The arrow of time, is the Newtonian flow of time, which is no longer accepted by top physicists any more.
Timeless GR
- Thread starter BlackHoley
- Start date
I'd rather believe these scientists (who by the way, even if you don't recognize them) are top scientists in the field. I'd much prefer to trust their knowledge of physics, to a self-proclaimed layman as yourself. Comprende?
More pedant, more rhetorical play with words, more nonsense.
I have shown you papers confirming time exists in GR.
In fact I have shown you that one of your claims supporting your no time speculation [Tegmark] is not factual.
One of those papers involved Tegmark. Just one, out of several. You pick out one as if that makes a conclusion of the rest.
You're an arrogant little troll, just like your counterpart before. I've had enough for tonight, I'll resume tomorrow, but not likely with you.
I don't deal with trolls.
But go right ahead.......One swallow does not a Summer make, and one paper does not over turn 100 years of accepted mainstream cosmology...especially one based on pure philosophy and nothing else.
You set the tone of your claims, both here and the other thread.
Now you are crying "victim"
You set the tone of your claims, both here and the other thread.
Now you are crying "victim"
I didn't go to that extent... far from it. And you know that. You're a sad kind of man as well, because you are reveling in it.
Trust me though, it doesn't bother me. I am just choosing not to continue the discussion we were having before, because you are clearly trying to bait me... and you are continuously giving boring simple popular scifi understanding of physics that... quite frankly old chap, I'm quite sick to back teeth of it all
You don't need to trust me. I'm not the one that is delusional about rewriting 20th/21st century cosmology [without any access to all the modern technology] I'm am just a layman as you say.
But you would be crazy to attempt to rubbish physicists such as Thorne, Rees, and Begalman.
There is already a good double dozen of well established names who are working in this field. I don't need to have delusions about rewriting 20-21st century physics... physics is doing it for itself. You just can't catch up... probably a brain capacity problem. I just guess some of us have a clearer understanding of things than others. But it's ok Paddo... you continue on your space-time journey, while I work on the pure relativity of space. We will see at least in 10 years time, when theorists realize that Einstein was right all along.
Ummm, If I'm not mistaken, it was you who initiated the thread, with the provocative non mainstream title, just to get a raise out of people.
and you are continuously giving boring simple popular scifi understanding of physics that... quite frankly old chap, I'm quite sick to back teeth of it all
Typical claims of "would be's if they could be's" and other pseudoscientific nuts and conspiracy ratbags.
And I am also finding it quite boring that whatever links/papers one sees fit to refute your position, you claim as simple pop sci stuff.
Do you know who Sir Martin Rees is?
Have you heard of Kip Thorne? Mitch Begalman? Steven Hawking? Sean Carroll?, Max Tegmark?? Lee Smolin??? Brian Cox????
All pop sci hey?
And besides, all educated physicists/Cosmologists, and all renowned in their fields of study.
You on the other hand? Well I do have a bar of soap somewhere I'm sure.
You live in such a fantasy land, you may as well be tip toeing through the tulips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcSlcNfThUA
I don't need to come back with alternative handles though.
Quite right. You are after all, in reverse drive.
As a casual observer, what I find interesting about this thread is that it seems to have exposed something of a nerve.
I like to think I'm open minded about the question of what time is, I've encountered this idea that time doesn't really exist before, so I'm a bit surprised at all the vitriol from other people who probably think they're open minded too.
What does it mean to even ask "does time exist"? What we call time might not be just one thing, why can't it be some aspect of the universe that is really a superposition of two or more properties we haven't yet uncovered? Why is it so hard to discuss this subject with just about anyone? Why the controversy even? Up with what is that?
I can say that one thing I've seen "done" to my concept of time is multiplying it by the square root of -1. This apparently doesn't change anything we know about the universe, it leaves time as physically useful as always, so what does it mean, really?
I like to think I'm open minded about the question of what time is, I've encountered this idea that time doesn't really exist before, so I'm a bit surprised at all the vitriol from other people who probably think they're open minded too.
What does it mean to even ask "does time exist"? What we call time might not be just one thing, why can't it be some aspect of the universe that is really a superposition of two or more properties we haven't yet uncovered? Why is it so hard to discuss this subject with just about anyone? Why the controversy even? Up with what is that?
I can say that one thing I've seen "done" to my concept of time is multiplying it by the square root of -1. This apparently doesn't change anything we know about the universe, it leaves time as physically useful as always, so what does it mean, really?
arfa
Well you see, the problem is, while time is useful (and I have admitted this myself) it might not be fundamental. In fact, I am almost sure that it isn't through about ten years worth of study on the subject.
If time isn't fundamental, then this has implications on the model of relativity we use when we attempt to unify physics into a single quantum gravity framework. Quantum loop gravity heavily incorporates for instance, the idea of emergent time from matter and geometry, which involves gravity. This emergence doesn't treat geometry or matter or even time as a fundamental property of the universe.
Covariance, or even special cases of this, such as variance allow us to shuffle spacetime coordinates in the mathematical sense. The procedure in it's full form gives rise to diffeomorphism invariance. This invariance plays the role of the symmetry of evolution of states in general relativity. It's a total space phenomenon, it isn't described by a time parameter.
Another example of timelessness, is when you quantize Einsteins field equations, it give back a Schrodinger equation without a time derivative, known as the Wheeler de Witt equation, but it's much deeper than just telling us that global time doesn't exist. It also tells us that a quantum theory of gravity in the context of relativity given by Einstein implies that it is a non-complex field. Now... as Cpt Bork mentioned, this didn't make sense for a number of reasons, because normally quantum fields are inherently complex.
This means something about our understanding of gravity is wrong. It might be as simple as understanding it isn't a real quantum field at all, but rather a pseudo-force... in fact, many scientists already accept the latter statement as fact already. Gravity can be calculated (this means the geometry of space) can be measured statistically through entropic gravity. This will become a hot field in physics when they realize that we have to work with a timeless model, since, paddo and many others cling dearly to the gravitational four-dimensional interpretation aka. Minkowski spacetime... need I remind that Einstein said the mathematicians butchered his theory.
Well you see, the problem is, while time is useful (and I have admitted this myself) it might not be fundamental. In fact, I am almost sure that it isn't through about ten years worth of study on the subject.
If time isn't fundamental, then this has implications on the model of relativity we use when we attempt to unify physics into a single quantum gravity framework. Quantum loop gravity heavily incorporates for instance, the idea of emergent time from matter and geometry, which involves gravity. This emergence doesn't treat geometry or matter or even time as a fundamental property of the universe.
Covariance, or even special cases of this, such as variance allow us to shuffle spacetime coordinates in the mathematical sense. The procedure in it's full form gives rise to diffeomorphism invariance. This invariance plays the role of the symmetry of evolution of states in general relativity. It's a total space phenomenon, it isn't described by a time parameter.
Another example of timelessness, is when you quantize Einsteins field equations, it give back a Schrodinger equation without a time derivative, known as the Wheeler de Witt equation, but it's much deeper than just telling us that global time doesn't exist. It also tells us that a quantum theory of gravity in the context of relativity given by Einstein implies that it is a non-complex field. Now... as Cpt Bork mentioned, this didn't make sense for a number of reasons, because normally quantum fields are inherently complex.
This means something about our understanding of gravity is wrong. It might be as simple as understanding it isn't a real quantum field at all, but rather a pseudo-force... in fact, many scientists already accept the latter statement as fact already. Gravity can be calculated (this means the geometry of space) can be measured statistically through entropic gravity. This will become a hot field in physics when they realize that we have to work with a timeless model, since, paddo and many others cling dearly to the gravitational four-dimensional interpretation aka. Minkowski spacetime... need I remind that Einstein said the mathematicians butchered his theory.
Seriously... Really? Is there no mod for this sub fora? Reiku is on incarnation #200 by now. I spot his ass by post two... No mods do? Yeah, I don't post in science and math much... Well, because I'm no expert in these fields. How does this guy get hundreds of posts in, before he gets banned?... Also have to ask, why do you learned types, bother with this troll? You all know better.
Nice observation arfa brane.
I have said here and the other thread, that it is just one debatable interpretation [that time does not exist], but again it boils down to the faitre complei 100% certainty that alternative theorists at this time, seem to want to put their stuff.
And as this thread is designed to do [the title gives it away] it was instigated to get a rise out of people, especially those that generally support mainstream opinion.
As I have pointed out, no scientific theory, even the well supported ones, can offer that 100% certainty, yet these alternative theorists, coming out of left field, and whom we don't know from a bar of soap, do just that.
And couple that with the usual deriding of the scientific methodology and peer review, and you have the ingrediants for vitriol as you describe.
You say nice observation, but his post landing in a question, implying he didn't know what time was. I wouldn't bother too much paddo grasping onto anything you can get a hold of, it's looking desperate.