02 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlanck time—the smallest unit of time that has any physical meaning
This type of stuff:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
Obviously, too, there is no such thing as time, but let that be.
I suspect the author is "interpreting" this statement when he writes
The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality
That quote, to be taken seriously, needs to come from a scientific paper, not a journalist's review of science aimed at the layman.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy 'interpreting'? Everything has to be interpreted, or 'interpreted', if you prefer.
[b]Planck time—the smallest unit of time that has any physical meaning
I suspect the author is "interpreting" this statement when he writes
The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality
That quote, to be taken seriously, needs to come from a scientific paper, not a journalist's review of science aimed at the layman.[/b]
Yes, to put on our serious hats we'd have to look at the Wheeler-De Witt equation. But there are enough supporting and explanatory quotes from physicists in the article to lend credence to the 'interpretation'.
In any case, I carefully phrased my question to ask: if this is the case, what then?
So I'm asking to go with the if and say what then. Please. Just a casual exchange of opinions, since this isn't a scientific journal.
02 Dec 09
Here's another Hawking quote of interest:
...I thought the no boundary proposal, implied that the universe had to be spatially closed, and finite in size. But a few months ago, Neil Turok and I, were talking about his ideas on open inflation. We realized that they could be fitted in with the no boundary proposal. The universe would still be closed and finite, in one way of looking at it. But in another, it would appear open and infinite.
http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm
Clearly there are very precise ideas being made "fuzzy" when translated into layman's terms. Thus you get seeming paradoxes like the universe being both closed and open, finite and infinite.
I think a lot of the stuff that makes these ideas seem so crazy and incomprehensible is poor translation of mathematically based scientific models into sound bites that sound cool but don't really explain the concept properly because that takes time and effort on the part of the audience.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou have not explained clearly what you mean by "if time doesn't exist".
Why 'interpreting'? Everything has to be interpreted, or 'interpreted', if you prefer.
Yes, to put on our serious hats we'd have to look at the Wheeler-De Witt equation. But there are enough supporting and explanatory quotes from physicists in the article to lend credence to the 'interpretation'.
In any case, I carefully phrased my question to as ...[text shortened]... hen. Please. Just a casual exchange of opinions, since this isn't a scientific journal.
If time doesn't exist then there has never been a past and will never be a future, I suppose. All ideas of time are delusions because it doesn't exist.
What if time is the cosmic rabbit whose meditations are the cause of relativity?
"What if" questions about complex scientific ideas when the questions are not precise scientific questions are kind of silly.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe time and effort should equally be on the part of the writer. It's a bit much to expect a mathematically unsophisticated audience to follow the equations. So it takes excellent writing to convey these concepts non mathematically.
I think a lot of the stuff that makes these ideas seem so crazy and incomprehensible is poor translation of mathematically based scientific models into sound bites that sound cool but don't really explain the concept properly because that takes time and effort on the part of the audience.
A good one is Bertrand Russell's book explaining relativity from a philosophical angle. It still takes considerable effort on the part of the reader but at least the writer meets the reader half-way.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBy "interpreted" I mean "twisted into meaninglessness in an effort to make it sound cool to people who are unable or unwilling to understand this stuff themselves so that they'll keep buying the magazine."
Why 'interpreting'? Everything has to be interpreted, or 'interpreted', if you prefer.
Yes, to put on our serious hats we'd have to look at the Wheeler-De Witt equation. But there are enough supporting and explanatory quotes from physicists in the article to lend credence to the 'interpretation'.
In any case, I carefully phrased my question to as ...[text shortened]... hen. Please. Just a casual exchange of opinions, since this isn't a scientific journal.
Which quotes in that article from physicists support the non-existence of time at any level?
02 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo saying "time below this level doesn't exist" when you really mean "time below this level has no physical meaning" is just good writing?
The time and effort should equally be on the part of the writer. It's a bit much to expect a mathematically unsophisticated audience to follow the equations. So it takes excellent writing to convey these concepts non mathematically.
A good one is Bertrand Russell's book explaining relativity from a philosophical angle. It still takes considerable effort on the part of the reader but at least the writer meets the reader half-way.
I don't agree, especially when it leads to conversations like this one asking about the fine details of cosmological theory that came from a sound bite that is a journalist's attempted, simplified paraphrase of a physics concept.
Basically I'm willing to challenge the source of your quote because the quote makes no sense to me. Trying to reconcile reality which does make sense with a comment that makes no sense is tough for me!
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungScientists ask what-if questions all the time. A hypothesis is effectively a grown-up what-if question.
You have not explained clearly what you mean by "if time doesn't exist".
If time doesn't exist then there has never been a past and will never be a future, I suppose. All ideas of time are delusions because it doesn't exist.
What if time is the cosmic rabbit whose meditations are the cause of relativity?
"What if" questions about complex scientific ideas when the questions are not precise scientific questions are kind of silly.
“What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing this game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable—time, which itself is not observable—we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it’s only a macroscopic effect. It’s something that emerges only for big things.” (Rovelli, quoted in cited article)
So: let's assume Rovelli is correct and that time is not a fundamental property of reality but just a macroscopic effect: what then?
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe idea is to use the quote (it's not a soundbite) as the starting point for a conversation, not as a club to bludgeon it to death before it even gets off the ground. After all, that article does introduce some interesting ideas.
So saying "time below this level doesn't exist" when you really mean "time below this level has no physical meaning" is just good writing?
I don't agree, especially when it leads to conversations like this one asking about the fine details of cosmological theory that came from a sound bite that is a journalist's attempted, simplified paraphrase of a physics concept.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOK. My comment in this conversation is that the quote sounds nice but has no meaning, and therefore it's impossible to consider it's implications.
The idea is to use the quote (it's not a soundbite) as the starting point for a conversation, not as a club to bludgeon it to death before it even gets off the ground. After all, that article does introduce some interesting ideas.
"What if time were really fat?"
Umm...well...the natural response is to say "WTF are you babbling about?!"
But then the guy says "stop being so anal, just assume time was really fat. What then?"
Umm...
How do you respond to that?
Your question seems to really be "what is the significance of time "disappearing" from the WdW equation?"
Taking that fact and describing it as "time does not exist" is really a stretch in my opinion and it's tough to try to reconcile the latter with reality when it's really the former that can be reconciled with reality.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf your "what if" is equivalent to a hypothesis, then I recommend you go out and try the experiment to see what happens when there is no time if you can figure out how to do that...
Scientists ask what-if questions all the time. A hypothesis is effectively a grown-up what-if question.
“What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing this game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable—time, which itself is not observable—we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. Th ...[text shortened]... nd that time is not a fundamental property of reality but just a macroscopic effect: what then?
Or, less snarky, there are different kinds of "what ifs" and your "what if" is not the same kind scientists ask.
02 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy don't you read the actual quote by Rovelli -- you know, the one you've just ignored -- and apply the insight -- that time is a macroscopic effect, not anything intrinsic -- to the discussion in this particular thread? It might put an interesting spin on it.
If your "what if" is equivalent to a hypothesis, then I recommend you go out and try the experiment to see what happens when there is no time if you can figure out how to do that...
Or, less snarky, there are different kinds of "what ifs" and your "what if" is not the same kind scientists ask.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's all I really wanted.
I'm looking into Rovelli and the WdW equation now. I'll try to get back to you.
I'll stop annoying you now with my apparently irritating but honest answers.
I think the irritation arose from your assuming there was no substance to the article and therefore not reading it when in fact it contained at least a little food for thought. Your observations on 'interpretation' were not wrong, just aimed at a non-existent target.
I like this quote too:
“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”
Time is defined to be what our clocks measure.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI did read the article. I did not say the article was substanceless. I said that the one quote you chose to base your question on was substanceless, and that I'd rather go back to where the author got his information from than rely on the author. You seem to find this offensive - like an attack on you. I didn't mean it that way.
That's all I really wanted.
I think the irritation arose from your assuming there was no substance to the article and therefore not reading it when in fact it contained at least a little food for thought. Your observations on 'interpretation' were not wrong, just aimed at a non-existent target.
I like this quote too:
“I recently went to the N ...[text shortened]... number of clicks of their clocks.”
Time is defined to be what our clocks measure.