- Thank you received: 0
The direction of the flow of time is meaningless
18 years 10 months ago #14865
by SteveA
Reply from was created by SteveA
Look at a couple things this idea might explain better. There's confusion over how the big bang originated. Since the initial Big Bang proposal, we've found quantum observations that indicate a vacuum energy ... we're riding a sea of possibilities.
Now if time is bidirectional, then a single quantum fluxuation in a void would not recombine instantly because energies created would be separated by time. Time in this example doesn't seem to need to be "thick", though the thickness would seem to determine the rate at which these initial energies would decay (if they're more diffused over a larger volume, then recombination would be slower).
When we measure the speed of light, we have no way of knowing whether an individual particle was emitted from the source and later detected or whether a particle traveling backwards through time left the detector and reached the source. Yes, it might sound funky but consider that even consciousness doesn't have a rigid method of determining flow of time and whether time flows backwards or forwards, time inverted physics would seem appear indentical to an observer though having some phenomenon could appear to have an unclear relationship between cause and effect. Either view would still see time flowing forwards.
Any equation of the form c^2 could truly use a value of +/-c. Time dialation could be described as
(speed of light)^2 = (velocity through space)^2 + (+/-velocity through time)^2
And if we measure the speed of light as m/s then if inverting time reversed direction then -m/-s is still the same as m/s.
We implicitly understand that travel through spacial dimensions isn't polarized but if we're going to see things as "spacetime" instead then why should motion through time not be similarly variable as well? It would only be possible to verify this if we could see a reversal in time between two systems, but that would require travelling faster than light speed (hence exactly why gravity could travel faster than the speed of light also, because it could move both directions through time). This would also seem to support a more steady state/continual expansion view of the universe as the Big Bang would not need be a novel, one time, unexplained event but a continual process distributed throughout space.
Yes, I've waded in knee deep but it doesn't seem difficult to go through some of the math behind the descriptions of the standard model and see if paradoxes are resolved by assuming time can flow either direction and quite possibly flows both directions. It might sound funky but either way a person would see a ball released first, and then fall afterwards. Why does time seem to pass faster as you get older or stop under anethesia etc.? Because we measure time relative to physical processes, a particle following a reverse path through time but with reversed physical characteristics would seem to only differ by having it's path affected by future events and not past ones. Cause and effect would be less clear and things like photons seeking out detectors, and spontaneous particle decay etc. would make more sense.
Now if time is bidirectional, then a single quantum fluxuation in a void would not recombine instantly because energies created would be separated by time. Time in this example doesn't seem to need to be "thick", though the thickness would seem to determine the rate at which these initial energies would decay (if they're more diffused over a larger volume, then recombination would be slower).
When we measure the speed of light, we have no way of knowing whether an individual particle was emitted from the source and later detected or whether a particle traveling backwards through time left the detector and reached the source. Yes, it might sound funky but consider that even consciousness doesn't have a rigid method of determining flow of time and whether time flows backwards or forwards, time inverted physics would seem appear indentical to an observer though having some phenomenon could appear to have an unclear relationship between cause and effect. Either view would still see time flowing forwards.
Any equation of the form c^2 could truly use a value of +/-c. Time dialation could be described as
(speed of light)^2 = (velocity through space)^2 + (+/-velocity through time)^2
And if we measure the speed of light as m/s then if inverting time reversed direction then -m/-s is still the same as m/s.
We implicitly understand that travel through spacial dimensions isn't polarized but if we're going to see things as "spacetime" instead then why should motion through time not be similarly variable as well? It would only be possible to verify this if we could see a reversal in time between two systems, but that would require travelling faster than light speed (hence exactly why gravity could travel faster than the speed of light also, because it could move both directions through time). This would also seem to support a more steady state/continual expansion view of the universe as the Big Bang would not need be a novel, one time, unexplained event but a continual process distributed throughout space.
Yes, I've waded in knee deep but it doesn't seem difficult to go through some of the math behind the descriptions of the standard model and see if paradoxes are resolved by assuming time can flow either direction and quite possibly flows both directions. It might sound funky but either way a person would see a ball released first, and then fall afterwards. Why does time seem to pass faster as you get older or stop under anethesia etc.? Because we measure time relative to physical processes, a particle following a reverse path through time but with reversed physical characteristics would seem to only differ by having it's path affected by future events and not past ones. Cause and effect would be less clear and things like photons seeking out detectors, and spontaneous particle decay etc. would make more sense.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17133
by Dangus
Replied by Dangus on topic Reply from
I agree that time is very misunderstood. "One thing leads to another" basically sums up time perfectly. Changing the flow of time just is like hitting a universal rewind button, and I do not believe that is possible. Going back in time would essentially amount to the traveller going forward in time, while the rest of the universe undoes the things it has done, which itself could be considered forward movement, but just insofar as those things are advancing to the point where they had already been. There's so many things wrong with the concept of moving "back" through time. I do not believe there IS a forward or back. "On thing leads to another" super simple.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #14951
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
Time is defined through <i>changes</i> in our physical world. A change as such has no direction and thus time can by definition not run backwards. If you watch a film running backwards, it may look as if time is running backwards, but of course it is just the order of the images that has been reversed <i>within</i> time. Time is always running forwards (the last frame shown will always be later than the first frame shown).
If you are interested, I have been discussing 'time' also on my own website under www.physicsmyths.org.uk/discussions/philosophy.htm (see comments by Amrit Sorli and my replies).
If you are interested, I have been discussing 'time' also on my own website under www.physicsmyths.org.uk/discussions/philosophy.htm (see comments by Amrit Sorli and my replies).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #10371
by Dangus
Replied by Dangus on topic Reply from
The more interesting question is: What governs change? What limits it's speed relative to all other objects? Time is probably going to be the very last thing humans ever truly get a decent understanding of, assuming we ever do.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #10372
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />The more interesting question is: What governs change? What limits it's speed relative to all other objects? Time is probably going to be the very last thing humans ever truly get a decent understanding of,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The point is that time, like space, is not a <i>thing</i>. Both are merely subjective forms of our existence. They can only be defined implicitly (i.e. 'time' by observing changes in our world like the daily course of the sun). It makes therefore no sense to ask what governs change as such as it amounts to a circular question (you can explain specific changes through the laws of physics, but these laws have just been formulated by observing corresponding changes (e.g. the apple falls from the tree because of the law of gravity, but the latter has only been formulated just because the apple falls from the tree).
<br />The more interesting question is: What governs change? What limits it's speed relative to all other objects? Time is probably going to be the very last thing humans ever truly get a decent understanding of,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The point is that time, like space, is not a <i>thing</i>. Both are merely subjective forms of our existence. They can only be defined implicitly (i.e. 'time' by observing changes in our world like the daily course of the sun). It makes therefore no sense to ask what governs change as such as it amounts to a circular question (you can explain specific changes through the laws of physics, but these laws have just been formulated by observing corresponding changes (e.g. the apple falls from the tree because of the law of gravity, but the latter has only been formulated just because the apple falls from the tree).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #10374
by Dangus
Replied by Dangus on topic Reply from
I think you're missing my point though. The changes which occur, occur universally(from what we can assume) along the same clock. Something, not just the human observing that, must govern that synchronization. The very reason time is looked at as a physical dimension by so many, is that very fact. I personally don't think of it as a physical dimension, but I do believe it represents some sort of dimension, medium, or whatever you want to call it. It clearly governs things by way of rules, and that makes it a very real entity, even if it's one that so far hasn't been understood or explained especially well.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.303 seconds