Log in

View Full Version : Time



Revy
17th November 2009, 03:50
There is the question of whether time really exists as a natural force in the universe, like gravity. I would say No, it does not exist in that sense.

Time is a social concept that is an inevitable byproduct of the way the universe works. So it is ingrained into our thoughts. To explain it further, time is the way we measure the constant motion that happens.

Our calendar, the unit of the year is based on the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. our day is based on the rotation of our Earth. The hours, minutes and seconds are arbitrary means of dividing up that day.

But that's just clock time. There's another form of time, a sense we have. Past, present, future. Things happening, and our reflection of them happening after they have happened.

Try to imagine a world where the concept of time does not exist. Of course, the only way to do that is to put the universe on pause, to stop all motion and all events.

This way of looking at things is particularly bleak for some, because time has to exist as some kind of natural force in order for the great ideas of science fiction to come true. The technology to travel backwards or forwards in time may never exist, and if that's how it's going to be, that's just going to have to be accepted.

The real simple way of looking at possible time travel is to put yourself in a bubble separate from everything else, then reverse motion around that bubble. When you leave that space, you will enter the past. The same principle applies in speeding up motion.

The process of doing such a thing sounds in no other terms, god-like. So I do not expect time travel.

Manifesto
17th November 2009, 04:23
Well yeah time is just something to keep us organized nothing new there but sorta interesting view on time travel though.

The Broke Cycle
17th November 2009, 04:28
Our perception of time is based on the expansion of the universe. If that expansion stops, or reverses, so will our sense of time.

KC
17th November 2009, 06:29
Edit

Meridian
17th November 2009, 08:00
Time travel will never be possible because it would be completely contradictory.

For example, if you were to travel backwards in time, you would inevitably change something in the past. No matter if you "stepped on something" or not (like in the Simpsons), everyone and everything has an impact. Always. Which would lead to the time where you actually lived being different, which would change you, which would change how you are when/if you decide to step into the time machine, etc. etc.

Personally, I do not believe time actually exists like that. I believe level of organisation change, and for us that is what time is. We change and transform, but not on a linear axis.

Psy
17th November 2009, 23:21
Time travel will never be possible because it would be completely contradictory.

For example, if you were to travel backwards in time, you would inevitably change something in the past. No matter if you "stepped on something" or not (like in the Simpsons), everyone and everything has an impact. Always. Which would lead to the time where you actually lived being different, which would change you, which would change how you are when/if you decide to step into the time machine, etc. etc.

That would assume a time traveler would not be autonomous form the future the instant they enter the past. If the time travelers is autonomous from the future then their actions in the past would be the same regardless of the effects of their actions in the future as they would have to actually send another version of themselves into the past in order to change the time line again due to the universe being totally unable to reflect causes backwards through time as to the universe the causes has yet to accrue thus unknown (meaning the act of the time travelers not going back through time in the new time line wouldn't remove the time traveler from the past as the time travelers as the existence of the time travelers in the past has nothing to do with the new future from the stand point of cause and effect.

This raises the real problem with time travel, if the universe can't predict the future it means atoms can't predict a time travelers atoms are going to materialize, meaning all of a sudden atoms are appear out of nowhere and a nuclear reaction will be highly probably as atoms don't have enough time to react to the strong force of the new atoms. Even if the time traveler materializes in deep space there are going to be atoms moving about getting in the way.

Meridian
18th November 2009, 10:11
That would assume a time traveler would not be autonomous form the future the instant they enter the past. If the time travelers is autonomous from the future then their actions in the past would be the same regardless of the effects of their actions in the future as they would have to actually send another version of themselves into the past in order to change the time line again due to the universe being totally unable to reflect causes backwards through time as to the universe the causes has yet to accrue thus unknown (meaning the act of the time travelers not going back through time in the new time line wouldn't remove the time traveler from the past as the time travelers as the existence of the time travelers in the past has nothing to do with the new future from the stand point of cause and effect.
I do not see how the time traveler would be autonomous from the future if the time traveler would have an effect on the environment in the "past" that he or she is visiting. He or she automatically would. Are you suggesting an alternative reality would emerge?

Revy
18th November 2009, 10:22
Have you ever seen A Sound of Thunder? They went back millions of years and the guy stepped on a butterfly and that act alone caused extreme changes to the present.

Whereas if you back to more recent times than that the effect on the present is smaller.

Psy
18th November 2009, 11:34
I do not see how the time traveler would be autonomous from the future if the time traveler would have an effect on the environment in the "past" that he or she is visiting. He or she automatically would. Are you suggesting an alternative reality would emerge?
I'm suggesting once the time traveler enters the enters the past they would lose any link they had with their future to the point if they do still go back in the new time line a new them would be created in the past. For example if the time traveler goes back 5-mins and don't stop themselves from going back in time copies of himself would be created every 5-mins till the time traveller is stopped from going back in time which would only stop new time travellers from being created but won't get rid of the time travellers created through time travel.

Die Rote Fahne
18th November 2009, 12:11
Time is a human perception of growth, development, etc.

Outside of our minds, time is nonexistent.

Revy
18th November 2009, 12:34
Time is a human perception of growth, development, etc.

Outside of our minds, time is nonexistent.

It's more accurate to say that time is our way of thinking about motion.

Growth and development is part of motion. Motion is really what drives the universe.

Take away motion (put everything on pause), and there is no time. No past, no future, but one big three-dimensional photograph of one present moment.

Some would argue that even if all motion stops, "time" continues. That's because they've bought into this idea that time actually exists as a natural force, independent of motion.

It's mainly quantum mechanics that attempts to postulate time as real. Check out this silliness. (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html) These are the people who think they have taken over the scientific world. Most comparable to that old guy from Back to the Future, except it's not a movie and their experiments look set up to fail.:p

Meridian
18th November 2009, 12:57
It's more accurate to say that time is our way of thinking about motion.

Growth and development is part of motion. Motion is really what drives the universe.

Take away motion (put everything on pause), and there is no time. No past, no future, but one big three-dimensional photograph of one present moment.

Some would argue that even if all motion stops, "time" continues. That's because they've bought into this idea that time actually exists as a natural force, independent of motion.

It's mainly quantum mechanics that attempts to postulate time as real. These are the people who think they have taken over the scientific world. Most comparable to that old guy from Back to the Future, except it's not a movie and their experiments look set up to fail.:p
I agree with this.

I do not think that time travel could ever be possible, and definitively not backwards. Even if you went back in time 10 seconds, you would f.ex. see yourself 10 seconds ago when you were to start going back in time. And it doesn't matter, the environmental impact would always exist no matter how far back/how long/whatever. In any possible way you think of it it still wouldn't work.

Revy
18th November 2009, 14:16
I agree with this.

I do not think that time travel could ever be possible, and definitively not backwards. Even if you went back in time 10 seconds, you would f.ex. see yourself 10 seconds ago when you were to start going back in time. And it doesn't matter, the environmental impact would always exist no matter how far back/how long/whatever. In any possible way you think of it it still wouldn't work.

Agreed.

Also, it's commonly thought that faster-than-light travel brings one into the future. That if you take a spaceship and go faster than the speed of light, to a place light-years away, and then come back, you'll be in the future.

Everything in the universe exists simultaneously, and every event, every movement in the universe happens simultaneously. We just can't observe everything at the same time without being in all places.

Nobody would say that people on different sides of the planet exist in different times (they merely exist in different relative parts of the day due to the rotation of the Earth). So, why would that not also apply to different star systems or galaxies?

Our perception of time is relative, but that doesn't really mean that time/motion is dependent on our perceptions.

From what I understand of the idea of time dilation (explained as the "twin paradox"), it relies on relative measurement or observation of time with two observers or clocks going at different speeds. So Einstein's theory has been proven by experiments with two clocks with identical times, with one clock that's stationary, and another that's being flown on a plane going 600 miles per hour. The experiment showed that the clock on the plane was behind the other clock by a few billionths of a second.

However, all that means is that inside something going at high speeds things move slower. It doesn't mean that the clock on the plane went into the future.:)

I'll admit I'm no physicist. I'm thinking of this more in philosophical terms. But I think it makes a lot more sense.

JohannGE
18th November 2009, 15:27
It's mainly quantum mechanics that attempts to postulate time as real. Check out this silliness. (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html) These are the people who think they have taken over the scientific world. Most comparable to that old guy from Back to the Future, except it's not a movie and their experiments look set up to fail.:p

Tried to "Check out this silliness. (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html)" but it didn't link to anything!

Can't be any more silly than a blanket dissmisal of quantum theory though. :)

Revy
18th November 2009, 17:49
Going for a blast into the real past
If the experiment works, a signal could be received before it's sent
By TOM PAULSON ([email protected])
P-I REPORTER
If his experiment with splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will be to test for quantum "retrocausality."
That's science talk for saying he hopes to find evidence of a photon going backward in time.
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20061115/226timeguyxx_cramer1.jpg http://www.seattlepi.com/art2/zoom.gif (http://www.seattlepi.com/photos/photo.asp?PhotoID=107311)Scott Eklund / P-I The reflection of UW physicist John Cramer can be seen as he prepares an experiment with lasers. Cramer is planning to test a new idea related to how light behaves in the quantum realm. "It doesn't seem like it should work, but on the other hand, I can't see what would prevent it from working," Cramer said. "If it does work, you could receive the signal 50 microseconds before you send it."
Uh, huh ... what? Wait a minute. What is that supposed to mean?
Roughly put, Cramer is talking about the subatomic equivalent of arriving at the train station before you've left home, of winning the lottery before you've bought the ticket, of graduating from high school before you've been born -- or something like that.
"It probably won't work," he said again carefully, peering through his large glasses as if to determine his audience's mental capacity for digesting the information. Cramer, an accomplished experimental physicist who also writes science fiction, knows this sounds more like a made-for-TV script on the Sci Fi Channel than serious scientific research.
"But even if it doesn't work, we should be able to learn something new about quantum mechanics by trying it," he said. What he and UW colleague Warren Nagourney plan to try soon is an experiment aimed at resolving some niggling contradictions in one of the most fundamental branches of physics known as quantum mechanics, or quantum theory.
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20061115/226timeguyxx_laser1_55553.65.jpg http://www.seattlepi.com/art2/zoom.gif (http://www.seattlepi.com/photos/photo.asp?PhotoID=107312)Scott Eklund / P-I Physicists John Cramer, left, and Warren Nagourney work in the lab. Nagourney says he has "a faint understanding" of Cramer's idea. "To be honest, I only have a faint understanding of what John's talking about," Nagourney said, smiling. Though claiming to be "just a technician" on this project, Cramer's technician partner previously assisted with the research of Hans Dehmelt, the UW scientist who won the 1989 Nobel Prize in physics.
Quantum theory describes the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels, a level of reality where most of the more familiar Newtonian laws of physics (why planets spin, airplanes fly and baseballs curve) no longer apply.
The problem with quantum theory, put simply, is that it's really weird. Findings at the quantum level don't fit well with either Newton's or Einstein's view of reality at the macro level, and attempts to explain quantum behavior often appear inherently contradictory.
"There's a whole zoo of quantum paradoxes out there," Cramer said. "That's part of the reason Einstein hated quantum mechanics."
One of the paradoxes of interest to Cramer is known as "entanglement." It's also known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, named for the three scientists who described its apparent absurdity as an argument against quantum theory.
Basically, the idea is that interacting, or entangled, subatomic particles such as two photons -- the fundamental units of light -- can affect each other no matter how far apart in time or space.
"If you do a measurement on one, it has an immediate effect on the other even if they are separated by light years across the universe," Cramer said. If one of the entangled photon's trajectory tilts up, the other one, no matter how distant, will tilt down to compensate.
Einstein ridiculed the idea as "spooky action at a distance." Quantum mechanics must be wrong, the father of relativity contended, because that behavior requires some kind of "signal" passing between the two particles at a speed faster than light.
This is where going backward in time comes in. If the entanglement happens (and the experimental evidence, at this point, says it does), Cramer contends it implies retrocausality. Instead of cause and effect, the effect comes before the cause. The simplest, least paradoxical explanation for that, he says, is that some kind of signal or communication occurs between the two photons in reverse time.
It's all incredibly counterintuitive, Cramer acknowledged.
But standard theoretical attempts to deal with entanglement have become a bit tortured, he said. As evidence supporting quantum theory has grown, theorists have tried to reconcile the paradox of entanglement by basically explaining away the possibility of the two particles somehow communicating.
"The general conclusion has been that there isn't really any signaling between the two locations," he said. But Cramer said there is reason to question the common wisdom.
Cramer's approach to explaining entanglement is based on the proposition that particles at the quantum level can interact using signals that go both forward and backward in time. It has not been the most widely accepted idea.
But new findings, especially a recent "entangled photon" experiment at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, testing conservation of momentum in photons, has provided Cramer with what he believes is reason for challenging what had been an untestable, standard assumption of quantum mechanics.
The UW physicists plan to modify the Austrians' experiment to see if they can demonstrate communication between two entangled photons. At the quantum level, photons exist as both particles and waves. Which form they take is determined by how they are measured.
"We're going to shoot an ultraviolet laser into a (special type of) crystal, and out will come two lower-energy photons that are entangled," Cramer said.
For the first phase of the experiment, to be started early next year , they will look for evidence of signaling between the entangled photons. Finding that would, by itself, represent a stunning achievement. Ultimately, the UW scientists hope to test for retrocausality -- evidence of a signal sent between photons backward in time.
In that final phase, one of the entangled photons will be sent through a slit screen to a detector that will register it as either a particle or a wave -- because, again, the photon can be either. The other photon will be sent toward two 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) spools of fiber optic cables before emerging to hit a movable detector, he said.
Adjusting the position of the detector that captures the second photon (the one sent through the cables) determines whether it is detected as a particle or a wave.
The trip through the optical cables also will delay the second photon relative to the first one by 50 microseconds, Cramer said.
Here's where it gets weird.
Because these two photons are entangled, the act of detecting the second as either a wave or a particle should simultaneously force the other photon to also change into either a wave or a particle. But that would have to happen to the first photon before it hits its detector -- which it will hit 50 microseconds before the second photon is detected.
That is what quantum mechanics predicts should happen. And if it does, signaling would have gone backward in time relative to the first photon.
"There's no obvious explanation why this won't work," Cramer said. But he didn't consider testing this experimentally, he said, until he proposed it in June at a meeting sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"I thought it would get shot down, but people got excited by it," Cramer said. "People tell me it can't work, but nobody seems to be able to explain why it won't."
If the UW experiment succeeds at demonstrating faster-than-light communication and reverse causation, the implications are enormous. Besides altering our concept of time, the signaling finding alone would almost certainly revolutionize communication technologies.
"A NASA engineer on Earth could put on goggles and steer a Mars rover in real time," said Cramer, offering one example.
Even if this does fail miserably, providing no insights, Cramer said the experience could still be valuable. As the author of two science-fiction novels, "Twistor" and "Einstein's Bridge," and as a columnist for the sci-fi magazine Analog, the UW physicist enjoys sharing his speculations about the nature of reality with the public.
"I want people to know what it's like to do science, what makes it so exciting," he said. "If this experiment fails in reality, maybe I'll write a book in which it works."

Luisrah
18th November 2009, 21:43
Well, while there are many theories about time slowing down, like you going at the speed of light, and time going slower, I'm thinking that the time machine will never exist.

Time may slow down to you, or go faster, but you will never be able to actually travel in time.

The only way you can go is to the future. But that isn't news.
The only thing I can imagine is having a machine that makes the time inside it go slower.
This means the time outside will go faster, and you'll travel into the future.

But you can never go to the past. You can never go and see Da Vinci.
Why is that?
Matter is constant. Nothing is gained, nothing is lost, everything is changed. I suppose you heard that before.
Your organic matter comes from the food you eat. When you eat, you body digests organic matter (breaks it) and uses the little molecules to create macro-molecules that your body needs.
So all of you is made of the plants and animals you ate. Those animals and plants got their organic matter from other plants or animals or minerals.
So your organic matter could be original from a dinossaur, and is 90% probable of being from another human.

So you can't go to the past because in the past, (even if it was 1 hour ago) the matter that you are made of is scattered in animals and plants.
And since you can't create matter out of nothing, you simply can't go that way either.

Unless there's something weird going on, you can't travel to the past.
However, traveling to the future seems possible, since we still have 99,9% more to learn about the universe and all it's laws. Heh

Psy
18th November 2009, 22:39
But you can never go to the past. You can never go and see Da Vinci.
Why is that?
Matter is constant. Nothing is gained, nothing is lost, everything is changed. I suppose you heard that before.
Your organic matter comes from the food you eat. When you eat, you body digests organic matter (breaks it) and uses the little molecules to create macro-molecules that your body needs.
So all of you is made of the plants and animals you ate. Those animals and plants got their organic matter from other plants or animals or minerals.
So your organic matter could be original from a dinossaur, and is 90% probable of being from another human.

So you can't go to the past because in the past, (even if it was 1 hour ago) the matter that you are made of is scattered in animals and plants.
And since you can't create matter out of nothing, you simply can't go that way either.

The idea would be to transport your matter from now back in time, moving matter out of its way to avoid a nuclear reaction, meaning time travel back in time would first require the ability to transport mater as energy that means first wouldn't need a mater to energy device then changing energy back to energy this would mean time travel would require infrastructure both from the time the time travelers is traveling from and to as at the other end (the past) they would need to receive the energy from the future and convert it back to matter this would explain why time travelers don't exist now as it would mean if time traveling technology eventually is created it a time traveler won't not be able to travel farther back then when the first time machine was built.

Luisrah
18th November 2009, 23:48
The idea would be to transport your matter from now back in time, moving matter out of its way to avoid a nuclear reaction, meaning time travel back in time would first require the ability to transport mater as energy that means first wouldn't need a mater to energy device then changing energy back to energy this would mean time travel would require infrastructure both from the time the time travelers is traveling from and to as at the other end (the past) they would need to receive the energy from the future and convert it back to matter this would explain why time travelers don't exist now as it would mean if time traveling technology eventually is created it a time traveler won't not be able to travel farther back then when the first time machine was built.

So like a telephone that transforms sound waves into electricity, and on the other side it transforms electricity to sound waves?
Insteresting.

But I'm having a blank, How will you transform matter into energy and energy into matter? Anti-matter?

If you don't want to read all this, jump to the part where the bold letters are.

And how would you send a signal to the machine in the past, saying that energy is coming?
And worse, how would you actually send energy to the past?
Besides not finding an explanation, it contradicts the laws of physics.
The energy of the Universe is constant. It doesn't grow or diminish, it only changes shape.
If you send energy to the past, the Present Universe will have it's energy as constant-x (energy that equals your body's matter)
And the Past Universe (the time where you'd go) would have constant+x
That isn't possible.

Plus, there are more paradoxes.
Imagine this.

Instant 1: A time machine is created
Instant 2 (10 min later): You jump into it and go to instant 1
Instant 3 (in the moment after instant 2): There are two ''yous'' in instant 1

There are two problems in this.
One- This would mean that there would be two copies of the same person, with a 10 min difference, plus, the second is breaking the laws of physics, since no matter is created nor destroyed, only changed. However, he is there, and simply showed up.
Two - This would mean that in the instant that you create the machine, another you would already be there since the instant 1 is the past of instant 2 and 3, and in instant 2, you travel to instant 1.

This creates a sort of time paradox. There are constantly yous going back 10 minutes in time, since time doesn't stop.
10 min after instant 3 (which is the same as instant 1 if you think about it) the ''you'' that belongs to that instant (the one who just created the machine) jumps into the machine, going 10 min back in time. There he meets another ''you'' that too jumps in the machine after 10 min, to meet another ''you'' that will do the same, on and on.

But time would keep going, and after ten years, you could go back again to instant 1.
This would, again, mean that in the instant that you create the machine, everyone, that from that instant on, decides to travel to instant one would appear at once. And as far as we now, time seems to be infinite.

But lets exaggerate so that we can reach another paradox.
A super time machine is created that can send the whole Universe back in time 10 min. That would mean 2 Universes in instant 1, and no Universe in the ''second time'' after instant 2.

And that could lead to a multiplication of Universes.
So we reach the biggest time paradox
First, one Universe goes back in time 10 min.
After ten min, you decide to send the 2 Universes back in time 10 min.
But how is that possible if, in the first time this was done, there was only one Universe waiting in the first instant, and only another Universe coming in the time machine?

I played a game that explains it very well.
And it all comes down to this.

If you are in position 1 in minute 2, and in minute 5 you jump into the time machine and go to minute 1 and push the second you to position 2, so that in minute 2 (where you should be in position 1) the second you is in position 2, BAM, you get a time paradox.

Time isn't as simple as that. You have thousands of factors in a time machine that makes is paradoxal and impossible.

Psy
19th November 2009, 01:17
So like a telephone that transforms sound waves into electricity, and on the other side it transforms electricity to sound waves?
Insteresting.

But I'm having a blank, How will you transform matter into energy and energy into matter? Anti-matter?

If you don't want to read all this, jump to the part where the bold letters are.

And how would you send a signal to the machine in the past, saying that energy is coming?
And worse, how would you actually send energy to the past?

See the The Human Condition's post about the possibility of photon going backward in time.



Besides not finding an explanation, it contradicts the laws of physics.
The energy of the Universe is constant. It doesn't grow or diminish, it only changes shape.
If you send energy to the past, the Present Universe will have it's energy as constant-x (energy that equals your body's matter)
And the Past Universe (the time where you'd go) would have constant+x
That isn't possible.

No because you wouldn't exist in the Present Universe anymore, at 1 plack-second after the time traveler goes back in time their matter no longer exists in that presents and in a few attoseconds the matter that use to surround the time travelers would fill in the vacuum left by the time traveler no longer existing in the presents.



Plus, there are more paradoxes.
Imagine this.

Instant 1: A time machine is created
Instant 2 (10 min later): You jump into it and go to instant 1
Instant 3 (in the moment after instant 2): There are two ''yous'' in instant 1

There are two problems in this.
One- This would mean that there would be two copies of the same person, with a 10 min difference, plus, the second is breaking the laws of physics, since no matter is created nor destroyed, only changed. However, he is there, and simply showed up.
Two - This would mean that in the instant that you create the machine, another you would already be there since the instant 1 is the past of instant 2 and 3, and in instant 2, you travel to instant 1.

This creates a sort of time paradox. There are constantly yous going back 10 minutes in time, since time doesn't stop.
10 min after instant 3 (which is the same as instant 1 if you think about it) the ''you'' that belongs to that instant (the one who just created the machine) jumps into the machine, going 10 min back in time. There he meets another ''you'' that too jumps in the machine after 10 min, to meet another ''you'' that will do the same, on and on.

But time would keep going, and after ten years, you could go back again to instant 1.
This would, again, mean that in the instant that you create the machine, everyone, that from that instant on, decides to travel to instant one would appear at once. And as far as we now, time seems to be infinite.

But lets exaggerate so that we can reach another paradox.
A super time machine is created that can send the whole Universe back in time 10 min. That would mean 2 Universes in instant 1, and no Universe in the ''second time'' after instant 2.

And that could lead to a multiplication of Universes.
So we reach the biggest time paradox
First, one Universe goes back in time 10 min.
After ten min, you decide to send the 2 Universes back in time 10 min.
But how is that possible if, in the first time this was done, there was only one Universe waiting in the first instant, and only another Universe coming in the time machine?

I played a game that explains it very well.
And it all comes down to this.

If you are in position 1 in minute 2, and in minute 5 you jump into the time machine and go to minute 1 and push the second you to position 2, so that in minute 2 (where you should be in position 1) the second you is in position 2, BAM, you get a time paradox.

That is if the time traveller has to go back to where they existed at that time. Think it this way.

Scientists builds a time machine with a incoming and outgoing bay, the scientists jumps into the outgoing bay and goes to the 1 minute before he left, thus the scientist goes from the outgoing bay to the incoming bay, there is now two of him and in 1 minute only one of him. Now if the scientists stops himself from going back there could be a paradox of matter (not time) as the matter of the second scientist comes from the scientists going back but since both scientists were able to exist at the same time (just not space time and space) that would mean once matter is sent back it exists in that time line and is effected by that time line. This would mean matter would have moved from one time line into another time line meaning the dimension of time has 2 axes at least and not just linear.

black magick hustla
24th November 2009, 08:05
the time of physicists and mathematicians - a basis vector in a vector space, is not the time of ordinary language. their senses do overlap but they are not the same. indeed, a layman might have a hard time conceptualizing what in gods name is a curved spacetime, because curved spacetimes only make sense in the fantastic realm of mathematics. a world line in minkonski spacetime is a hard thing to wrap your mind around.

red cat
24th November 2009, 08:10
the time of physicists and mathematicians - a basis vector in a vector space, is not the time of ordinary language. their senses do overlap but they are not the same. indeed, a layman might have a hard time conceptualizing what in gods name is a curved spacetime, because curved spacetimes only make sense in the fantastic realm of mathematics. a world line in minkonski spacetime is a hard thing to wrap your mind around.Aren't they supposed to mean exactly the same? Physics just rigorously shows how things work out.

black magick hustla
24th November 2009, 09:21
not really. time in physics is just a parameter used for calculation, time in ordinary discourse has many meanings which dont completely overlap with the "mathematical" time of physicists