Smooth or grainy? New paper reviews research on the grain of space-time

Dec 20, 2013
Credit: NASA

Smooth" or grainy? Is space-time continuous or is it made up of very fine (10-35 metres on the "Planck scale") but discrete grains, if we look at it very close up ? If the latter were true, scientists think, this would lead to deviations from the theory of special relativity formulated by Albert Einstein more than 100 years ago.

In some theoretical scenarios, the "non-continuity" of space-time implies violations to the invariance of the under the so-called Lorentz transformations (which establish that physical laws are the same for all inertial reference frames that are at the basis of ). Since the 90s physicists have devised several methods (often based on phenomena connected to high-energy astrophysics) to test these deviations from standard physics. Stefano Liberati, coordinator of the Astroparticle Physics group of the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) of Trieste, recently published a to present the state of the art in this field and the constraints that can be placed on the various models that predict violations to Special Relativity.

The paper is an invited Topic Review published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. This journal periodically asks leading world experts to "sum up" what is known in a specific field of study. The review has now been selected as one of the journal's Highlight papers for 2013.

"Physicists have been wondering about the nature of space-time for years. We've been asking ourselves whether it is continuous at all scales, as we perceive it in our daily experience, or whether at very small sizes it presents an irregular grain that we, in our direct experience, are unable to perceive", explains Liberati. "Imagine looking at a slab of marble from some distance: it will probably seem to have a uniform texture. However, on closer inspection, for example using a powerful microscope, you can see that the marble is porous and irregular".

"In a certain sense physicists have been trying to do something similar with space-time: to find something that acts as a microscope to find out whether at very small length scales there is indeed some irregularity. In my paper I presented a systematic overview of the experiments and observations that can be exploited to investigate the existence of these irregularities. Special relativity is one of the cornerstones of modern physics and as such it is very important to test its validity, insofar as current observations allow us".

Explore further: Removing complexity layers from the universe's creation

Provided by International School of Advanced Studies (SISSA)

3.8 /5 (27 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Removing complexity layers from the universe's creation

Jul 26, 2013

Complicated statistical behaviour observed in complex systems such as early universe can often be understood if it is broken down into simpler ones. Two physicists, Petr Jizba (currently affiliated with the Czech Technical ...

Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

Sep 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only ...

Doubly special relativity

Mar 21, 2011

General relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, gives us a useful basis for mathematically modeling the large scale universe – while quantum theory gives us a useful basis for modeling sub-atomic ...

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

User comments : 193

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2013
Why not edit to say 10^-35, or in html "10-35, or in Latex 10^{-35}.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2013
uggg html off,...

Why not edit to say 10^-35, or in html "10{sup}-35{/sup}", except with < and >,... or in Latex 10^{-35}.

Phys.Org lets this error go by a lot.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2013
Why not just say - Ten to the minus 35th?
Urgelt
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2013
So the paper reviews research into the grainy-versus-smooth problem.

And Phys.org doesn't think that summarizing the paper's findings would be good journalism? The author told us the paper exists, but didn't say a word about its conclusions.

Why, exactly?

And all of the links in the article appear to be general search terms plugged into the Phys.org website. There are no links to the paper.

Why, exactly?

Then there's the scale problem. The article asks, "...or is it (spacetime) made up of very fine (10-35 metres on the "Planck scale") but discrete grains...?"

I think there was supposed to be an exponent in there somewhere. Last I heard, the Planck scale isn't roughly equivalent to a football field.
BrianFraser
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2013
Einstein's Special and General Relativity theories are what physicists call "local" theories in that they map all motion into a spatial reference system, and limit the maximum speed of any physical effect to speeds less than that of light. However, experiments have shown that electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields have effects that occur so rapidly the speed of propagation cannot even be measured. Their actions are essentially instantaneous (i.e., "non-local") Additionally, numerous experiments of different experimental designs done by different groups over a span of several decades have demonstrated that our physical world is definitely a "non-local" one. This means that Relativity is limited to describing reference system effects only--a useful but not fundamental capability.

A logical HALF of our physics knowhow is still stuck back in 1906. Except for quantum mechanics, there are no courses taught in non-local physics. Let's remove the restrictions on scientific inquiry!
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2013
There was no experiment that shows violation of locality. Not entanglement nor the propagation of gravitational effects exceed the speed of light when you consider how fast the information travels.
Percival
3 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2013
Brian Fraser; what "experiments have shown that electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields have effects that occur so rapidly the speed of propagation cannot even be measured"? Where can I find information on these experiments?
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2013
@Urgelt,

Here's a link to the relevant paper by Liberati: http://arxiv.org/...304.5795
feliksova_domacija
3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2013
Space-time is a math model only, there is no space-time as a fundamental arena of the universe.
Fundamental arena of the universe is a 3D quantum vacuum where time is a duration of change. See our latest paper in American Journal of Modern Physisc.

feliksova_domacija
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2013
here is the paper:
http://www.scienc...30206.25
Doug_Huffman
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2013
I recommend to all Lee Smolin's work/writing professional/popular depending on ones bent. He proposes a background-independent physics with time a non-real construct.

Thanks for citations to the open access location of the paper. It is unfortunate that the DRM conflict rears its profitable head even here.
11791
not rated yet Dec 21, 2013
Most theorsts and authors for laypeople seem to take it as a fact that the quanutm of space time must have the dimensions of the plank length. The assumptions that its based on might be flawed. It might be bigger or smaller if it exists.
BrianFraser
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2013
@Percival

Just Google "non-locality". Start with http://en.wikiped...ocality.

Non-local physics IS recognized by the physics community, but it is not yet mainstream. Links to the really good articles cannot be posted here.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2013
Why not edit to say 10^-35, or in html "10-35, or in Latex 10^{-35}.

In commenting, Unicode (10⁻³⁵) works. But perhaps the process of creating articles is different.
davidivad
3 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2013
yeah, this idea has been around for quite some time. too bad we can't see at the plank scale. that is really, really small. but hey, it wasn't that long ago that we realized things came in discrete packets called quanta. the next thing you know, we are using matrices and funny man diagrams. a whole new field of physics was born.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2013
BF -
Do not place a period at the end of "locality" on your link.

@Percival

Just Google "non-locality". Start with http://en.wikiped...ocality.


antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2013
The author told us the paper exists, but didn't say a word about its conclusions.

There are no conclusions. This is an overview paper. It simply lists findings (in this case limit scenarios and proposed experiments that would yield observable evidence) from other papers.

And Phys.org doesn't think that summarizing the paper's findings would be good journalism?

You should have figured out by now that physorg is an AGGREGATION site. It does not do journalism. It simply copies and pastes articles from elsewhere. Verbatim.
That also explains why you get the mistakes with the exponents: formatting which does not survive the copy and paste action.

There are no links to the paper.

Why, exactly?

If there are no links to the paper in the source article you won't find them on physorg, either (for above reasons).
Another reason is that the journal "Classical and Quantum Gravity" is not free. So why would you expect a link to the paper at all?
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
In case it was missed, here is a link to the paper discussed in this article, "Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update": http://arxiv.org/...304.5795
ant_oacute_nio354
2 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2013
Spacetime doesn't exist!

Antonio Jose Saraiva
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2013
Spacetime doesn't exist!

Antonio Jose Saraiva

Sure it does. Even if only in our imaginations...
BrianFraser
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
"A growing number of modern researchers are challenging the view that space-time is the fundamental arena of the universe. They point out that it does not correspond to physical reality, and propose "timeless space" as the arena instead. . . . Time and clocks are man-made inventions. Motion is primary, time is secondary. Time is an artifice of measurement, a useful tool that permits us to build mental and mathematical models for our daily lives as well as for our physics and cosmology. But time as a fundamental entity has no role in physics. ("Time is derived from motion through timeless space", Amrit S. Sorli,
http://www.fqxi.o...TION.pdf )

Analogy: motion is like a box. You first get the box, THEN you define inside and outside. A box is not "made from" an inside and outside. Likewise, motion is primary; it is not made from time and space.

space/time is local
time/space is non-local
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2013
BF - "Time" is the label we've created in order to quantify that motion. It is as real and actionable as any other "thing" (matter or force) in this universe. Without it, we would not be aware of anything else. Call it a series of snapshots, if you will, being taken (and viewed) at - lets just say - 10 to the minus 35th frames per second... A movie.
You could also say it's like a metronome to which all other instruments (matter and force) sync.
And - it happens whether we are aware of it or not.
Fortunately, Time has allowed evolution(another broad label - created to encapsulate the actions of things across a quantum of time) the opportunity to stumble across a method/mechanism for an awareness to even be here - us (dim as it is...)

BTW - your box analogy sucked. Work on something a little less obtuse.
BrianFraser
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
''Moreover, space and time are treated very differently in quantum mechanics. The spatial coordinates are operators, whereas time is a parameter.'' (A. Lahiri and P. B. Pal, A First Book of Quantum Field Theory ~Alpha Science International Ltd., 2001, p. 2.)

Time, in quantum mechanics is a parameter, not an operator, not an observable.

Time is a useful concept. It is just not FUNDAMENTAL.

If you really want to understand the universe, you have to use MOTION as the fundamental entity. Time and space are derived concepts.

I don't expect people to understand this. It is a paradigm shift that would choke a swampful of alligators.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2013
''Moreover, space and time are treated very differently in quantum mechanics. The spatial coordinates are operators, whereas time is a parameter.'' (A. Lahiri and P. B. Pal, A First Book of Quantum Field Theory ~Alpha Science International Ltd., 2001, p. 2.)

Time, in quantum mechanics is a parameter, not an operator, not an observable.

Time is a useful concept. It is just not FUNDAMENTAL.

If you really want to understand the universe, you have to use MOTION as the fundamental entity. Time and space are derived concepts.

I don't expect people to understand this. It is a paradigm shift that would choke a swampful of alligators.


There ya go, gettin' all "I have the true vision that no one else can possibly comprehend..."
Time is the motion that all other visible quanta exist and move within. It is the most fundamental to our perception of reality. If it doesn't move - we can't see it. Just because quantum mechanics can't prove that mathematically, doesn't mean it's not so.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
This should help a little...

Sean Carroll speaks about time in a few of his books, and you can find them on his site here:

http://www.prepos...erse.com

but there is also some Blog entries that may help you and clear some of it up... check out some of the entries here:

http://www.prepos...erse.com/blog/?s=time

i hope it helps define TIME ...
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2013
There ya go, gettin' all "I have the true vision that no one else can possibly comprehend..."


He is correct. But of course the issue has a long history and is a primary one that relates to epistemology in philosophy of physics,... discussed at length by Kant,... Heisenberg , Bohr, Pais, B. D'espagnet, R. Torretti, etc.

I've been posting about the subject for years here and it is rare that anyone even knows what I'm talking about or understands the fundamental issue. Here is one rare example where another poster makes similar points independently.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
Time is the motion that all other visible quanta exist and move within. It is the most fundamental to our perception of reality.


I don't agree. There is no physical 'time particle' or 'time field' discoverable as a perception of reality, independent of its use.

Time (and space) is an a-priori intuition of the mind for ordering experience. We conform reality to our concepts, not discover them from reality.

IOW, mind has evolved a means of processing experience, and as a consequence presupposes the conceptual form in which our knowledge is based. It is 'hard-wired' in the way our mind works, so it is entirely natural to think that these concepts,.... space, time, absolute temporal simultaneity, causality, counter-factuality, etc ..... are existent 'things' in reality independent from us.

It is why when Einstein developed SR, he was careful to make use of an Operational Definition of time and space,.... physical clocks and rods.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2013
,.... an operational definition of time implies that you have first defined time to be something. That such an event is observed to be such an such number of frequencies of a cesium atom is a Question asked of reality and questions don't exist independently of us.

It becomes apparent in QM, that these concepts, in which at the macroscopic realm we force reality to conform to, are in fact an artificial syntheses and entirely mind dependent. This is manifest in the 'measurement problem', entanglement, counter-factuality , and is at the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation of qm.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2013
.... physics is not about formulating laws to explain how 'independent reality' works, but instead it is in formulating laws of experience, 'phenomenal reality' which intrinsically includes Observations and all the intellectual faculties involved in observation, experimentation, and conceptualization. QM is non-intuitive precisely because of this incompatibility between our concepts and reality.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
Does this really mean anything? Other than "look at me, I'm really smart and if you don't get it you are really stupid" or something to that effect. It's the sort of behavior I would expect out of the Noumenon.


Just because something is incomprehensible to You, does not mean that it is incomprehensible to others, and has no meaning.

Using Google like it's a vending machine for knowledge will not get you instant understanding either.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
It becomes apparent in QM, that these concepts, in which at the macroscopic realm we force reality to conform to, are in fact an artificial syntheses and entirely mind dependent.


@Noumenon

please clarify. Are you saying that Entropy is not one way too? Or are you saying that QM is not valid based on our perceptions?

https://en.wikipe..._time%29
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
Who said anything about instant understanding Skippy? I thought I said something about not understanding even after the google. Google didn't understand that mumbo jumbo either.


If you did not 'understand even after using Google' and then proceeded to proclaim ones post as incorrect, .. that logically means you expected instant understanding from treating Google as if it was a vending machine.

It may get you by when dealing with simple factoids,... but not for understanding a subject such that you are a qualified authority that can make assessment proclamations without ever explaining WHY the poster is wrong.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
It becomes apparent in QM, that these concepts, in which at the macroscopic realm we force reality to conform to, are in fact an artificial syntheses and entirely mind dependent.


@Noumenon

please clarify. Are you saying that Entropy is not one way too? Or are you saying that QM is not valid based on our perceptions?


No the opposite. QM is absolutely valid as it is a means of linking observables together consistently that allows for accurate predictions.

It is our a-priori intuitions that are exposed as invalid at the QM scale. It is the reason QM is non-intuitive. As Feynman says , 'no one understands qm'.... what he meant here is that there is no Intuitive Understanding to be had as was the case in 'classical physics'.

Entropy is what I would call a statistically based epiphenomenon and so is not a fundamental law of nature such that you can say that there is a physical-time element operative in it.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
"Entropy is what I would call a statistically based epiphenomenon and so is not a fundamental law of nature such that you can say that there is a physical-time element operative in it. "... or derived from it.

IOW, one can only say that entropy follows an 'arrow of time', if the concept of time is already presupposed. We don't derive the concept of time from entropy itself.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
I don't agree. There is no physical 'time particle' or 'time field' discoverable as a perception of reality, independent of its use.
Time (and space) is an a-priori intuition of the mind for ordering experience. We conform reality to our concepts, not discover them from reality.
IOW, mind has evolved a means of processing experience, and as a consequence presupposes the conceptual form in which our knowledge is based. It is 'hard-wired' in the way our mind works, so it is entirely natural to think that these concepts,.... space, time, absolute temporal simultaneity, causality, counter-factuality, etc ..... are existent 'things' in reality independent from us.

So, you're saying the only "real" thing is our concepts? Then why do you have a physical "mind" that can conceive that at all?
In essence aren't you saying that all there is, is awareness? Surrounded by nothing except what it has had the time to become aware of...? hm.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
By definition, Physics is the study of the physical universe around us. The REAL - not existentialist daydreaming. You make QM appear to be an attempt to change that reality, not study it.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
So, you're saying the only "real" thing is our concepts? Then why do you have a physical "mind" that can conceive that at all? ...


Nope, not at all. There is an objective reality independent of us that 'informs' the result of experimentation,..lets call it Noumenal Reality. The knowledge that physics gains, call it 'Phenomenal Reality', cannot be completely independent of us, because we necessarily add the conceptual form in which it is formulated & interpreted, .... so there is a component to Phenomenal Reality that is mind dependent.

Essentially the point of all of this is that the non-intuitive nature of qm is not an issue with the theory, but rather an epistemological effect,.... meaning an effect of acquiring knowledge, ...an effect of applying a-priori concepts that we evolved with to order experience at the macro scale,.. to the micro scale.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
By definition, Physics is the study of the physical universe around us. The REAL - not existentialist daydreaming. You make QM appear to be an attempt to change that reality, not study it.


Don't get ahead of yourself here.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
The Noumenal intention of your epitaxialy arranged phonemic structures creates a statistically based epiphany in my Phenomenal Mind...

You do no honor to QM (or A. Einstein) with complicated, circular constructs. It's just sneaky code, then.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
The Noumenal intention of your epitaxialy arranged phonemic structures creates a statistically based epiphany in my Phenomenal Mind...

You do no honor to QM (or A. Einstein) with complicated, circular constructs. It's just sneaky code, then.


Your personal ignorance of the subject matter and thus incomprehension, is not my problem, it is yours. What I have described above is a well established point of view in the history and interpretation of qm, and not something that I have invented as a crank theory myself.

It's up to You to put an effort into understanding things, not to me in making it easy for you. I could provide references.... I think you are no better than zephir_fan and have contempt for knowledge,... such are internet trolls.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet (physicist of renown).
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
The Noumenal intention of your epitaxialy arranged phonemic structures creates a statistically based epiphany in my Phenomenal Mind...


@ Whydening Skippy Gyre, I wish I could think of things like to toss at the nounemom. You are starting to be one of my favorite smart peoples here.

Oh yeah, can you explain to me what your name means?

A play on the phrase, widening gyre (expanding vortex) in a Yeats poem - The Second Coming. As a kid I always asked why. I do it now even as an adult. Gyre is similar to my last name. Just seemed to fit. Also fit with my reading of a paper from a guy named Eric Andrulis, a biochemist at Case Western University.
As an artist, I find it a useful concept when analyzing things in front of me.
Look up the definition of Noumenon - something that isn't what it appears to be.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
.... Here is an old Phys.Org link where the same subject is discussed over four years ago by myself and Hyperion1110 that might clarify further,... but I get the impression if it doesn't fit in a wiki-page header, your not interested.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
Look up the definition of Noumenon - something that isn't what it appears to be.


That's not what it means, not even close. I chose that name from a study of Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', so it's meaning is in his use of it.

"Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses [or concepts], and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself"".

It's kind of a double meaning, I am unknowable to you as an anonymous poster.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
That's not what it means, not even close. I chose that name from a study of Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', so it's meaning is in his use of it.


I can see why the Kant Skippy was using you to study criticizing reason. He could write five or six books on what not to do just using you as an example. I wouldn't be bragging about that Skippy.


How old are you?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
Noum - was simply chiding you for a linguisticly vague, and thus disengenuous, description.


Your personal ignorance of the subject matter and thus incomprehension, is not my problem, it is yours. What I have described above is a well established point of view in the history and interpretation of qm, and not something that I have invented as a crank theory myself.

You misunderstand me - I understand it quite well - including all the implications. However, my understanding is visual and intuitive (product of being a left handed male). QM is can be intuitive - if you let it.
I do not accuse you of generating any crank theory. However, I wish to point out that many separate the macro and quantum to fit it into their own perceptual understanding. A learned action. In actuality, it isn't readily understood until you accept that the macro is QM that's reached a "critical mass" point of some kind. And yes, it can be that simple.
BF is right about the motion - EVERY thing moves.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
It's up to You to put an effort into understanding things, not to me in making it easy for you. I could provide references.... I think you are no better than zephir_fan and have contempt for knowledge,... such are internet trolls.

Contempt for Knowledge?!? Surely you jest! Without knowledge, what would my (more important) imagination have to work with? I just don't like my knowledge all covered up with enigmatic phraseology.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet (physicist of renown.)


Sorry. Don't know of him.
However, the concept of stuff not existing before we got here is gonna piss off more than a few archaeologists and cosmologists... not to mention geoligists. (guys with hammers, no less)

And your guy Kant - comes along and changes the definition of a word. And ALL the people in all the thousands o years before him that worked to create that definition and make it valid - were somehow confused as to what it REALLY meant....
(Scratching my head in puzzlement) Really?
Must be a statistical anomaly of the epiphenomenon.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
Oh... (sorry, I can't help myself)

Surely you Kant be serious...?!?!

I know, I know.. Don't call you Shirley....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
I just don't like my knowledge all covered up with enigmatic phraseology.


It's simply the nature of the subject matter, but there is nothing purposely enigmatic about it. Everyone who is biased from ignorance will think that unjustly. Try reading Kant's Critique , or D'espagnat's recent book, then come back with that assessment.

I wish to point out that many separate the macro and quantum to fit it into their own perceptual understanding. A learned action. In actuality, it isn't readily understood until you accept that the macro is QM that's reached a "critical mass" point of some kind.


If you are referring to quantum decoherence, or if you don't know that you are,... it offers a valid explanation of how the macro realm is appears emergent from the qm realm (already apparent), but does not address the 'measurement problem', nor refutes the 'wave-function' collapse.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
However, the concept of stuff not existing before we got here is gonna piss off more than a few archaeologists and cosmologists... not to mention geoligists. (guys with hammers, no less)


Who ever said that? Not even close to anything I said nor the list of references above. Was that a joke, or was this the joke,...

I understand it quite well - including all the implications.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
However, the concept of stuff not existing before we got here is gonna piss off more than a few archaeologists and cosmologists... not to mention geoligists. (guys with hammers, no less)


Who ever said that? Not even close to anything I said nor the list of references above.

Ahh, you clever girl, Clarisse... Context picking at it's finest...
You do realize I was responding to the quote in your response, right? And let me change that from "before we got here" to "before we were aware of it"

Was that a joke, or was this the joke,...

I understand it quite well - including all the implications.


Jokes on you - YOU'RE the quanta being measured -
by a future you don't think exists....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
@Noumenon
Entropy is what I would call a statistically based epiphenomenon and so is not a fundamental law of nature such that you can say that there is a physical-time element operative in it.


"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from certain rare interactions in particle physics; see below) that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time."

found:https://en.wikipe..._time%29

The question of whether time is fundamental or emergent is, on the other hand, crucially important. I have no idea what the answer is (and neither does anybody else). Modern theories of fundamental physics and cosmology include both possibilities among the respectable proposals.

-Sean Carroll
http://www.prepos...me-real/
(link has a video too)

check it out... let me know what you think
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
Oh, and - lest I forget...
Happy New Year's to all of you stuck at home like me...;-)
Thanks for making it - interesting...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
It's up to You to put an effort into understanding things, not to me in making it easy for you. I could provide references.... I think you are no better than zephir_fan and have contempt for knowledge,... such are internet trolls


some would take serious umbrage at this, you know...
many people believe that if you cannot explain yourself so that a teenage (16) person can understand you, then you do not know your material.

IMHO- there is much truth in that. i would definitely say that if you cant make a reasonably intelligent adult, with at least a high school education understand it, then...

i am not saying that you are stupid, mind you, only that if you cannot explain yourself to a high school educated average person, then perhaps you need to rethink/ readjust your process of cummunication.
if you cant make your side of the story known, or understood, you are ranting, not communicating.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
Whydening Gyre
i thought i smelled Yeats...lol
it was that or you are a fan of Batman comics... but i figured you for Yeats... assumed, really...
why didnt you go with the American spelling (with an i instead of a y)?
you a Brit?

HAPPY NEW YEARS TO ALL!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
nou·me·non
[noo-muh-non] noun, plural nou·me·na [noo-muh-nuh]
1. the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.
2. a thing in itself, as distinguished from a phenomenon or thing as it appears.
3. Kantianism. something that can be the object only of a purely intellectual, nonsensuous intuition.


http://dictionary...noumenon

why did you go with the Kant meaning? is there a special significance?
What I have described above is a well established point of view in the history and interpretation of qm, and not something that I have invented as a crank theory myself.


one of the interpretations. Do all the interpretations follow? I believe there are interpretations that would argue against this... but I am not up on all the interpretations.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
It's up to You to put an effort into understanding things, not to me in making it easy for you. I could provide references.... I think you are no better than zephir_fan and have contempt for knowledge,... such are internet trolls


some would take serious umbrage at this, you know...
many people believe that if you cannot explain yourself so that a teenage (16) person can understand you, then you do not know your material.

IMHO- there is much truth in that. i would definitely say that if you cant make a reasonably intelligent adult, with at least a high school education understand it, then...

i am not saying that you are stupid, mind you, only that if you cannot explain yourself to a high school educated average person, then perhaps you need to rethink/ readjust your process of cummunication.
if you cant make your side of the story known, or understood, you are ranting, not communicating.

LOL!! Yeah! What HE said!!
Thanks for the proper clarity to my point, Cap'n!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
Whydening Gyre
i thought i smelled Yeats...lol
it was that or you are a fan of Batman comics... but i figured you for Yeats... assumed, really...
why didnt you go with the American spelling (with an i instead of a y)?
you a Brit?

HAPPY NEW YEARS TO ALL!

Actually, I added h and y. As a kid I always asked why. I do it now even as an adult. Gyre is similar to my last name. Just seemed to fit together. American, veteran, artist, tax-payer & Ideacon. And, not least - a grandpa...
If I'd a known they were this much fun, I'd a had them first...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
Try reading Kant's Critique , or D'espagnat's recent book, then come back with that assessment.


Kant is philosophy. In many people's opinion, philosophy has no place in science.

At least D'espagnat is also a physicist. I thought his quote pretty neat:
""The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
https://en.wikipe...Espagnat
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
As a kid I always asked why. I do it now even as an adult. Gyre is similar to my last name. Just seemed to fit together. American, veteran, artist, tax-payer & Ideacon. And, not least - a grandpa...


figured you were a mite older, like me. Right now I am hiding, as I have 6 grandkids screaming around my daughters house waiting for new years...

How well versed are you on the different interpretations of QM?

The Noumenal intention of your epitaxialy arranged phonemic structures creates a statistically based epiphany in my Phenomenal Mind...


you have the touch of poet in you... or did you kiss the blarney stone a few times? lol
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
Try reading Kant's Critique , or D'espagnat's recent book, then come back with that assessment.


Kant is philosophy. In many people's opinion, philosophy has no place in science.

At least D'espagnat is also a physicist. I thought his quote pretty neat:
""The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
https://en.wikipe...Espagnat

Consider the saying by Einstein, but use philosophy instead of religion.
What besides quantum math ISN'T QM in conflict with it...
I'd be curious to know what experiments show that objects canNOT exist independent of consciousness. ie - not here before we were aware of it. Or even while we are aware of it, for that matter... Or is just the doctrine he had problems with, not the actual concept...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
@noumenon
IOW, one can only say that entropy follows an 'arrow of time', if the concept of time is already presupposed. We don't derive the concept of time from entropy itself.


why do you suppose that Entropy moves only in one direction, if there is no arrow of time? I would like as detailed an explanation as you can get, if you would.

I used to not believe in Time, as it was subjective (and various other reasons), however, Sean Carroll has given me a great deal to chew on that shows a great argument for the existence of time itself. I left you some video links on his page, please take a few minutes and watch them. Then get back with me.

Another good question: if there is no such thing as time, why cant we remember the future? There is obviously SOMETHING that does not allow us to move freely into the future (or the past). We can only remember the past.

And I have no idea whether it is fundamental or emergent...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
figured you were a mite older, like me. Right now I am hiding, as I have 6 grandkids screaming around my daughters house waiting for new years...

Mine are miles and miles away. Wife is probly sleeping. Maybe I could walk to the local tap a quarter mile away...
How well versed are you on the different interpretations of QM?

Certainly not as well versed as I could - or should - be... I work, who's got time? But what I've read tells me that QM is an attempt (possible fairly successful) to define what you can already divine is real. IE - from a distance it looks like a particle. As it draws closer it looks more like an amorphous blob flowing and ebbing like a wave. As it moves closer around you, you see the blob is actually a flock of birds going wherever birds go. Mexico, maybe? Then it moves on into a paricle again.
In other words - I don't really know the tools of QM, just what it is trying to define. I FEEL it.
Intuitively, you could say.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
IOW, one can only say that entropy follows an 'arrow of time', if the concept of time is already presupposed. We don't derive the concept of time from entropy itself.
why do you suppose that Entropy moves only in one direction, if there is no arrow of time? I would like as detailed an explanation as you can get, if you would.

Another good question: if there is no such thing as time, why cant we remember the future? There is obviously SOMETHING that does not allow us to move freely into the future (or the past). We can only remember the past.

And I have no idea whether it is fundamental or emergent...

Just wait until they find evidence of that unexpected, unpredicted "Time" boson...
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
The Noumenal intention of your epitaxialy arranged phonemic structures creates a statistically based epiphany in my Phenomenal Mind...


you have the touch of poet in you... or did you kiss the blarney stone a few times? lol


Not poet, I can guarantee. Amateur wordsmith, maybe. No Blarney Stone kissin' - just coffee...
No Blarney! :-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2014
my favourite definition of QM is one that was Twittered. the contest was to use 5 or less words...
Dont look: wave; Look: particle

i wish i had more info on the various interpretations of QM. i have a couple in a few books, but i cant dig them out right now.

Not poet, I can guarantee. Amateur wordsmith, maybe. No Blarney Stone kissin' - just coffee...


"in every artist there is a poet, and in every poet an artist. it is all in the medium of transfer... the poet paints with words, while the artist speaks with images"
Monterey No Moccasins

Coffee: the elixir of the gods.

well... you MUST be an American.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
my favourite definition of QM is one that was Twittered. the contest was to use 5 or less words...
Dont look: wave; Look: particle

LOL.. That's like the philosophy question - Why? Answer - Why not?

Noum calls my meanderings a lack of understanding.
Q-star calls them quaint sophistry.
I call them fun thought experiments...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2014
i wish i had more info on the various interpretations of QM. i have a couple in a few books, but i cant dig them out right now.

The ONLY interpretation that counts - is your own...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
By definition, Physics is the study of the physical universe around us. The REAL - not existentialist daydreaming. You make QM appear to be an attempt to change that reality, not study it.


Don't get ahead of yourself here.

Too late - already there....
ant_oacute_nio354
not rated yet Jan 02, 2014
Spacetime doesn't exist you idiots.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

Lorentz equations have nothing to do with space and time, but
with wavelength and period of an electromagnetic wave.
They give the Doppler shifts for transversal waves.
They are also valid for surface water waves.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
I used to not believe in Time, as it was subjective (and various other reasons), however, Sean Carroll has given me a great deal to chew on that shows a great argument for the existence of time itself.


Let me make myself clear here,... Time is a Real conponent of 'phenommenal reality', in fact, a necessary component, as I mentioned above. Phenomenal reality is Reality that is subject to conceptualization and so is in some sense dependent upon the mind,... in this case the a-apriori intuition of time. [it is an intution rather than a concept strictly speaking but nevermind that].
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
,.... I'm saying that Time (& space, etc) is not a physical thing that exists independently of mind synthesizing experience for the understanding.

IOW, one can only say that entropy follows an 'arrow of time', if the concept of time is already presupposed. We don't derive the concept of time from entropy itself.


why do you suppose that Entropy moves only in one direction, if there is no arrow of time? I would like as detailed an explanation as you can get, if you would.


It is purely a statistical result that systems 'tend' toward equilibrium. We say that after the fact, as we apply time to the situation to form a comceptualization of it so that it is made to conform to our intuitions, which is what (intuitive) understanding is. The my comment on the Feynman quote above.

If you examine a 'single time frame' of a thermodynamic system, you will not see any physical Time force, field, or partcle, operative in it that causes entropy. ...
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
,... in fact you can not even tell which way the system will go at the molecular scale, i.e. there is no reason for a molecule to bounce one way verses another, beyond the forces involved which are the same in any case,... because there is no physical time thingy that causes it to make a particular choice. WE come in and compare two distinct states of the system, without taking into account of every moleular interaction,... and the Apply our concept of time to establish the tendancy of the system.

This is not a discovery of time, but instead, it's application. It was already presupposed by then. Thus, it is invalid to suppose that time exists independently of minds.

This was the point of the D'espagnet quote that I had originally made, that you (not reading my posts) re-quoted. I could also quote many physicists saying essentially the same thing that I've tried to convey above (perhaps in too much Kant'ian language),... including S.Hawking..:
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
....

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - S. Hawking

So what does this mean to you, if not what I have conveyed above? If this mind dependent conceptual structure is removed from 'phenomenal reality',... what is left? The answer would have to be what Kant called the Noumenon. This means Reality 'as it is in itself',... unconceptualized, and thus lacking the artifacts of acquiring knowldge that are mind dependent,... time, space, counter-factuality, absolute simultaneity, locallity, etc. In QM we are witnessing this 'seam' between 'noumenal reality' and 'reality as known by mind', ....where our concepts don't work and provide intuitive understanding (but not predictive knowledge).
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
After QM more and more physicists realize that of our knowledge of reality is of experience and not of independent reality. Why would I mention Immanuel Kant, a philosopher (actually he is known for his island universe hypothesis)? Because Kant analyzed what it means to have knowledge,( he was the first great modern epistemologist),.. which is obviously quite important to science. He had already discovered the foundation of what in essense Bohr and Heisendberg had rediscovered in QM, in their Copenhagen argument.

Abraham Pais, a nuclear scientists renoun, historian of science, and Einstein/Bohr/Dirac biographer of renoun, stated that Neils Bohr is the natural sucessor to Immanuel Kant.

Why did Einstein object to the indeterminacy inherent in QM? Because it did not satisfy his intuition,... but Bohr corrected him by conveying that Einstein's intuition is mind dependent and so arbutrary and bias (not a direct quote).
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
In QM we are witnessing this 'seam' between 'noumenal reality' and 'reality as known by mind', ....where our concepts don't work and provide intuitive understanding (but not predictive knowledge).


I don't think I made the above clear enough,.... our concepts fails at the scale of QM, thus we can not obtain a intuitive understanding,... only non-intuitive predictive knowledge of experience (not reality as 'it is in itself', independent of minds).

Is the subatomic entity a wave or a particle? The underlying reality is neither. These are concepts necessary for observation at our scale. Does a subatomic entity in a two-slit experiment feel-out 'every possible path at the same time'? Does this even make sense to say the same entity takes multiple paths 'At The Same Time'? In fact it invalidates the concept of time or space as does quantum entanglement.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2014
Please excuse the various typos, .... arbutrary, phenommenal, comceptualization, etc, ... had limited time on my iphone.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
...looks like gyre and stumpy are now hiding under their desks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
Noumenon
the point of the D'espagnet quote that I had originally made, that you (not reading my posts) re-quoted

and apparently you did not read most of what I wrote at ALL...

I sent links to Sean Carroll's site, and you argue back with your philosophy.
I didnt say I disagreed with your quote... in fact, I rather liked it.(Go re-read)
I asked for clarification on some things (Go Re-Read)
you pushed entropy, so I also pushed with a link about it (GO FREAKIN RE-READ)
I said that you are not making sense on some things and that you should explain it in a manner that an average person could understand (GO...well, YOU get the idea, right?)

just because YOU are lumping ME in with some others that in YOUR opinion are not understanding what you say and you think "whatever" does not mean that I am HIDING.
I am waiting... for you to READ and explain why Sean Carroll is wrong.

obviously there is SOME merit to the issue of TIME that Carroll uses...

dont worry... i am STILL waiting
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
I shouldn't have lumped you in with Gyre admittedly in my snarkey joke, but I answered your question wrt entropy.

I've read Carroll including his lectures on GR, but am not sure what point you wish to convey wrt Time. You did not even summarize Carroll's point.

I don't have the time to take homework assignments from you, nor to be outsourced to someone else who argues your point for you. I'm not going to argue with the internet, nor is it appropriate that the internet argue with me. What is the point of a discussion if all we do is enter into a link war?

While it is a good thing to provide references, first you must summarize the point in question yourself,... then if I require further information I will follow your link. Don't expect me to do all the work for you.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
If you examine a 'single time frame' of a thermodynamic system, you will not see any physical Time force, field, or partcle, operative in it that causes entropy. ...

Without multiple time frames (provided by Time, naturally), it can't a thermodynamic system.

As to hiding under my desk? I'm self-employed - and don't have time...
SailorBo
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Quote: "Smooth" or grainy? Is space-time continuous or is it made up of very fine (10-35 metres on the "Planck scale") but discrete grains, if we look at it very close up ?"

I would rather say that the present moment is a Planck scale grain of duration.
A "space" thing.. not any "time" thing at all. http://spacetime....ime.html
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
As to hiding under my desk? I'm self-employed - and don't have time..


Ah ha, you admit there is no time!

If you examine a 'single time frame' of a thermodynamic system, you will not see any physical Time force, field, or partcle, operative in it that causes entropy. ...

Without multiple time frames (provided by Time, naturally), it can't a thermodynamic system.


What do you mean "provided by Time, naturally"? What does this mean in a way that does not presume time to start with? Where exactly is this supposed physical time operative as a motive force in the system?

I will rewrite your statement as follows,... 'without Observing multiple distinct states of the system, WE (not nature) cannot quantify the tendency of the energy of the system to distribute amongst the degrees of freedom available'.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
If you examine a 'single time frame' of a thermodynamic system, you will not see any physical Time force, field, or partcle, operative in it that causes entropy. ...


Without multiple time frames (provided by Time, naturally), it can't a thermodynamic system.


Later in that quote I mentioned comparing two states of the system, so by 'single time frame', I meant including all the velocities and positions of the molecules of the system.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
If there was a physical Time field or whatever, operative in the system as a motive force that causes entropy*... then presumably if one knew all the positions and velocities of the system in addition to this Time state,.. one could in principal reverse this Time function by applying it backwards in the system, and so the system would return to its original state (in the calculations). But thermodynamics does not behave this way and most systems are irreversible by the definition of entropy, so this fails. Therefore there is no physical Time operative that drives it.

*(so that Time can be derived from entropy, rather than the reverse, ..that time is applied to derive entropy)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
@Noumenon
I shouldn't have lumped you in with Gyre admittedly in my snarkey joke,

apology accepted
but I answered your question wrt entropy.

I am just not sure I still agree
I've read Carroll including his lectures on GR, but am not sure what point you wish to convey wrt Time. You did not even summarize Carroll's point.

Carroll wrote a 420 page BOOK about it and I am still attempting to summarize it into a format that I could post here without having to write a BOOK of my own, in cases like this, like your links to some sites, it is generally polite to NOT flood phys.org with huge amounts of data
isn't that one reason Ryggy is so irritating?
I don't have the time to take homework assignments from you, nor to be outsourced to someone else who argues your point for you.

1- but you expect OTHERS to do YOUR homework? UNCOOL
2- I dont OUTSOURCE ...BUT... I will gladly accept and use other posts that apply, just like YOU do.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
While it is a good thing to provide references, first you must summarize the point in question yourself,... then if I require further information I will follow your link. Don't expect me to do all the work for you.


see above post

admittedly, you DO summarize, or at least give general hints about your work.
i did not summarize, and i apologize, HOWEVER, read the above.

i am still trying to weed the summary of the book into a small enough format to post here. tell you WHAT, though...
i WILL summarize it, and i WILL be back with it, and then we can continue. since you dont want to address Carroll's points UNLESS i post them here, which tells me that Carroll actually points out things that you cannot address yourself, or you cannot address to someone who is trained better than someone such as i, as you are not only refuted, but habitually destroyed in said debates.

so... give me time, and i will address your points with a summary.

PEACE
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Later in that quote I mentioned comparing two states of the system, so by 'single time frame', I meant including all the velocities and positions of the molecules of the system.

And I'm saying - Without time "velocity" would not exist. Hence, we would have no "position" to reference.
B Frasier was right, in a sense (way back in the beginning of all this), by saying it can be compared to a motion. Or perhaps a field that everything else must pass through in order to "become", exist. Think, Higgs boson and mass...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
since you dont want to address Carroll's points UNLESS i post them here, which tells me that Carroll actually points out things that you cannot address yourself, or you cannot address to someone who is trained better than someone such as i, as you are not only refuted, but habitually destroyed in said debates.


Nope, I never clicked on your link. I'm not trying to be an ass here, it's just that I have limited time, and have to he careful in engaging in link wars as there is endless resources. As you said he wrote a 420 page book on it. What is the title, perhaps I already read it or may buy it?

I don't expect you to read D'espagnet's recent work or Kant's 'Critique', so I summarized his general point. You don't need to be detailed, just outline why he thinks Time is a physical thing.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Btw, I'm aware that some physicist would disagree and take a more Realist approach while others take a Positivist approach. For example, I received an email from Smolen stating he majored in philosophy and does not agree with Kant or the points posted by me and Hyperion in the above link. On the other hand there are physicists who understand the epistemic issues involved and have written extensively on it. It is easy to enter into metaphysics if one is not careful about the role mind plays in our knowledge of phenomenal reality.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Later in that quote I mentioned comparing two states of the system, so by 'single time frame', I meant including all the velocities and positions of the molecules of the system.

And I'm saying - Without time "velocity" would not exist. Hence, we would have no "position" to reference.
B Frasier was right, in a sense (way back in the beginning of all this), by saying it can be compared to a motion. Or perhaps a field that everything else must pass through in order to "become", exist. Think, Higgs boson and mass...


It can't be anything physical like a field or we could discover it independently of its use. As I said above, it would be a dependent function of the system.

To determine velocity you need an operational definition of distance and time,... in other words you need to compare systems,... one is congruent with another. If one of the systems is a clock then you have the "time" of the other.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
Noumenon writes
he wrote a 420 page book on it. What is the title, perhaps I already read it or may buy it?

"From Eternity to Here: the Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time" by Sean Carroll.
I don't expect you to read D'espagnet's recent work or Kant's 'Critique'

still wading through it

I will get back later on the rest of your posts...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
From Eternity to Here: the Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time" by Sean Carroll


Thanks, I'll definitely look into it as I haven't read it.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
From the link above on "operational definitions" (physically defined]......

"The special theory of relativity can be viewed as the introduction of operational definitions for simultaneity of events and of distance, that is, as providing the operations needed to define these terms."

[Thus Einstein was careful to speak of physical clocks and rods, by Defining time and distance AS those physical systems,... so one then compares physical systems. The notion of observer independent simultaneity of events fails in SR !]

"John Stuart Mill pointed out the dangers of believing that anything that could be given a name must refer to a thing"

"A committed operationalist would [propose] that speculation about the thing in itself, or noumenon, should be resisted as meaningless, and would comment only on phenomena using operationally defined terms and tables of operationally defined measurements"

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
It can't be anything physical like a field or we could discover it independently of its use. As I said above, it would be a dependent function of the system.

Who says we haven't?

To determine velocity you need an http://en.wikiped...#Science of distance and time,... in other words you need to compare systems,... one is congruent with another. If one of the systems is a clock then you have the "time" of the other.

What if it's two functions performed by the same system?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
It can't be anything physical like a field or we could discover it independently of its use. As I said above, it would be a dependent function of the system.

Who says we haven't?


We have? Could you provide a reference? I'm unaware that a physical time field has been discovered.

To determine velocity you need an operational definition of distance and time,... in other words you need to compare systems,... one is congruent with another. If one of the systems is a clock then you have the "time" of the other.

What if it's two functions performed by the same system?



Not enough information here to respond to. Put some ass into it.

---------------

One could make the case that time is an emergent concept, derived from experience. This was Leibniz view. Kant lator put forward his more profound view, to which I believe is the correct one.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
We have? Could you provide a reference? I'm unaware that a physical time field has been discovered.

ahhh... You'll have to do your own homework on that one...:-)

To determine velocity you need an operational definition of distance and time,... in other words you need to compare systems,... one is congruent with another. If one of the systems is a clock then you have the "time" of the other.
One could make the case that time is an emergent concept, derived from experience. This was Leibniz view. Kant lator put forward his more profound view, to which I believe is the correct one.

A lack of the noumenal word (or force or movement)of "Time", implies it is our reference frame that changes. Is that what you mean?
I think you might know where I'm leading to with that...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
We have? Could you provide a reference? I'm unaware that a physical time field has been discovered.


ahhh... You'll have to do your own homework on that one...:-)


In other words, no you don't.

A lack of the noumenal [world] (or force or movement)of "Time", implies it is our reference frame that changes. Is that what you mean?


I don't think so. What is time to you? You have a subjective sense of time, so you can't help to think it is something real in itself. Why is this? It is because (imo) the mind evolved with that innate sensibility as a necessary condition for experience. It is a "hardwired" intellectual faculty. However there is no absolute Time and a failure of absolute simultaneity, and further in qm our conceptual structure is exposed as a artificial syntheses even more so.

We Define time as some cyclic system like a light clock,... it is nothing else.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
I don't think so. What is time to you? You have a subjective sense of time, so you can't help to think it is something real in itself. Why is this? It is because (imo) the mind evolved with that innate sensibility as a necessary condition for experience. It is a "hardwired" intellectual faculty. However there is no absolute Time and a failure of absolute simultaneity, and further in qm our conceptual structure is exposed as a artificial syntheses even more so.

We Define time as some cyclic system like a light clock,... it is nothing else.

So - why do we "see" change?
sabine_hossenfelder
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
Spacetime 'graininess' doesn't have to violate Lorentz-invariance. Here's how you test it in this case: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0314
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
I don't think so. What is time to you? You have a subjective sense of time, so you can't help to think it is something real in itself. Why is this? It is because (imo) the mind evolved with that innate sensibility as a necessary condition for experience. It is a "hardwired" intellectual faculty. However there is no absolute Time and a failure of absolute simultaneity, and further in qm our conceptual structure is exposed as a artificial syntheses even more so.

We Define time as some cyclic system like a light clock,... it is nothing else.

So - why do we "see" change?


Why wouldn't we? Your sentences are getting shorter, while mine have been too long.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
Why wouldn't we? Your sentences are getting shorter, while mine have been too long.

Because - I'm dialing in on your noumenal vagaries.
And - I'm following one of the guidelines suggested about posts.
BrianFraser
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
Is science returning to this discussion?

Type this into Google (copy and paste the line):

search Geometry space time motion non-local interstellar propulsion

Find the article. Be prepared for some deep thinking.

Here is one for Percival:

"speed of electric fields" + "speed of gravity"

(You might want to read what actual experiments show about these topics.)
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2014
Why wouldn't we? Your sentences are getting shorter, while mine have been too long.

Because - I'm dialing in on your noumenal vagaries.
And - I'm following one of the guidelines suggested about posts.


The.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
@W-Gyre,

If you knew what noumenon meant you would understand that "vagaries" is an understatement.

Noumenon is what I called "Independent Reality" above, which is to say, 'reality as it is in itself', as it exists apart from being conceptualized and observed by mind. By definition it is unknowable.

We can only know what I termed 'phenomenal reality' above, which is Reality as conceptualized, and thus includes as a component the various a-priori intellectual faculties for doing so.

The realm of science is limited necessarily to phenomenal reality. The use of Time and other such intuitions is valid in operationally defined form, if it allows for predictions of experienced reality, and in fact is necessary for intuitive understanding.

Why is the term "classical physics" used to differentiate from QM? It is because in the former WE conform reality to our a-priori conceptual framework, while in the latter, this fails to work consistently, and is why qm is non-intuitive.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2014
So - why do we "see" change?


... there IS an objective Reality (Noumenon),.... as B. D'Espagnat says 'there must be a underlying something that says no' [wrt experimentation], ....it is just that given the conditions for knowledge to be possible on account of the nature of mind, we necessarily wrap our conceptual structure around it, and thus an artificial syntheses... i.e. the electron should not be mistaken to BE a particle or to BE a wave, it is just a means of observing and formulating it. Likewise, Time should not be mistaken as a Thing of itself, and so in practice it is operationally defined.

As mention above there are several examples of such mind dependent artificial syntheses .... space, time, absolute temporal simultaneity, causality, counter-factuality, locality, divisibility....
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
@Stumpy,..., did Sean Carroll make this quote in his book,... "[regarding the meaning of time, perhaps is,...] "an emergent phenomenon rather than a necessary part of our ultimate description of the world"?

This was essentially G. Leibniz's position,.. that it is a derived concept. In my view, it is part of the machinery of the mind, and so necessary for experience.

---------------

Btw, while I don't get the impression that any interest exists for this subject here, ... Bernard d'Espagnat's http://www.amazon...ilosophy on this makes use of physics arguments, in particular QM interpretations, rather than Kant's philosophy,... but he admits to arriving at the same conclusion.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
EDIT:

Btw, while I don't get the impression that any interest exists for this subject here, ... Bernard d'Espagnat's recent book on this makes use of physics arguments, in particular QM interpretations, rather than Kant's philosophy,... but he admits to arriving at the same conclusion.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
The.


5 stars. Cuz, THAT was funny.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
:)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
If you knew what noumenon meant you would understand that "vagaries" is an understatement.

Just peeling back the layers...
Noumenon is what I called "Independent Reality" above, which is to say, 'reality as it is in itself', as it exists apart from being conceptualized and observed by mind.

As it exists in your conceptualization and observed by my mind...
By definition it is unknowable.

So NOW you use an accepted definition of something...
We can only know what I termed 'phenomenal reality' above, which is Reality as conceptualized,

Let's take it a step further. You only know what you THINK you can or Kant know... The mere fact that you can create the concept of an "unknowable" thing subjects it to phenomenal parsing.
Your words are just telling me to stop trying cuz it's "unknowable". My conceptual perception does not accept that.
By the way - curious as to your avocation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
Noumenon writes
@Stumpy,..., did Sean Carroll make this quote in his book,... "[regarding the meaning of time, perhaps is,...] "an emergent phenomenon rather than a necessary part of our ultimate description of the world"?


still going thru the book to see about the above
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
one can only say that entropy follows an 'arrow of time', if the concept of time is already presupposed.


I am reading that Time is deeply connected with Entropy.
Time moves in one direction, as does entropy, and there seems to be either a tie between the two, or perhaps time is a property of entropy. This could also be an emergent property (IDK)?. Time is heavily tied with entropy.
There's also a boundary that begins this entropy/time issue. (BB)
No matter how we interpret the aspect of time, we come to the conclusion that there is a start point in the past. For Entropy as well.

You CAN take single period events of Entropy and you cant make a determination that there is a unidirectional flow, however, taken as a whole (or in series) you can see a progress from low entropy to high, and within that flow is tied Time. It doesn't matter how you separate it, it is there as a series of coordinates tied into entropy.
swap Entropy with Time above:same result
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
TIME as a temporal measure of repetitious/cyclical events can be said to be arbitrary or subjective, according to literature, as it is individually subjective to the point of view or it may depend arbitrarily on a random cyclical event, which, by definition, changes (ie: orbital year for earth VS other planets)

however, Time as a fundamental necessity for the measurement of velocity or to include into events to determine a series, to measure movement through space, or to measure entropy is decidedly necessary and seems to be a fundamental property of space itself, as the meaning of any is completely nonsensical without time as a factor.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
however, Time as a fundamental necessity for the measurement of velocity or to include into events to determine a series, to measure movement through space, or to measure entropy is decidedly necessary and seems to be a fundamental property of space itself, as the meaning of any is completely nonsensical without time as a factor.


That is COMPLETELY my point. Just because we can't point to a specific particle or field reference, doesn't mean it isn't there - just means we haven't figured out how to find it yet.

And I've got way too many posts on this article...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
@Stumpy,

I'm not denying that time can be USED to make predictions of a system. In fact above I even said time was a necessary condition for intutitve experience of 'phenomenal reality'.

Entropy is a macro measure of the distribution of energy amongst the degrees of freedom and possible states of the system. At any one point of this system, it does not know whats going on at other points of the system, so can only respond to known inter molecular forces involved at that point. There is no additional 'Time force' present there.

Entropy is purely a statistical result that has nothing in essence to do with Time as a thing. The probability of a state closer to equilibrium is higher than away from equilibrium. A convenient means of Expressing entropy, is to say that a system tends to equilibrium in time. To arrive at that conclusion wrt time, you must compare multiple distinct states of the first system whilst comparing to a second system that counts physical cycles, a clock....
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
,... but this second system, the clock and observer, has no physical bearing on the first.

however, Time as a fundamental necessity for the measurement of velocity or to include into events to determine a series, to measure movement through space, or to measure entropy is decidedly necessary and seems to be a fundamental property of space itself, as the meaning of any is completely nonsensical without time as a factor.


That's correct, ....to Measure and make Sense of,... minds do this, not nature independently of minds. As I said many times above, without time, it is nonsensical (non-intuitive), thus time is necessary for the intuitive understanding of experience.

But QM is non-intuitive and yet we are still able to make predictions. I mentioned the two-slit experiment above where the 'particle' seems to feel out every possible path At The Same Time. What about qm entanglement? His does measurement of a particle effect another an arbitrary distance away, instantaneously?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2014
.... there is a qm version of non-reversible entropy put forward by von Neumann, but involves the projection postulate (were the state is 'projected' to a basis (observable) of the (Hilbert space) system upon measurement,...i.e.'wave function' collapse),.... but this is precisely what started the Copenhagen interpretation, and my interjection of Kant's epistemology, and D'Espagnat's analysis, etc.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2014
From philosophical perspective there is a question, whether the fluctuation of space-time should be considered as a part of space-time or just as its extension.


The question, "is space-time smooth or grainy", is not nor should be an ontological one, wrt the nature of space and time itself.

Rather, it is one of how to repair the incompatibility of the macro-scale Operational Definition of those concepts, to the micro-scale.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
Noumenon writes:
But QM is non-intuitive and yet we are still able to make predictions. I mentioned the two-slit experiment above where the 'particle' seems to feel out every possible path At The Same Time. What about qm entanglement? His does measurement of a particle effect another an arbitrary distance away, instantaneously?

I really cant answer this particular series of questions as there are better minds than mine taking this into consideration and I have yet to see the WHY of it. I dont think ANYONE has reconciled the Quantum world with the Macro. After all, there is speculation from wormholes within the entangled particles to …?
That's correct, ....to Measure and make Sense of,... minds do this, not nature independently of minds. As I said many times above, without time, it is nonsensical (non-intuitive), thus time is necessary for the intuitive understanding of experience.

I understand where you are coming from with the mind but even without our mind, or intuition, watching the progression unfold, it still unfolds in the same manner...

or are you saying that the act of measurement is what extrapolates the measurement of time from the situation and establishes the arrow in a unidirectional motion?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2014
I've been posting about the subject for years here and it is rare that anyone even knows what I'm talking about or understands the fundamental issue
This is because philosophy is worthless bullshit. Example:
It can't be anything physical like a field or we could discover it independently of its use. As I said above, it would be a dependent function of the system
-Using words to try to figure out physics is preposterous. Per the article:

"... a systematic overview of the experiments and observations that can be exploited to investigate the existence of these irregularities"

-is the only way to understand physical phenomena.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2014
I'm not denying that time can be USED to make predictions of a system. In fact above I even said time was a necessary condition for intutitve experience of 'phenomenal reality'
-How could you possibly know or find out by discussing it?
As I said many times above, without time, it is nonsensical (non-intuitive), thus time is necessary for the intuitive understanding of experience
-More useless philobabble.
Noumenon is what I called "Independent Reality" above, which is to say, 'reality as it is in itself', as it exists apart from being conceptualized and observed by mind
Stop stop!! Oh how it burns...
By definition it is unknowable.
Then by definition it doesnt exist, is not there, is nothing but fantasy, and must be shunned, ridiculed, and abhorred.
my interjection of Kant's epistemology
Ahaaahaaaahaaaaa.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2014
,... says the troll who has yet to make a point.

What makes you think I don't know how physics advances, or have any interest in debating you whether philosophy has relevance in physics, while you have not shown you understand much of either?

I posted a quote from S. Hawking above, your "anti-philo guy",... who is saying essentially what I am here; i.e., there relevance of epistemic considerations to physics.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
,... says the troll who has yet to make a point.

I posted a quote from S. Hawking above, your "anti-philo guy",... who is saying essentially what I am here; i.e., there relevance of epistemic considerations to physics.
Yes this was from when he was young, naive, and conciliatory. I posted a much later and more mature quote which says that philosophy is dead.

Also you do know that when scientists use philo words they are not referring to their philosophical usage? You guys only use the opportunity to try to own science. This is why people like Feynman pbuh and Lawrence Krause make fun of you.

In fact I posted a quote from dan dennett, who still calls himself a science philo, which explains why he had to throw out all your traditional philobabble words because they were useless. They have absolutely no definition.

But then each successive gen of philos has done essentially the same thing, yes? To maintain the illusion of progress. But fashion never really 'progresses' does it?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
Do you have proof that Hawking no longer thinks what I quoted above? When Hawking says 'philosophy is dead', is he referring to philosophy of modern physics, or traditional philosophy?

Do you know the difference between scientific Positivism and scientific Realism? Hawking states his position is the former. What does this mean to you? How does it effect how one approaches physics?

You still fail to comprehend that when I speak of epistemology wrt physics, the entire point of my comments above is to be for scientific positivism and against metaphysical speculation in physics,.. i.e. to say that Time is a Thing that exists independently of mind is to assert metaphysics.

Also you do know that when scientists use philo words they are not referring to their philosophical usage? You guys.....


Is that right, could you give an example? I'm more interested in physics than Philosophy, so what is this "you guys" non-sense.

You're just anti-xxxx for the same of being anti-xxxx.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2014
s he referring to philosophy of modern physics, or traditional philosophy?
There is no philosophy of modern physics. There is the science of physics and there is the cult of novelists, poets, groupies, posturers, wizards, and gurus which you are referring to, none of whom are contributing anything useful whatsoever to the pursuit of science. According to hawking, Krause, Tyson, and many many others.

No postdoc has a copy of Kant sitting in his lab except perhaps for shits and giggles.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
Is that right, could you give an example?
Sure. Here is one such plate of spaghetti.
when I speak of epistemology wrt physics, the entire point of my comments above is to be for scientific positivism and against metaphysical speculation in physics
Scientists don't NEED phrases like 'scientific positivism'. It's not included in any of their courses. It's something that philos who hang around lecture halls and symposiums use to proclaim 'I know what they're talking about in there!'

And if you were to say to one of them
i.e. to say that Time is a Thing that exists independently of mind is to assert metaphysics.
-they would try to be polite and not snicker but endeavor gamely to translate a few equations for you in laymans terms.

But you would mistake this for philospeak and get all bubbly and verbose until they get embarrassed and walk away.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
Do you know the difference between scientific Positivism and scientific Realism?
Well I could do a little research and show you how their definitions change depending on which philo is trying to describe them or which philo dictionary they're defined in. I can show you how one or the other has been discredited and rejected by one school or another only to be revived at a later date with the prefix 'neo' tacked on.

And I'm sure it is possible to find an overwhelming majority of physicists who don't know the difference, and who do not GIVE A SHIT.

And these physicists are doing science blissfully in encumbered by preconceived notions of how they should be doing their work as dictated by wordmongers and intellectual dinosaurs.

Kant. There is no way that anything he conjured up could be of any value to science because he lived before there was any knowledge of relativity, quantum mechanics, genetics, or etc. He died in 1804 .
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
You could do research? Shouldn't you already know that before attempting to argue nothingness with me? Btw, Realism and Positivism have unambiguous meanings in physics.

There are MANY physicists who write on philosophy of physics. All I have to do is list a few prominent ones, to resounding refute your non-sensical gibberish,... I've done this over and over.

The entire non-intutive nature of qm is a epistemological issue, the resolution of which guided the developement of the conceptual foundations of that subject,.. for example Schrodinger vrs Borns interpretation of the wave-function. But you wouldn't know any of that.

Do you have a substantive point to make?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
Kant. There is no way that anything he conjured up could be of any value to science because he lived before there was any knowledge of relativity, quantum mechanics, genetics, or etc. He died in 1804 .


You only think that because you have zero idea what he even did nor why it would have relevancy today.

Why would a prominent physicist, B. D'Espagnat, a student of DeBroglie, mention Kant many times through out his recent book, on the very subject of which I posted on above,.... and why would A. Pais, a prominent nuclear physicist, state that Niels Bohr is the natural successor of Immaneul Kant,..... if Kant's analysis of knowledge could not have had relevancy now? And Kant is mentioned by Heisenberg in his book on philosophy of physics,.... and then there's Roberto Toretti,...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2014
Realism and Positivism have unambiguous meanings in physics
No they don't because they are NOT physics terms.
There are MANY physicists who write on philosophy of physics
Many scientists write science fiction. So what? When they are musing about philosophy they are not doing physics.

"Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." SH
entire non-intutive nature of qm is a epistemological issue, the resolution of which guided the developement of the conceptual foundations of that subject
-And that's bullshit. QM theory is the result of the mathematical interpretation of experimental results. It is not the result of juggling nonsense words like epistemology. THAT word had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the theory. It is only used by philos in shameless attempts to own what scientists do.

I'm sorry but you guys are parasites.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
Here is Otto's "philosophy is dead" hero, talking philosophical,...

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - S. Hawking

Here he is again, GIVING A SHIT about Positivism and the notion of Time,...

"Any sound scientific theory, whether of Time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others" - Stephen Hawking. [this means an Operational use of Time, and nothing beyond that to independent existence].

Does this sound familiar? It should, if you read my above posts with humility.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
I enjoy using the word, "epistemology" when replying to Otto, because it makes his head explode. Let's see what Einstein thinks about it,....

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? [..] Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,'" - Albert Einstein

..... does this sound familiar, or did you not actually read my posts beyond skimming for key phrases to be against?

Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." SH


Just as I thought, he was talking about general philosophy, not philo of physics. Try reading R. Torretti book on philosophy of physics,... equations on nearly every page.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
From wiki,...

"An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. [....] This question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, as physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject. They usually consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, specifying the physical meaning of the mathematical entities of the theory."

E. Schrodinger initially made a philosophical interpretation of the wave-equation as representing a Real wave, in a Realist sense,..... Max Born then suggested it would be more useful in developing the mathematical foundations of qm if the wave-equation were to be interpreted as a probability amplitude,...
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
,... From D. Griffiths quantum mechanics textbook,....

"[The Copenhagen Interpretation] ... among physicist, has always been the most widely accepted position. [...] if it is correct there is something very peculiar about the act of measurement, something that over a half century of debate has done precious little to illuminate"

Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2014
An analogy, then.
Prior to 13th Century an unseen, unobserved phenomenon killed people. "mainstream" scholars just said "They died in their sleep with no wound or poison symptoms - must be the will of god that we aren't capable of understanding." or some other such silly thing. And that was the end of it.
Luckily, for future generations of folks who lit fires in their little hovels, some Spanish guy started correlating the effects with a possible reason. In the 18th Century, under experimentation, the effects finally gave way to an actual epistemology of a thing - the gas Carbon monoxide.
(In this case, Knowledge was a divergent property of Time, wouldn't you say?...)
I would prefer using the term ""don't know yet." instead of "Can't know."(noumenon)
Not as "intelligentsia" sounding as all your word choices, but clearer to the general public who haven't put so much time in to studying the dictionary.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
Noumenon writes
Btw, Realism and Positivism have unambiguous meanings in physics.

actually, so does time.
http://en.wikiped..._physics
otherwise it would have an arbitrary definition and would include random inputs that would affect experiments
it would also skew results, especially if it were not definable. Time MUST be a well defined term as all physics of movement depends on it.

And WRT Quantum physics, it is all about statistical and mathematical experimental results.

I still dont see where philosophy comes into it. Physics is the definition of the real world, and uses time as a parameter to describe it. It is pretty much integrated into the Macro world and Entropy and cannot be disentangled. WRT QM... time still has an effect. Even with your arguments (double slit) time is essential in the QM world... otherwise we would be able to directly see/measure the Higgs.
many of these experiments are open to different interpretations

this only shows that we still dont have all the answers
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
actually, so does time....otherwise it would have an arbitrary definition and would include random inputs that would affect experiments....it would also skew results, especially if it were not definable. Time MUST be a well defined term as all physics of movement depends on it.


How could you have missed where I stated Time must be physically defined and made reference to an Operational Definition multiple times above?

And WRT Quantum physics, it is all about statistical and mathematical experimental results..[...] WRT QM... time still has an effect. Even with your arguments (double slit) time is essential in the QM world...


Time is not an Operator in qm as proven by Pauli, but is a parameter that is added. Further, as was discovered by Wheeler and Dewitt, one way of reconciling QM and GR was only by dropping the notion of Time altogether!

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
,.... I mentioned qm entanglement above. Why does philosophy of physics enter into it? Because it is necessary to interpret what theory is telling us, and without an analysis and understanding of how we come to have knowledge, by what mechanisms and a-priori biases, its scope and validity, it is not possible to separate the subject from the object. It's not that I'm interjecting philosophy into physics, .... the history of modern physics is replete with philosophical notions. Does this mean that Hilbert Space or pseudo-Riemann manifolds were developed by philosophers,... no, but I never made such a cliam.

Also, understand that mathematics in itself, by its nature, need not reference the physical world at to have meaning.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
I would prefer using the term ""don't know yet." instead of "Can't know."(noumenon)
Not as "intelligentsia" sounding as all your word choices, but clearer to the general public who haven't put so much time in to studying the dictionary.


Admittedly I cause myself problems by using Kantian language. However, noumenon does not mean "don't know yet" albeit unknowable. It should be contrasted with 'phenomenon' which is the realm of legitimate science. Noumenon is Reality as it is in itself as opposed to reality as known by mind. What is the difference? None if you're a Realist,... but that position is untenable, as argued by D'Espagnat, and several others,... and is the point of a Positivist approach to science, and my unread posts above.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
Using words to try to figure out physics is preposterous. Per the article:

"... a systematic overview of the experiments and observations that can be exploited to investigate the existence of these irregularities"

-is the only way to understand physical phenomena.


Yes, dingus, that's what i've been saying. Forcing reality to conform to predisposed biases is preposterous, or speculating that science tells us about unobservable independent reality is preposterous. I'm a positivist that rejects metaphysical non-sense in science. It's comical that you don't get this and then proceed to argue against me while agreeing.

Modern physics is about linking observables together via a mathematical framework that allows for accurate predictions. Key word Observable,.. meaning as by mind, or by extension designed experimental apparatus. Physics is not about knowing independent reality, but rather strictly about knowing experience,... other wise it threatens to enter upon metaphysics.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
.....Contrast Heisenberg's purely operational approach in his matrix mechanics, to Schrodinger's intuitive wave approach, which he did not Derive but kinda guessed at (according to Feynman). In essence Heisenberg gave up trying to force observations to conform to some a-priori intuitive picture,... and rather just developed the mathematical machinery to link observables together.

Schrodinger's wave picture is not what he had originally envisioned and was upset when M. Born corrected his philosophically based conceptual interpretation. It does not represent a physical wave. Momentum in the Hamiltonian is a mathematical operator,.... p = -ih ∂/∂x that operates on amplitudes that is squared to get probabilities.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
Yes, dingus, that's what i've been saying. Forcing reality to conform to predisposed biases is preposterous, or speculating that science tells us about unobservable independent reality is preposterous.
-And yet you keep piling WORDS upon WORDS as if you're producing something useful. Meanwhile scientists are doing experiments and interpreting them mathematically, and using words as shorthand when communicating WITH EACH OTHER, to represent the math and data that they all understand.

They don't use words in themselves to get anywhere. This is the fundamental mistake of you philos who still think that by juggling these words you can do science. YOU CANT.

You can't inform, you can't facilitate, and you certainly can't predict. You can however confuse, confound, retard, and waste.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
For instance
Time is not an Operator in qm as proven by Pauli, but is a parameter that is added.
What Pauli did was done mathematically, and he used words to discuss his findings with other physicists who were intimately familiar with the math and data he was discussing.

Pretending that you can use his words to discuss his work with non-physicists is dishonest. It gives people a simplistic impression of this incredibly complex field. It makes them think they can second-guess physicists. It DEMEANS his work. It isn't right.

It also gives ignorant religionists and politicians access to science, who can proceed to cut funding for 'immoral' and 'wasteful' research.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
.....Contrast Heisenberg's purely operational approach in his matrix mechanics, to Schrodinger's intuitive wave approach
The only people who are QUALIFIED to 'contrast' scientific theories are the physicists and mathematicians who can do so mathematically. Pretending to be able to do it with WORDS without being thoroughly trained in the math and data that those words represent, is a TRAVESTY.

Pretending that you can convey an adequate understanding of those theories to people without such training, with WORDS, is an ABOMINATION.

People still use poetry to describe the stars but astrophysicists know better than to use it in the course of their work.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that the mathematical machinery of a theory, ...is mathematical? Everyone already knows that. I never stated otherwise. It is a fact that interpretations of what such theories are telling us are discussed in science.

When I state that "Time is not an Operator in qm but is a parameter",... it is no less true than having stated it using words, nor is it invalid to ask why this is.

Right, to summerize,.... GhostofOtto does not like philosophy of physics because presumably his philosophy instructor raped him or it must have been something likewise traumatic,... despite evidently having never read a book on the subject, nor evidently studing the mathematical formulations underlying the theories, nor the historical and conceptual developements, beyond using google as a vending machine for Jerry-Springer bickering,.... thus never actually makes a substantive counter-argument.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
.....Contrast Heisenberg's purely operational approach in his matrix mechanics, to Schrodinger's intuitive wave approach
The only people who are QUALIFIED to 'contrast' scientific theories are the physicists and mathematicians who can do so mathematically. Pretending to be able to do it with WORDS without being thoroughly trained in the math and data that those words represent, is a TRAVESTY.

Pretending that you can convey an adequate understanding of those theories to people without such training, with WORDS, is an ABOMINATION.


What makes you think that I haven't studied the mathematical formulations of QM and GR? Evidently, YOU voluntarily went through the effort of reading my posts, so saying that it's an "abomination" for me to have conveyed anything incomprehensible to you personally given your lack of reference, is your problem, not mine.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
,... I provided quotes and references to back up my comments, yet because you seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger'ism, you mistake seeming incomprehensibility with meaninglessness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
,... I provided quotes and references to back up my comments, yet because you seem to suffer from brilliant insight you mistake seeming incomprehensibility with meaninglessness.
Well that might be true but these are not MY conclusions but those of many scientists and even a disillusioned sciphilo or 2 whom I have also referenced many times. It was indeed my suspicion after reading some of your literature. And with a little research I found many scientists who confirmed these suspicions.

And I bet some of them might go so far as to accuse the entire -discipline? Profession? Cabal? -of philos who steadfastly ignore the fact that they are no longer relevant and are further INCAPABLE of being relevant, of being afflicted with your dunning Kroger disease.

You bore them. You annoy them. You ruin their dinner parties and derail their faculty meetings. And you disillusion the public who has a hard enough time trusting scientists whom they have no hope of understanding.

Desistd
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
,... I provided quotes and references to back up my comments, yet because you seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger'ism you mistake seeming incomprehensibility with meaninglessness.
Well that might be true but these are not MY conclusions but those of many scientists and even a disillusioned sciphilo or 2 whom I have also referenced many times. It was indeed my suspicion after reading some of your literature. And with a little research I found many scientists who confirmed these suspicions.


And as you were already told repeatably, I too can find physicists who agree with me. So what then is the point with such a line of argument with what so and so says, while not arguing a relevent substantive point about the actual subject at hand?

I quoted your own anti-philo guy as saying the exact thing I have been above,.. and you brush it off by saying "he was young then". You bore me with your vacuous arguments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
And I'll discredit your sources in due time.

Hey I happened to pick up a book which I thought you might like because I hate it . 'The cusanus game' by Wolfgang jeschke. 'Philosophical fiction as well as science fiction, ambitious, challenging, the masterwork if a long career.' -says the cover. It goes into a detailed discussion of the nature of time in the context of time travel. Yeah with words. What crap. At Barnes and noble in the new sci fi section.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Noumenon writes
understand that mathematics in itself, by its nature, need not reference the physical world at to have meaning

this is true of math, perhaps, but NOT physics, as physics is the measurement and representation OF the physical world. the science of matter and its motion
IOW knowledge of nature
Physics is a SCIENCE that requires empirical data, which requires measurement. Proof.

you keep cycling back to philosophy, which is NOT part of the issue of Physics...
let me explain:

to be continued:
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
@Noumenon
the definition of noumenal does NOT enter into it, as it is a philosophical idea that requires separation of reality from reality
the noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas known to the philosophical mind

https://en.wikipe...Noumenon
as it uses intellectual means and logical reasoning rather than empirical data.
Which is
BY DEFINITION
completely OPPOSITE PHYSICS and SCIENCE

so, by your attempt to "define" noumenal or the circular argument back to philosophy, it really has NO BEARING on physics and science.

only semantics
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 13, 2014
@ noumenon continued

the simple fact that Time is required for momentum or acceleration, and is an operator
When I state that "Time is not an Operator in qm but is a parameter",... it is no less true than having stated it using words, nor is it invalid to ask why this is.

as you have stated yourself, means that time is real and is required as a function for definition in the macro world.

it appears that you are arguing from a philosophy standpoint and that cannot be used to define the real physical world as reality requires a measurement for proof. the simple act of observation is a measurement. and ANY other measurement then implies that you are interacting with reality, which is opposite philosophical reasoning, as philo talk only requires thought.

not to say that the logic is bad, just that it does NOT apply here: to PHYSICS and SCIENCE, as both require empirical data, which is the antithesis of philosophy.

does THAT make my argument clear now?

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
the simple fact that Time is required for momentum or acceleration, and is an operator

When I state that "Time is not an Operator in qm but is a parameter",...


as you have stated yourself, means that time is real and is required as a function for definition in the macro world.


I said that time is NOT an operator in qm,... nevertheless not important.

I have stated at least five times above that time is a necessary component of phenomenal reality. This means that "[Time] is required as a function for definition in the macro world". This means that within the realm of science (phenomenal reality), time exists. We agree here, ok.

Where we differ is that YOU are proposing that Time is a real thing existing independently of minds,... where as I place time in the mind as an a-priori intuition. IOW, phenomenal reality has as a necessary component, elements that are mind dependent. Please read the quotes I provide below in reference to this last point.....
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
.... these mind dependent elements are necessary for a intuitive understanding,... NOT for progress in physics, as QM shows....

You wrongly imply that I suggest that philosophy by itself can give us knowledge about reality. Not only do I reject this premise (and idealism in general (see below in the next post)), but will counter that as one with a Positivist outlook, I am more rigorous wrt scientific method and validity than YOU seem to be!

I am the one saying that concepts (a-priori givens) are an artificial syntheses of Reality. You are the one that seems to imply that Time and like concepts, are substantive entities existing independent of being Used to syntheses experience. As you stated, physics requires evidence, and as I stated, there is no Time field nor Time particle observable independent of its application as a concept for ordering experience, and thus presupposed prior to the observation.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
I ask that you not take GhostOfOtto1923 absurd lead, and degenerate this discussion into a "debate" about the validity of philosophy to physics.

Modern Philosophy Of Physics is an existent and major field, participated in by physicist, and has everything to do with physics by definition. It principally involves interpretations of QM, GR, etc, and epistemology, which is OBVIOUSLY relevant to science as it is about Knowledge.

I will not entertain anymore such pointless "debates" here. If you wish to read one of the many books on that subject and then discuss it, then I will continue.

Now, to continue,....
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
... noumenal does NOT enter into it, as it is a philosophical idea that requires separation of reality from reality...the noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas known to the philosophical mind as it uses intellectual means and logical reasoning rather than empirical data. Which is BY DEFINITION completely OPPOSITE PHYSICS and SCIENCE


What you are implying above is what is called Idealism, in philosophy. This is not what the term 'noumenal reality' means, nor did Kant accept idealism, nor do I, nor any of the physicists referenced by me below.

.....
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
People who are Realists are the type who make assertions about Reality independent of observation/mind (this is metaphysics, not science imo), while those who are Positivists, only reply on observation and caution that concepts especially a-priori intuitions could end up being a false syntheses. Stating that Time is a thing, is a Realist position.

'Noumenal reality' is to be understood, not as trying to say anything about reality in a positive sense, but rather to contrast with 'phenomenal reality'. The point here being, is to signify that Mind dependent elements are necessarily included in our (intuitive) Knowledge of reality. To gain Knowledge requires Mind,....obviously, and all the intellectual faculties for doing so,... so epistemology has relevance to the validity of science.

This point is not even in debate amongst the vast majority of physicists......
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - S. Hawking

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." - P. Jordan
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - B. d'Espagnat
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - E. Wigner

"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it." - M. Rees [meaning the universe as Known]

Please read these quote several times and relate to what I have been conveying above. I have repeated myself too many times, many because people would rather argue than understand.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 13, 2014
@noumenon
Ok. lets start back at the beginning.
I said
TIME as a temporal measure of repetitious/cyclical events can be said to be arbitrary or subjective, according to literature, as it is individually subjective to the point of view or it may depend arbitrarily on a random cyclical event, which, by definition, changes (ie: orbital year for earth VS other planets)

however, Time as a fundamental necessity for the measurement of velocity or to include into events to determine a series, to measure movement through space, or to measure entropy is decidedly necessary and seems to be a fundamental property of space itself, as the meaning of any is completely nonsensical without time as a factor

so you tell me
YOU are proposing that Time is a real thing existing independently of minds

but like I said
Physics is a SCIENCE that requires empirical data, which requires measurement

this means that you cannot measure something independent of the mind
so...

2B cont...
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 13, 2014
@Nou cont.
you are using philosophy to explain yourself
What you are implying above is what is called Idealism

nope
what I am saying is that I dont care if it exists independent of the tooth fairy:
IF it is a measured result, empirical data, proof, it is reality
the rest is semantics

You assume that I am NOT understanding, and beg me to
not take GhostOfOtto1923 absurd lead, and degenerate this discussion into a "debate" about the validity of philosophy to physics

but it is YOU who keep coming back to philosophy
epistemology has relevance to the validity of science

https://en.wikipe...temology

now, call me whatever you like, I dont care
what I "require" is proof

to be continued...
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 13, 2014
last page
@Noumenon

in summary:
you have not PROVED that time is separate
you only REASON with PHILOSOPHY

I only offered that time is inseparable from Entropy
and the MACRO world
I said I cannot comment on QM...yet

you keep interjecting philosophy

I say it is not proof

you go back to arguing your point with philosophy

what did I miss?

it is not Otto or I that keep going back to it
you offer no PROOF that time does NOT exist other than a philosophical reasoning
philosophical reasoning

is NOT PROOF
therefore my comment about the circular argument way back when

IOW
when you say
Please read these quote several times and relate to what I have been conveying above

it means that you have NO PROOF and are arguing from a PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT

i could read till i was blue in the face...
it doesnt mean I dont understand

it means that YOU DONT UNDERSTAND!

NOW DO YOU GET IT??!!

people would rather argue than understand

this is YOU!
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
Stumpy, Science itself is not Deductive, it is Inductive, ...so all your references to "proof" is not even applicable.

If the claim is that Time exists as a substantive entity in Reality independent of minds, then given the scientific method, it is up to such Realists to provide evidence of that, not to me in proving a negative. Making USE OF the concept of time or defining it for USE, does not count as an observation of such an entity.

Science is inductive, it is about synthesizing observations into a conceptual model that allows for predictions.

Please read these quote several times and relate to what I have been conveying above

it means that you have NO PROOF and are arguing from a PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT


Your naivete with respect to the scientific method encourages you to say that as if it was a accusation, as if reason and philosophical reflection was something illegitimate. I provided the above quotes so that you can here it from prominent physicists.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
You stated that you cannot comment on QM yet. I would encourage you to read the basic principals, and the history of that subject and in particular the conceptual struggle that manifested on account of it.

Then, come back in ONE YEAR, and reread all of my posts with humility and a desire learn that is greater than a desire to argue, ...and after basking in the magnificence of my immense erudition, I may accept your apology, if you beg me.

(ok, that one was a joke, ...you seem to be getting upset). But, really, after which reread the quotes from the above physicists, and you will get why they made them,... why philosophy of physics is a legitimate subject, pursued by physicist as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
When I state that "Time is not an Operator in qm but is a parameter",... it is no less true than having stated it using words, nor is it invalid to ask why this is
No, those words are shorthand to be used among physicists as expedients. To the general public they are meaningless.
Modern Philosophy Of Physics is an existent and major field, participated in by physicist, and has everything to do with physics by definition. It principally involves interpretations of QM, GR, etc, and epistemology
"Philosopher of science David Albert wrote a scathing review of Krauss' book for The New York Times questioning his understanding of the meaning of "nothing."... Hence, it's not really nothing, but something.[ahaahaaaaahaaaaa]

"Krauss responded in a blog interview with The Atlantic in which he decried (as he did in his book, and Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg before him) philosophy and theology as useless wastes of time."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Krauss responds further in scientific american

"Instead, sticking firm to the classical ontological definition of nothing as "the absence of anything"—whatever this means... strikes me as essentially sterile, backward, useless and annoying.

"...ignoring the remarkable progress we can make toward answering perhaps the most miraculous aspect of the something from nothing question—understanding why there is 'stuff' and not empty space, why there is space at all, and how both stuff and space and even the forces we measure could arise from no stuff and no space—is, in my opinion, impotent, and useless."

"To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature."

-Sterile, backward, useless, annoying, impotent...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
"Useless wastes of time." You think krauss the eminent physicist has dunning kreuger, or david albert?

"Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic calling Albert "moronic" and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless. In March 2013, The New York Times reported that Albert, who has previously been invited to speak at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, was later disinvited. Albert claimed "It sparked a suspicion that Krauss must have demanded that I not be invited. But of course I've got no proof"

"philosophy and theology are incapable of addressing by themselves the truly fundamental questions that perplex us about our existence." krauss
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Eugene Paul "E. P." Wigner 1902-1995...
"He became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness. In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." -ahaa. A HINDU philosopher.

'Consciousness is an illusion.' -dennett
http://www.ted.co...ess.html

Ernst Pascual Jordan (18 October 1902 – 31 July 1980
"Jordan joined the Nazi party... he developed his theory that, according to Paul Dirac's hypothesis of a steady weakening of gravitation throughout the history of the universe, the Earth may have swollen to its current size, from an initial ball of a diameter of only about 7,000 kilometres" -quack quack?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Bernard d'Espagnat (born 1921) is a French theoretical physicist, philosopher of science...
"to further his concept of veiled reality won the attention of the John Templeton Foundation. D'Espagnat became the 2009 Templeton Prize winner in March for his "work which acknowledges that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'" -Yeah templeton the religionist agency loves this crap.

Sir Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, Kt OM FRS (born 23 June 1942
-I must say, he does have a remarkable cv... so why would he spout rubbish like this:
"It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it." -???

Heres one clue:
"In a more speculative vein, he has (from the 1970s onwards) been interested in anthropic reasoning"

-And this:
"Martin Rees: 'We shouldn't attach any weight to what Hawking says about god... Richard Dawkins once called him "a compliant quisling" for his tolerance of religion" -a wishful thinker.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Noted (and notorious) physicist Richard Feynman once quipped that "philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

"...ongoing debate between realists (who think that scientific theories in some sense really describe the world as it is, at least approximately) and anti-realists (who think that scientific theories are merely empirically adequate, but in no meaningful sense "true"), again a discussion that finds important applications in real science, particularly in quantum mechanics, where various schools of (realist) "interpretation" of the theory are battling it out amongst themselves and against the (antirealist) "shut up and calculate" approach." [How embarrassing]

WRT the above example of the enduring state of philo progress, let me repeat the wise words of Dr Krauss:

"Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature."
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 13, 2014
...I would encourage you to read the basic principals, and the history of that subject and in particular the conceptual struggle that manifested on account of it.

Then, come back in ONE YEAR, ...and after basking in the magnificence of my immense erudition, I may accept your apology, if you beg me.

(ok, that one was a joke, ...you seem to be getting upset). But, really, after which reread the quotes from the above physicists, and you will get why they made them,... why philosophy of physics is a legitimate subject, pursued by physicist as well.

not getting upset. i am enjoying the back and forth
it helps me solidify my understanding

i will do that, and i will only apologize IF i think i am wrong
i dont have a problem admitting to my own mistakes
its just that, as of now, i cant see where i have made a mistake... but anyway

dont count on the begging lol

Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
I cannot envision time as a separate thing because I am biased by the measurement of time as it pertains to rates of change - the real quantities of interest. Ultimately, a rate of change is the difference in value of some property divided by the difference in value of another property. Time is merely what we call that property which is measured by a clock. For accuracy, the system acting as the clock must have some property whose value changes in a repeatable way relative to some reference property that is used as a time standard, but this doesn't imply that time is a fundamental part of the universe.

In terms of entropy, why is time necessary? If the state of the universe is defined as the organization of all energy contained within and the probability of a less or equal ordered organization is >> the probability of a more ordered organization, then it seems to me that it would naturally change state to become less ordered without the need for time to exist.
Estevan57
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014

Then, come back in ONE YEAR, and reread all of my posts with humility and a desire learn that is greater than a desire to argue, ...and after basking in the magnificence of my immense erudition, I may accept your apology, if you beg me.

- Noumenon

This is by far the funniest thing EVER posted here. Immense erudition indeed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014

Then, come back in ONE YEAR, and reread all of my posts with humility and a desire learn that is greater than a desire to argue, ...and after basking in the magnificence of my immense erudition, I may accept your apology, if you beg me.

- Noumenon

This is by far the funniest thing EVER posted here. Immense erudition indeed.
Hey Stevie. What's the occasion? Oh I know
-Sterile, backward, useless, annoying, impotent...
-You thought I was talking about you didn't you? Sorry. Read the thread.
Estevan57
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
I can understand your bitterness Otto.

After all, you have totally failed to support your point of view.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
Here is another of Otto's anti-philo heros speaking philosophical about epistemology, though he does not know enough to know that he is,...

"We evolved as human beings a few million years ago on [...]  a world on our scale [...] and we didn't evolve to understand quantum mechanics and therefore it's not too surprising that on scales vastly different than the kind experience we had as we were evolving as a species that nature seems strange and [...] violates our common sense – our sense of what is common sense in what is intuition. But as I like to say the universe doesn't care about our common sense.

We have to force [our] ideas to conform to the evidence of reality rather then the other way around. " - Lawrence. Krauss

Does this sound familiar, Otto?

IOW, an intuitive understanding, as in 'classical physics', requires that we conform reality to our intuitions,.... but the lesson of QM is that these intuitions at the QM scale turn out to be an artificial syntheses.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
That, D'Espagnat received the Templeton prize, or Wigner studied Hinduism, or that Jordan had associations with Nazism, or that Rees had tolerance for religion, or Hawking was young, or Einstein old.... are 'poltical smear campaign' style arguments, ad hominems, and does not invalidate everything else they have said.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
"in several areas associated with what one can rightfully call the philosophy of science I have found the reflections of physicists to be more useful [then non-physicist philosophers].  For example, on the nature of science and the scientific method, I have found the insights offered by scientists [...], from Jacob Bronowski, to Richard Feynman, to Francis Crick, to Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, and Sir James Jeans, to have provided me with a better practical guide than the work of even the most significant philosophical writers of whom I am aware, such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.  I admit that this could primarily reflect of my own philosophical limitations" - L. Krauss

So, as long as philosophy of physics is pursued by physicists he finds it useful as a guide. This does not sound like a resounding rejection of philosophy in general, as Otto would have it,... in fact it sounds reasonable to me, especially from a guy who admits he is no expert in philosophy.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
,... and given this admission, I don't think Krauss would have an issue with me quoting other physicists as I did above, in making a similar point he just made himself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014
Here is another of Otto's anti-philo heros speaking philosophical about epistemology, though he does not know enough to know that he is,...
-And he doesn't much care if you philos try to own him as long as you keep it to yourselves and stay out of the way. You can write all the fiction and poetry you want. Just don't pretend to think it has anything whatsoever to do with what scientists are doing.

Think you can do that? Of course not.
IOW, an intuitive understanding, as in 'classical physics', requires that we conform reality to our intuitions
-Funny I don't see any -isms whatsoever in your Krauss quotes. What he's saying is that only scientists are qualified to explore the exact nature of these things, and only by experiment and mathematical analysis. And that is NOT a philosophy.

Philos, religionists, and other such wordmongers have nothing of value to add to the process. They've PROVEN this. They're irrelevant. And dangerous which Krauss implies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014
We have to force [our] ideas to conform to the evidence of reality rather then the other way around. " - Lawrence. Krauss

Does this sound familiar, Otto?
Sure. Its a candid reflection on what science has discovered to date about the nature of reality. It has nothing to do with philobabble such as
IOW, mind has evolved a means of processing experience, and as a consequence presupposes the conceptual form in which our knowledge is based. It is 'hard-wired' in the way our mind works, so it is entirely natural to think that these concepts,.... space, time, absolute temporal simultaneity, causality, counter-factuality, etc ..... are existent 'things' in reality independent from us... Time is a Real conponent of 'phenommenal reality', a necessary component, as I mentioned above. Phenomenal reality is Reality that is subject to conceptualization and so is in some sense dependent upon the mind,... in this case the a-apriori intuition of time.
-which contains NO USEFUL CONTENT.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014
"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." feynman
in fact it sounds reasonable to me, especially from a guy who admits he is no expert in philosophy
Well hes an expert in science and that qualifies him to decide whether philosci is crap or not. I guess you missed this

"philosophy and theology are incapable of addressing by themselves the truly fundamental questions that perplex us about our existence." krauss

-and this:

"Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic calling Albert "moronic" and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless."
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
The list of physicist who DO think it is relevant and important includes many who have accomplished way more than Krauss,... though perhaps not at successful at selling pop-science books to naive neophytes.

Krauss admitted that philo of physics is useful if it originates from physicists. I provided that quote, from his recantation from shooting off his mouth about things he clearly is no expert at. There are physicists waaaay more prominent than discovery channel boy who write on the subject. As long as this is a fact, your generalization is simply wrong. End of debate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
Yeah lets see you listed a hindu mystic, an ex-nazi who thinks weakening gravity is causing the universe to expand, A tempelton prize winner, and some old anthropic guy who thinks that observers NOW caused the big bang.

Dr Krauss "was awarded a Ph.D. in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982... After some time in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Krauss became an assistant professor at Yale University in 1985 and associate professor in 1988. He was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, professor of astronomy, and was chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University from 1993 to 2005... In 2010, he was elected to the board of directors of the Federation of American Scientists..."
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
"...he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board's Public Service Medal"

Of his work;

"His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy". Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing", as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. As his model appears to agree with experimental observations of the universe (such as of its shape and energy density), it is referred to as a "plausible hypothesis".

-and the discovery channel of course. We can assume this was all without the help of philos, no matter what they have the shameless audacity to claim.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
The 'true' state of your discipline:

"...ongoing debate between realists (who think that scientific theories in some sense really describe the world as it is, at least approximately) and anti-realists (who think that scientific theories are merely empirically adequate, but in no meaningful sense "true"), again a discussion that finds IMPORTANT applications in real science, particularly in quantum mechanics, where various schools of (realist) "interpretation" of the theory are battling it out amongst themselves and against the (antirealist) "shut up and calculate" approach."

-Why dont you jump into THAT fray? Perhaps somebody will win. Until the neos come of age of course.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
Yeah lets see you listed a hindu mystic, an ex-nazi who thinks weakening gravity is causing the universe to expand, A tempelton prize winner, and some old anthropic guy who thinks that observers NOW caused the big bang.


This is why it is pointless discussing anything with you. Each one of those guys contributed more to Fundamental Physics than Krauss is even in a position to.

For example, if you knew anything about modern physics you would never have chosen Krauss as an authority over someone like P. Jordan for anything.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
... and again your misinterpretation of Rees is do to your lack of reference, and so is an issue with you, not his statement.


"...ongoing debate between realists (who think that scientific theories in some sense really describe the world as it is, at least approximately) and anti-realists (who think that scientific theories are merely empirically adequate, but in no meaningful sense "true"), again a discussion that finds IMPORTANT applications in real science, particularly in quantum mechanics, where various schools of (realist) "interpretation" of the theory are battling it out amongst themselves and against the (antirealist) "shut up and calculate" approach."


What is wrong with this quote? It is in fact true and is one of the principal issues of philosophy of physics, that physicists concern themselves with. Do you even understand what is being said here, and how it relates to what I have said below, and what Hawking said, and Heisenberg, etc ?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
you would never have chosen Krauss as an authority over someone like P. Jordan
Well his work is indeed impressive but it appears that his reasoning skills may have begun to degenerate.

"...his theory that, according to Paul Dirac's hypothesis of a steady weakening of gravitation throughout the history of the universe, the Earth may have swollen to its current size, from an initial ball of a diameter of only about 7,000 kilometres (4,300 mi)."

-And while Pauli declared him 'rehabilitated', Jordan still seemed connected to his nazi past.

"In 1957 Jordan supported the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government"

-And I am suggesting that his affection for philo voodoo may have some relation to Germanic mysticism.

But Germans have had an enduring affection for their philos eh? Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and the lot have been blamed for the mindset which produced fascism and the world wars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
It is in fact true and is one of the principal issues of philosophy of physics, that physicists concern themselves with.
NO they DONT. They dont use your words, they dont adopt your -isms, and they dont consult your pundits when designing experiments and analyzing data. Heres more revealing crap:

"Amid failure of neopositivism's fundamental tenets, Hempel in 1965 abandoned verificationism, signaling neopositivism's demise. From 1930 onward, K R Popper had refuted any positivism by asserting falsificationism, which Popper claimed had killed positivism, although, paradoxically, Popper was commonly mistaken for a positivist. Even Popper's 1934 book embraces DN model, widely accepted as the model of scientific explanation for as long as physics remained the model of science examined by philosophers of science"

-Now 'contrast' this with your statement:
Realism and Positivism have unambiguous meanings in physics
There are NO ABSOLUTES in fashion which is ALL that philosophy is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
Realism and Positivism have unambiguous meanings in physics
I suppose this is true, or 'true', depending on whichever of the "various schools of (realist) "interpretation" of the theory who are battling it out amongst themselves and against the (antirealist) "shut up and calculate" approach" you wish to consult, at whatever moment in time you chance to posit it.

Speaking of dead germans

"PHILOSOPHY has hitherto been a failure. It could not, indeed, have been otherwise; because, instead of confining himself to the better understanding of the world as given in experience, the philosopher has aspired to pass at one bound beyond it, in the hope of discovering the last foundation of all existence and the eternal relations of things. Now these are matters which our intellect is quite incapable of grasping." [Well Art, its because these matters dont exist]

More news stories

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...