special Relativity, photons are defined as having no rest frame, so when we apply relativity theory to a photon, we are really only speaking to the direction in which the formulas point, within the abstract mathematics of the theory, you can never actually reach the limits.

How is it movement and time are not experienced, by the moving thing? As we move, we experience motion.