'Blurred times' in a quantum world

March 9, 2017, University of Vienna
The idealized picture of space and time in general relativity assigns an ideal clock to each point in space, which tick evenly without being influenced by the nearby clocks. However, when quantum mechanical and gravitational effects are taken into account, this picture is no longer tenable, as the clocks mutually disturb each other and hands of the clocks become "fuzzy." Credit: Juan Carlos Palomino, Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna

When measuring time, we normally assume that clocks do not affect space and time, and that time can be measured with infinite accuracy at nearby points in space. However, combining quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences have demonstrated a fundamental limitation for our ability to measure time. The more precise a given clock is, the more it "blurs" the flow of time measured by neighbouring clocks. As a consequence, the time shown by the clocks is no longer well defined. The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

In everyday life we are used to the idea that properties of an object can be known to an arbitrary precision. However, in quantum mechanics, one of the major theories in modern physics, Heisenberg's asserts a fundamental limit to the precision with which pairs of physical properties can be known, such as the and of a clock.

The more precise the clock is, the larger is the in its energy. An arbitrarily precise clock would therefore have an unbounded uncertainty in its energy. This becomes important when including Einstein's theory of general relativity, the other key theory in physics, into the picture. General relativity predicts that the flow of time is altered by the presence of masses or sources of energy. This effect, known as "gravitational time dilation", causes time to run slower near an object of large energy, as compared to the situation in which the object has a smaller energy.

Putting the pieces together

Combining these principles from quantum mechanics and general relativity, the research team headed by ?aslav Brukner from the University of Vienna and the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information demonstrated a new effect at the interplay of the two fundamental theories. According to quantum mechanics, if we have a very precise clock its energy uncertainty is very large. Due to general relativity, the larger its energy uncertainty the larger the uncertainty in the flow of time in the clock's neighbourhood. Putting the pieces together, the researchers showed that clocks placed next to one another necessarily disturb each other, resulting eventually in a "blurred" flow of time. This limitation in our ability to measure time is universal, in the sense that it is independent of the underlying mechanism of the clocks or the material from which they are made. "Our findings suggest that we need to re-examine our ideas about the nature of time when both and are taken into account", says Esteban Castro, the lead author of the publication.

Explore further: One clock with two times: When quantum mechanics meets general relativity

More information: Esteban Castro Ruiz et al. Entanglement of quantum clocks through gravity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2017). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616427114

Related Stories

Einstein saves the quantum cat

June 16, 2015

Einstein's theory of time and space will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. Even today it captures the imagination of scientists. In an international collaboration, researchers from the universities of Vienna, Harvard ...

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement

May 27, 2015

A collaboration of physicists and a mathematician has made a significant step toward unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by explaining how spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement in a more fundamental theory. ...

Recommended for you

Fiber optic sensor measures tiny magnetic fields

September 19, 2018

Researchers have developed a light-based technique for measuring very weak magnetic fields, such as those produced when neurons fire in the brain. The inexpensive and compact sensors could offer an alternative to the magnetic ...

The hunt for leptoquarks is on

September 19, 2018

Matter is made of elementary particles, and the Standard Model of particle physics states that these particles occur in two families: leptons (such as electrons and neutrinos) and quarks (which make up protons and neutrons). ...

Researchers push the boundaries of optical microscopy

September 19, 2018

The field of optical microscopy research has developed rapidly in recent years. Thanks to the invention of a technique called super-resolution fluorescence microscopy, it has recently become possible to view even the smaller ...

Searching for errors in the quantum world

September 19, 2018

The theory of quantum mechanics is well supported by experiments. Now, however, a thought experiment by ETH physicists yields unexpected contradictions. These findings raise some fundamental questions—and they're polarising ...

Extremely small and fast: Laser ignites hot plasma

September 19, 2018

When light pulses from an extremely powerful laser system are fired onto material samples, the electric field of the light rips the electrons off the atomic nuclei. For fractions of a second, a plasma is created. The electrons ...

282 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrwillsj
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2017
In my opinion (philosophical not scientific). The problem we are having with comprehending collected data is our inability to avoid using confusing language.

Does the wind blow or does it suck?
Does the phenomena of cold physically exist or is it simply a lack of heat/energy?
Can anyone correctly explain mathematical concepts using words?

My opinion about the fundamental universal forces is that energy such as electromagnetism, weak & strong nuclear; exist apart and separately from the forces we call space/time and gravity. Which are uni-directional. space/time advancing from past through the present and into the future. Gravity as a one-way attraction.

What does this mean? I ain't got a clue, I just think it's interesting to ponder.
186000c
not rated yet Mar 09, 2017
got messed up
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2017
This is one of those obvious things that no one ever thought of before now, at least not at this level. This conundrum may be at the base of the problems theoretical physicists have had trying to make a consistent theory of quantum gravity. It will be interesting if this leads to new quantum gravity theories, or boosts the credibility of any that have already been devised (like string physics or LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity)). Naively, one looks at this and thinks about the infinite regress of corrections that afflicted the analysis of the self-interaction of the electron, solved by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga in their Nobel Physics Prize work using renormalization. Maybe we just haven't looked at renormalization the right way to deal with time yet.

I'll be watching this subject with a great deal of interest.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2017
got messed up

Yeap. I agree, Messed got up.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
I agree with you @Da Schneib. It's a good thought provoking article. It becomes even more interesting when you look at time as equivalent to a spacial dimension which is pretty text book. But time doesn't act like that, it acts like the right hand side of an X-y-z graph. Basically time-math just doesn't have a negative. It's a number scheme like time(2 - abs(-2)) = measured(2 - 2). Given that and the frothieness of time or quantum Psi function fuzzyness, it all does make a dude (or gal) ponder. Basically just make time reversal impossible in quantum mechanics, and I think the world will be OK with it.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2017
Thinking about the geometry of time is pretty difficult for minds conditioned to see space and time so differently. Only a very few people have had the ability so far to do so well enough to command the subject. You'd recognize all the names, I think, @howhot.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
@Da Schneib, 'I'll be watching this subject with a great deal of interest.' and I also. However the reasons may be different. As long as we think of Time as be that 'arrow' moving forward (in all directions of space) then I think we'll stay in a kind 'track' or 'rut'. (I have mentioned this on similar threads). I don't envisage Time as being a single 'vector dimension' or to put it another way,continuous change etc (I'm sure you can think of a few more definitions). I regard Time as being a multidimensional entity, perhaps, I do say perhaps, on a similar basic footing with Space. For in that way, we truly would have 'space-time' as a complete 'entity'. I envisage the 'arrow of time' as being the 'resultant' or 'consequence' of more fundamental properties.
Let me say now that I'm not thinking Time Travel and the like as this assumes that the past still exists (somewhere) or the future is already there. The latter may ignore the number of possible outcomes...cont.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
Basically, just make time reversal impossible in quantum mechanics and I think the world will be OK with it. I can't think of any physics that requires time reversal or can demonstrate time reversal. Time can slow as relativity demonstrates and maybe freeze like the recent time crystal models hint at. But time reversal just doesn't seem to happen at any level and that suggests it's a physical limitation on the dimension of time. Time a dimension that just doesn't physically have a reverse. It's an ABS(X) dimension.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
Actually, @Mimath, time and the three large space dimensions are all the "same sort of thing." This is evidenced by the fact that for different inertial observers, space and time occur in different ratios to one another. It's a proven fact; muons moving through the atmosphere see the distance through the atmosphere as shorter than mundane objects like dust particles or jet aircraft, and the time as longer. We can tell by how their average decay rate changes with their velocity.

The reason time seems different is dual, and this leads to a lot of confusion.

The first reason is because time has a different geometrical relation to each of the three space dimensions than they do to one another: the space dimensions all are related to one another using circular geometry, but time is related to them using hyperbolic geometry.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
[contd]
This causes time and space to be interchanged differently than space and space, and it means that our intuition about how "a dimension" should work is wrong for the time dimension.

The second reason is because of the entropy arrow, which exists because in the distant past, entropy was much lower than it is now, and in the distant future, it will be much higher. If the universe didn't expand over time, this would not be true, but because it does, it is.

You will note that thermodynamics is not discussed in the article we are commenting on here. There is a reason. This article only deals with the dimensional aspect of time, not the entropy arrow, which is much more difficult; for more information on the entropy arrow I suggest you start with the Fluctuation Theorem.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
ABS(X) is wrong. It should be a function such that (T=T if T>0). I don't think T ever will equal 0 because of entropy. See above.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
I can't think of any physics that requires time reversal or can demonstrate time reversal.
Actually, @howhot, time symmetry is a foundation of both relativity and quantum mechanics. It's also an assumption of the Fluctuation Theorem, which I just mentioned, which correctly predicts the length and time scales at which the essential difference between quantum and classical mechanics makes itself obvious. This is actually a pretty important result, because no one yet has managed to show quite how time-symmetric QM results in time-asymmetric classical thermodynamics. It's a conundrum of modern physics.

That's the reason this result is so interesting. If you can't define time it's kinda hard to define entropy. That's probably the most concise statement of where this rather recondite idea comes from.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2017
(cont.) And so these are different questions. As you know my 'layman attitude' restricts me in many ways but I have been looking at this for several years now. At present I am thinking of Time more as a Field, say in the sense of a Quantum Field. QFT, as I understand it, basically suggests that 'particles' arise from the non static Field, so I wonder if other Time dimensions might be mingled in with that field or...
I am looking at this from a mathematical standpoint and not a 'popular science' viewpoint but this of course shows my limitations. However, at present I'm working with a math topic that was ignored a century ago and recently revisited and has given me some encouragement, certainly along the lines of 'spin' and 'chirality' and symmetry. For example the Electron Spin number (Dirac) is approx 2 but refinement gives a decimal 2.002319....and it is the inverse of the decimal yeilds a number I have become familiar with. Maybe coincidence.
Ha! yes I know...layman's rubbish
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2017
@Da Schneib, thanks for the earlier comments and yes I do agree about entropy and am aware relativistic phenomena (Muon lifetime). I have looked at the FT but as yet only at the basic formulation level but even here I have come across the similarity in the expression for FT and the maths I'm working with, again a source of encouragement. However, it is also true to say sometimes I feel this is greater than me and best left to others. But I'm stubborn, Ha! The other point is of course, it is fascinating, isn't it, so what if....(Ha!)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
@howhot, careful you don't confuse time reversal symmetry with entropy. The infinitesimal entropy of the deep past and the enormous entropy of the deep future can confound you. I've gone down this road. I think the FT holds the key.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
@Mimath, the time reversal symmetry of physics is pretty much foundational; it's only entropy that seems to be one-way and it's not at all clear that this isn't just local to our time. In the distant future, when entropy is very high, the probability that it will be higher in the future may not be very different from the probability it will be lower, and (except for the deep past of that epoch, like the universe as we see it now) neither of these may be very different in the past, either. In this case, entropy will have "decayed" and the 2LOT will no longer apply. This is implicit in the evolution so far of the universe.

And if entropy increases, then this becomes more and more true the older the universe gets; so very young times with extremely low entropy become very rare, and other times with high entropy become very common.

That should give you something to think about. Old is different than young.
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
Good point @Da Schneib. Time symmetry is definitely a foundation of all of physics. I just have never seen proof that it needs to be. Say Entropy does define the "Arrow" of time, could it not be said that time defines the arrow of entropy? Entropy can and does reverse (biological systems show that) but you never see things just reverse in time. All sci-fi aside, it just doesn't happen.

I'll let people ponder for a second.

Let say there is a multiverse where time acted like the other spacial dimensions of X-Y-Z. Ponder what that would mean for a second. As you walked forward, your whole physical X-Y-Z being would be all part of the trail of actions you left behind. That just doesn't happen and even in the quantum world it doesn't. So time is not a dimension like X-Y-Z.. It's a dimension like X-Y-Z that has no negatives.


howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
Let me inject a fun thought about string theory and try to imagine how the other 11 dimensions would appear to an X-Y-Z-(t) space/time measuring device. Given that t has no negative reversal, what are the other dimensions like?

Which brings up the question, what is the entropy of a singularity? 0

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
Say Entropy does define the "Arrow" of time, could it not be said that time defines the arrow of entropy? Entropy can and does reverse (biological systems show that) but you never see things just reverse in time. All sci-fi aside, it just doesn't happen.
This is because the universe is still young and still has very low entropy compared with how it will be in, say, a few trillion years. We can still see entropy defining an arrow of time; in a few trillion years, it won't be so clear. If the universe has a beginning and no end, then there's always a lot more future than there is past.

Also, consider this: our very memories, most of that which we call "me," depend upon the illusion of "moving through time." It is a bias; it's difficult to define life itself without taking on this bias. We see time as "passing;" but really it's just there, and it is our perception that makes "something" appear to be "happening."
[contd]
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2017
Thank you guys for the esoterotica...:-)
I, unfortunately, can only relay my understanding in simpler word generalities. (Top THAT for "layman", MM...:-)
As DS alluded, there is a definite geometry to relative interacting quanta.
I read something somewhere about how photon absorption cause 2 emissions in the perpendicular. 1 hard and one soft (180 degrees apart) at 90 degrees to the absorption event.. The "push" from the "hard" emission is what causes spin, and it, too, has to follow the perpendicularity rule when it creates it's own trickle down "emission" of action/reaction... But now, the 3rd result has to maintain perpendicularity to BOTH of the other 2.
Sorry I can't explain any better, but it's in my head...
(Somebody with a better head for numbers than me will no doubt take credit for this basic understanding, but no matter. Consider it a gift....:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
[contd]
Actually, it's not at all clear that time does not reverse. What is clear is that we never perceive it to reverse, but since we cannot perceive quantum mechanics directly, that's just a bias dependent upon low entropy in the early universe and the manner in which our memories appear to increase it. Feynman claimed that antiparticles are just CPT reversed versions of particles, and as far as anyone's ever been able to tell, he was right. Charge conjugation, and parity seem to be the big differences between particles and antiparticles, and under the Poincaire Symmetry of SRT this implies that antiparticles actually do "move backward in time." There is no way we could tell; because quantum mechanics is time reversal symmetric. It's difficult under such circumstances to even say what "moving backward in time" means.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
[contd]
Let say there is a multiverse where time acted like the other spacial dimensions of X-Y-Z. Ponder what that would mean for a second. As you walked forward, your whole physical X-Y-Z being would be all part of the trail of actions you left behind.
That's exactly what the Poincaire Symmetry implies: everywhere you go in XYZT you leave a person-sized "worm trail" of you through spacetime. We're not used to thinking of it like that but that's what both relativity and quantum mechanics say is the truth. It's just a bias of our type of existence that makes us think there's something special about "the present." You can't even actually sense "the present;" you're always a few milliseconds behind. And the reason we see things this way is due only to the very low entropy at the beginning of the universe.

It's difficult to imagine the point of view of a tree. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
That just doesn't happen and even in the quantum world it doesn't. So time is not a dimension like X-Y-Z.. It's a dimension like X-Y-Z that has no negatives.
This isn't a matter of the character of time, but of the shape of time. It's just another dimension, but it happens not to have the geometric relationship to the space dimensions that they have to each other, and this makes it seem to us (along with our entropic bias) to be "different." Time *must be* a dimension like X-Y-Z; otherwise, how could time and space turn into one another just due to a difference in velocity?

Given that t has no negative reversal
We don't know that at all, and in fact all our best theories of physics say that in fact there is reversal of time. That's what saying physics is "time reversal symmetric" means. How would we tell if an antiparticle is "moving backward in time?" It's not like we can ask it, or even go there and look for ourselves.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
@Da Schneib Understood and I first approached, again from a layman's view, in macro form. One buys a new car and as days go by etc.etc....Then one day one puts in the ignition key and...nothing. Oh but it was okay yesterday, we might say. Of course the change began way back when, perhaps at the quantum level, and the accumulation of change results in a 'won't start'. Obviously there might several things that decayed here but it's the principle I'm thinking about. And that's how we live. If there were no increase in entropy, oh wow, wouldn't have to worry about 'wear & tear' new car forever...joking there, ha! We need to look at the symmetry of Time LINKED to entropy. As an analogy, looking at exothermic & endothermic reactions and I think it would be true to say that largely we experience the latter. But what if, say,you buy a new suit put it on and look in the mirror...oh my a handsome fellow there...but now you turn around 360 deg. Is it the same you that you see? cont.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
Here's the point, @Mimath: what you're talking about is only true when the universe is young. When it gets old, it won't be true any more. There won't be any predictable difference between the entropy at that now and the entropy a billion years before it, or a billion years after it.
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017

We don't know that at all, and in fact all our best theories of physics say that in fact there is reversal of time.
Granted all of physics is based on the t (time) as a dimension that is reversible But I can't think of any physics examples which would be effected if time wasn't reversible. (Unless you modeling the action of playing a movie etc, but then that is zero t=0 since it's already been recorded). I agree it's a real challenge to thing about.

I guess my thing would be to see a quantum model where t is negative and meaningful.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
cont. My Time rotational math says you aren't. The upshot of all this that familiar numbers in the literature pop up now and then but there's a catch; they to be linked to a rational fraction that doesn't seem to be in the literature yet.
Here's the point, @Mimath: what you're talking about is only true when the universe is young. When it gets old, it won't be true any more. There won't be any predictable difference between the entropy at that now and the entropy a billion years before it, or a billion years after it.

No actually, respectfully, that is not the point. The point is the common or garden arrow of time seems to refreshed but everything else changes. That arrow of time will still be going 'its own sweet way' in a billion years time as it is today. In this respect Time wasn't born when our universe started it was responsible the change of 'whatever' that gave birth to our universe. At least that's the way my sums see it. cont.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
Actually I don't want to bore you guys with layman's ideas so I'll give it a rest.
@Whydening Gyre can write a Feynman diagram for that scattering? Hey listen here, do you mind, there is only room for me on my layman's 'soapbox' so go and find somewhere else (joke, Ha!)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2017
cont. My Time rotational math says you aren't. The upshot of all this that familiar numbers in the literature pop up now and then but there's a catch; they to be linked to a rational fraction that doesn't seem to be in the literature yet.

I'm with ya on the rotational math aspect. I even get HF's "diametric spheres", now...
I think the problem resides in the true understanding, by many, of relativity. It's a local property. And it applies to ALL localities.
You're mirror example is a prime example. What you see the second time is still all the same stuff you saw 1st. The part that has changed is your location - relative to space AND time (the 2 being inseparable buddies an' all)... You and your new suit all moved the same relative to eachother, but within a (much) bigger scale of reality.
Relativity is relative...
And the fractions are (in the first 3 re-iterations) are 1/2, 3/4, 2/3(plus a hair). And so on.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2017
Actually I don't want to bore you guys with layman's ideas so I'll give it a rest.
@Whydening Gyre can write a Feynman diagram for that scattering?

As soon as I figure out how to make one, sure...:-)
Actually, note the orthogonality of e1 and e2, and q-not ad q.
Now make the the 2 pairs orthogonal to eachother...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2017
Actually I don't want to bore you guys with layman's ideas so I'll give it a rest.
@Whydening Gyre can write a Feynman diagram for that scattering?

As soon as I figure out how to make one, sure...:-)
Actually, note the orthogonality of e1 and e2, and q-not and q.
Now make the the 2 pairs orthogonal to eachother...

and his y should be loops (like g)
and he should put a loop symbol encompassing the whole diagram, directionally perpendicular to y ...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2017
@Whydening Gyre No, that is not what I'm implying here. Yes, what have said is fine but what if is only the arrow of time and space that are inseparable but the elements (in my work that is) that produce the a.o.t. may be separable and may even function independently, well up to a point anyway. What I'd then be implying is that I could turn 360 deg in space but not in the a.o.t.
Don't misunderstand me, please, I am not suggesting absolute time and absolute space but maybe they are not the fundamentals we take them for.
cont.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
cont. Just another point I like to mention too and that is it really doesn't change or revolutionize any of accepted physics. You've probably heard people say that '...at this point our maths and physics break down...' I have a great deal of respect for scientists and their work and I DON'T think what they've achieved DOES break down we just need to hit the right 'what if'. Multidimensional Time might just help a little.
(If you reply, I'll read it in a few hours time...I'm off out to dinner tonight. Enjoyed the 'chat')
Ryan1981
not rated yet Mar 10, 2017
I swear I must be between 2 very accurate clocks on Friday afternoon because time seems to slow down significantly.

For some reason this subject triggered an idea about quantum xeno stasis but its quite blurry so it probably won't work :P
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2017
Hi guys. :)

Great discussion/comments; good to see! It covers most of the salient aspects/current perspectives nicely. May I point out, though, some aspects which may expand/move these previous discussions/understanding forward into a more 'compete', 'real' physical context.

Point 1: The terminology/analogies used so far are all either maths-geom 'analytical abstraction' and/or 'metaphysical notion'. So making the discussion so far only about the usual 'analytical' aspects, but NOT about the actual 'physical origins' of what we call 'time'. So far, 'time dimension' is only a math-geom 'mapping-graphing' dimension 'abstracted from the comparative MOTIONS/STATE CHANGES of/in observed 'objects under study/comparison; hence 'time' should more aptly be termed "TIMING" (ie, OUR 'act' of 'time-ing' by comparison between different 'systems/dynamics', and NOT actually a physical 'time-THING' or 'extant dimension' in itself outside our maths-geom analytical 'constructs').

cont...
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2017
...cont

Point 2: Consider QM is a maths-based 'analytical construct', and not an actual 'real world map' as such. It abstracts all 'measured/inferred observables' into maths/stats/probability relationships and interpretations from which we can make predictions re furture outcomes of interactions which we cannot 'see' directly, but only via empirical study and calculation via 'abstract maths-geom modeling'. Hence the QM 'reversibility of time' is just a maths/metaphysical 'abstract modeling view', not an actual 'real physical' action; eg, consider: if you take a step 'that way' and then turn and take a step BACK in the opposite direction, the 'time taken' (ie, the 'timing according to a chosen 'clock standard') is TWO TIMES the step duration, so that NO cancellation of the initial step time taken occurs as it would in a 'time reversal' QM-maths/metaphysical abstract view. This makes 'time' and 'timing' totally dependent on the analytical construct.

again cont...
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2017
...again cont

Point 3: What we have in 'reality physical terms' is COMPARED DURATION of various extents during state/motional changes of various actual observed/compared energy-space 'features/processes', be they QM scale or up to cosmological scale, with commensurate duration scale appropriate to the rate of changes involved/compared (ie, 'timed' according to a chosen 'standard rate' appropriate to the duration length, be it a nanosecond or billions of Earth-standard years, epochs etc.).

So, we can finally distinguish maths-geom/metaphysical 'time' ABSTRACTION, from the REAL THING: an observable and but NEVER reversible DURATION; irrespective of the spatial/analysis 'quantum/direction' in which the MOTION/STATE CHANGE 'steps' occur; and whether or not WE are studying/measuring comparing/analyzing them. There is innumerable quantum/cosmological states/changes observed/compared etc; BUT only the UNIVERSAL IRREVERSIBLE DURATION ITSELF actually 'physically exists'.

Cheers. :)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2017
@RealityCheck Ha, for a moment there I thought you were going be...well, different. Then you go and spoil it all. We all know that maths etc are abstract constructs and the like and no one is saying they are the reality (whatever that is). They provide us with 'models' of what 'reality' MIGHT BE. If such models predict something and that prediction is what we can search for. Sometimes we're successful and sometimes not. But even being wrong can teach us something (well maybe not some people) and there are many ways we view the world, art, maths or simply 'kicking the ingredients around' to see what happens (experiment). We also have Language and that means we can use this to 'label things', such as Time, Space, Matter which tells us, intuitively, the difference/similarity between them.
In short, don't be so verbose in null and nonconstructive cynicism.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2017
@Whydening Gyre No, that is not what I'm implying here. Yes, what {you}have said is fine but what if {it} is only the arrow of time and space that are inseparable but the elements (in my work that is) that produce the a.o.t. may be separable and may even function independently, well up to a point anyway. What I'd then be implying is that I could turn 360 deg in space but not in the a.o.t.

"Time" is an emergent property of space in (almost) orthogonal motions generating a resultant incrementally sliding ratio. That ratio is dependent on scale context of a sets relative to each other. This also sets the ratio of relativity to itself. It's called phi. Fibonacci graciously supplied the numbers for us to use in calculations when comparing like sets RELATIVE to eachother.
We shouldn't be using base 10, we should be using base 6...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2017
cont. Just another point I like to mention too and that is it really doesn't change or revolutionize any of accepted physics. You've probably heard people say that '...at this point our maths and physics break down...

It doesn't really "break down". It's that the calculations don't recognize the requirement of change in scale of comparison references at specific points...
And man, RC is still the king of "/"...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2017
@Whydening Gyre. Points taken. The 'Golden Ratio', 1.618033989...is also in my work and the rational fraction I mentioned previously turns up in certain sequences (as well as other places)
I have used Base 6 but this came out of research in Sumerian maths (our clock time is taken from here, base 60). I have used a number close to g.r., 1.618034, & 0.618034 in SR and other numbers close 1.62 for example also come up. Lucas sequences also emerge. This is interesting because it means that part of my multidimensional Time is 'sequential' which in some respect, is what I might expect of Time to be. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple, that is just a sequence one moment to next, it would seem much more involved than that, where Spinorial objects might be best to describe some aspects.
Needless to say, I have had 'study up' on many different topics and that takes a lot of my leisure, but that's not bad because I learn something.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2017
... we should be using base 6...

(or 60.1...)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2017
@Whydening Gyre. Points taken. The 'Golden Ratio', 1.618033989...is also in my work and the rational fraction I mentioned previously turns up in certain sequences (as well as other places)

You mentioned one. you didn't say what it was...
I have used Base 6 but this came out of research in Sumerian maths (our clock time is taken from here, base 60). ... Lucas sequences also emerge.

Not sure what a Lucas sequence is but notice the connection to Lucifer, bringer of Light...:-)
This is interesting because it means that part of my multidimensional Time is 'sequential' which in some respect, is what I might expect of Time to be.

It, also, is subject to the same ratio..:-)
Needless to say, I have had 'study up' on many different topics

One thing leads to another...:-) (Or, eventually, 2)
and that takes a lot of my leisure, but that's not bad because I learn something.

NEVER a bad thing...
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
At this point I want to express how impressed I am by everyone who has contributed to this discussion thread.

A whole lot of neato ideas and hypothesis in the in a vigorously speculative marketplace of evidence-based research.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2017
Hi Mimath, :)

Mate, why fixate on 'style' and miss the substantive points? The whole reminder was because the use of "dimension" for 'time' is NOT a physically real thing, but a made-up label/term in analytical modeling/graphing etc comparative construct. That was the point: ie, 'time' is NOT a 'dimension' like SPACE has. If you are so fixated on finding fault with 'style', but miss that important point, then why bother pretending you are being objective at all?

The other point is that the RENORMALIZATION 'technique' used to eliminate all the 'infinities' is precisely needed because the maths construct was/is INADEQUATE to handle such situations. Otherwise there would have been no need FOR 'renormalization technique' in the first place.

Really, Mimath, you are starting to exhibit 'personal preferences' and 'style distraction', when you should be reading objectively and realize the points without bringing your own subjective likes/dislikes. Forget irrelevancies; focus! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2017
At this point I want to express how impressed I am by everyone who has contributed to this discussion thread.

A whole lot of neato ideas and hypothesis in the in a vigorously speculative marketplace of evidence-based research.

Hunh?!?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2017
Hi Mimath, :)

Mate, why fixate on 'style' and miss the substantive points? The whole reminder was because the use of "dimension" for 'time' is NOT a physically real thing, but a made-up label/term in analytical modeling/graphing etc comparative construct. That was the point: ie, 'time' is NOT a 'dimension' like SPACE has. If you are so fixated on finding fault with 'style', but miss that important point, then why bother pretending you are being objective at all?
...
Really, Mimath, you are starting to exhibit 'personal preferences' and 'style distraction', when you should be reading objectively and realize the points without bringing your own subjective likes/dislikes. Forget irrelevancies; focus! :)

Time is EXACTLY a (90.15 degree derivative) dimension - of space. You can't do time without space
Once again, RC attempts to direct it about him..
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
@howhot, there are physical situations which would be different if quantum mechanics were not T-symmetric; the best known is electric dipole moment. In short, if the EDMs of degenerate states were not identical it would signal T-asymmetry; however, it appears as far as we can measure that those EDMs are identical.

Now, all of that said, there do appear to be some T-asymmetries in particle physics; the best known of these are the asymmetric decays of the neutral versions of kaons, D-mesons, and B-mesons (the latter is still somewhat disputed). There are also T-asymmetries among the neutrinos, which result in their small fluctuating masses. These are still being explored both experimentally and theoretically. But none of these account for entropy. And even added all together they are not sufficient to account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the observed universe.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Time is EXACTLY a (90.15 degree derivative) dimension - of space.
Come again? Can you explain that?
You can't do time without space
We don't "do time". Change and process exist and proceed according to the universal energy-space laws of interaction/motion. Period. What we label it as, and how we use it etc are constructs from an analytical maths-geom relation which WE ABSTRACT from the measured observables. Read my earlier posts, mate.
Once again, RC attempts to direct it about him...
If you actually read properly and in context, you would have noted that it was Mimath that 'made it about' me/style. Why keep making up irrelevant incorrect personal misdirections instead of addressing/understanding the science/logic points made? You have been badly influenced by 'personal tactics' merchants (who I keep having to defend against while being blamed for it). Don't be the problem.

Now, have you any comments re actual science/logic points I raised? :)
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
Since the article is called "'Blurred times' in a quantum world", It does kind of open the question about whether the fuzziness of time in quantum probability. I just want to clarify that quantum fuzziness of time, does not imply quantum probability for time reversal. The reason is special relativity, Only by traveling faster than light can time reversal occur, and it takes infinite energy to get a particle of any mass up to the speed of light. I don't think even the best PSI(x) function will let a particle of any mass propagate at a negative t. So a fuzzy t may exist in the quantum world as the article says, but it will be bounded to functions that t>=0 to t=abs(t).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Time is EXACTLY a (90.15 degree derivative) dimension - of space.
Come again? Can you explain that?

It boils down to "absorption and re-emission" rates and the angular momentum of volumetrically relational reactions.
Sorry,RC... If you don't understand the simplicity of this basic relativity point by now, you don't have the capacity to see it. Good luck with that TOE...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Time is EXACTLY a (90.15 degree derivative) dimension - of space.
Come again? Can you explain that?
It boils down to "absorption and re-emission" rates and the angular momentum of volumetrically relational reactions.
Sorry,RC... If you don't understand the simplicity of this basic relativity point by now, you don't have the capacity to see it. Good luck with that TOE...
What are you on about, mate? The orthogonal vibrations/oscillations in any complex 'feature/process' phenomenon is still MOTIONAL RELATIVITIES from which WE abstract some relational/comparison parameters which we use in a maths-geom graphing/modeling construct using 'abstract dimensions/quantities which we label 'time' units/relativities. Its what I have been saying.

Now, exactly what do YOU mean by your earlier statement? Is it any different from what I have just described? If you think about it, RELATIVITY is a description of relations between MOTIONAL aspects. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
Since the article is called "'Blurred times' in a quantum world", It does kind of open the question about whether the fuzziness of time in quantum probability. I just want to clarify that quantum fuzziness of time, does not imply quantum probability for time reversal. The reason is special relativity, Only by traveling faster than light can time reversal occur, and it takes infinite energy to get a particle of any mass up to the speed of light. I don't think even the best PSI(x) function will let a particle of any mass propagate at a negative t. So a fuzzy t may exist in the quantum world as the article says, but it will be bounded to functions that t>=0 to t=abs(t).

You are not including the ratio (phi) of relativity to itself in your calculation.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
]What are you on about, mate? The orthogonal vibrations/oscillations in any comlpex 'feature/process' phenomenon is still MOTIONAL RELATIVITIES from which WE abstract some relational/comparison parameters which we use in a maths-geom graphing/modeling construct using 'abstract dimensions/quantities which we label 'time' units/relativities. Its what I have been saying.

But you are NOT subjecting your calculations to relativity, nor your understanding of orthogonality.
If you think about it, RELATIVITY is also a description of relations between MOTIONAL aspects. :)

You are not subjecting your act of relating to relativity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2017
Since the article is called "'Blurred times' in a quantum world", It does kind of open the question about whether the fuzziness of time in quantum probability. I just want to clarify that quantum fuzziness of time, does not imply quantum probability for time reversal. The reason is special relativity, Only by traveling faster than light can time reversal occur, and it takes infinite energy to get a particle of any mass up to the speed of light. I don't think even the best PSI(x) function will let a particle of any mass propagate at a negative t. So a fuzzy t may exist in the quantum world as the article says, but it will be bounded to functions that t>=0 to t=abs(t).
You are of course macroscopically correct. But at the quantum level, if a particle moves from one point where the time is X, to another where the time is X +/- x, how can you say that it "can't" have moved to X - x?

Time is uncertain, under Heisenberg uncertainty.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2017
Now, all of that said, there do appear to be some T-asymmetries in particle physics; the best known of these are the asymmetric decays of the neutral versions of kaons, D-mesons, and B-mesons (the latter is still somewhat disputed). There are also T-asymmetries among the neutrinos, which result in their small fluctuating masses. These are still being explored both experimentally and theoretically. But none of these account for entropy. And even added all together they are not sufficient to account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the observed universe.

Yeah, I hear you regarding the kaons, D-mesons and the B's. But isn't that what string theory provides? The prospect of other dimensions on which Kaons, D-mesons and B's interact? I don't think those would be good examples. However, virtual particles and your example of the dipole maybe. Does the dipole have an imaginary i in its field equations? I long forgot.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
What are you on about, mate? The orthogonal vibrations/oscillations in any comlpex 'feature/process' phenomenon is still MOTIONAL RELATIVITIES from which WE abstract some relational/comparison parameters which we use in a maths-geom graphing/modeling construct using 'abstract dimensions/quantities which we label 'time' units/relativities. Its what I have been saying.
But you are NOT subjecting your calculations to relativity, nor your understanding of orthogonality.
If you think about it, RELATIVITY is also a description of relations between MOTIONAL aspects. :)
You are not subjecting your act of relating to relativity.
To quote a famous sculptor, Whyde:
Hunh?!
LOL

Whyde, RELATIVITY AROSE FROM the abstraction of motional relativities measured/observed in processes/phenomena under study! So BOTH the SR/GR THEORY EQUATIONS/TERMS 'calculation' and 'relation' aspects are BASED on the math-geom ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCT we CREATED. Straight now? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
Now, exactly what do YOU mean by your earlier statement? Is it any different from what I have just described? If you think about it, RELATIVITY is a description of relations between MOTIONAL aspects.

Yes, but we do not extend the concept of relativity to the correlation of more than 2 "motions".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
Whyde, RELATIVITY AROSE FROM the abstraction of motional relativities measured/observed in processes/phenomena under study!

Nope. It is a REAL phenomenon.
So BOTH the SR/GR THEORY EQUATIONS/TERMS 'calculation' and 'relation' aspects are BASED on the math-geom ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCT we CREATED.

We did not subject that CONSTRUCT to relativity. Meaning - NO "constant" is constant.
Straight now? :-)

I am, are you?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Now, exactly what do YOU mean by your earlier statement? Is it any different from what I have just described? If you think about it, RELATIVITY is a description of relations between MOTIONAL aspects.

Yes, but we do not extend the concept of relativity to the correlation of more than 2 "motions".
Actually, we relate/compare unlimited motional states; ie, as many 'clock systems' we can conceive/use (and many more which exist but are not technically feasible/accessible to our senses/instrumentation at present). Thus we have 'durations/comparisons' using femtoseconds,....seconds....minutes....hours....days...etc etc up to 'infinite universal process' 'duration' which we label 'eternity'.

If you have something else in mind than what I inferred from your short statement, can you please elaborate so we can discern if we are speaking oranges-with-oranges' or not? Thanks. If I miss your response, I will be back tomorrow. Cheers. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Now, exactly what do YOU mean by your earlier statement? Is it any different from what I have just described? If you think about it, RELATIVITY is a description of relations between MOTIONAL aspects.

Yes, but we do not extend the concept of relativity to the correlation of more than 2 "motions".
Actually, we relate/compare unlimited motional states; ie, as many 'clock systems' we can conceive/use (and many more which exist but are not technically feasible/accessible to our senses/instrumentation at present). Thus we have 'durations/comparisons using femtoseconds,....seconds....minutes....hours....days...etc etc up to 'infinite universal process' 'duration' which we label 'eternity'.

The act of "comparing" is directly relational to what is you are comparing.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
Yes, but we do not extend the concept of relativity to the correlation of more than 2 "motions".

(maybe better) The very ACT of comparing is relative to what it is your are comparing.
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
@Da Schneib points out;
You are of course macroscopically correct. But at the quantum level, if a particle moves from one point where the time is X, to another where the time is X +/- x, how can you say that it "can't" have moved to X - x?

Time is uncertain, under Heisenberg uncertainty.

That is the tricky part isn't it? In the quantum you have to measure the event find X (or X +/- x). The act of measuring the event will take time, so that is one paradox of time reversibility. It all boils down to relativity. The saying; "nothing can go faster than the speed of light." You can do time dilation t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 and see v is limited by c. I have this all written down somewhere.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
@Da Schneib points out;
You are of course macroscopically correct. But at the quantum level, if a particle moves from one point where the time is X, to another where the time is X +/- x, how can you say that it "can't" have moved to X - x?

Time is uncertain, under Heisenberg uncertainty.

...
You can do time dilation t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 and see v is limited by c. I have this all written down somewhere.

velocity also affects c. The higher your velocity the lower, c (albeit, not by much). Relativity, the ONLY certainty.
(Einstein's best "joke" on the rest of us)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
@Whydening Gyre. Points taken. The 'Golden Ratio', 1.618033989...is also in my work and the rational fraction I mentioned previously turns up in certain sequences (as well as other places)

You mentioned one. you didn't say what it was...
Not sure what a Lucas sequence is but notice the connection to Lucifer, bringer of Light...:-)
It, also, is subject to the same ratio..:-)
One thing leads to another...:-) (Or, eventually, 2)
[

NEVER a bad thing...

Yes, the number I didn't mention was the rational fraction and at this point I'm holding back on this and there's a reason for this. The first point is that in the past 16 years I have found this 'factor' seems to have a connection with just about everything I have examined from simple sums involving astro formulations to the some formulations involving the coupling constant of 1/137.036 and so have given it a special designation. However, the 'factor doesn't turn up exactly; cont.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
cont. such as in the latter case it comes out as 1.0004142 x 'factor'. sometimes I have found a result the is the sq. rt. of it sometimes the sq and other powers are involved too. This was no way intentional I just found improper fractions very close to the particular ration fraction or some multiple of it. But my biggest surprise was it came up in an important non-scientific topic. Obviously I did what anyone else would do and thought 'why should that be? Is it significant and if so, why? Now having said all that I ought to have been able to turn certain equations around, use this number and come up with some predictive process but I couldn't. It is only recently that I found indications that might solve this problem. So I'm sure you appreciate I can't stand up and wave some number about 'I have found blah blah...' because the response would be 'Yeah, so what?' I said the number wasn't in the literature...it is actually I found it twice. Once in Astro-dynamics cont.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
cont. and once in a poem which mentions the rational fraction, (can't get more diverse than eh? Ha!) but in both cases it is not treated as being special in any way. I wondered if I should treat these a mere coincidence or does it mean that there are more 'hidden' mentions 'out there' that I don't know about. I always try to be truthful and accurate so some years ago I gave myself constraints in as much that I will only accept, in my work, this number within a narrow + or - range. I hope this explanation suffices.
You weren't sure of Lucas seq. (numbers) here is an example. @ n= 0, 1st entry =2,@ n=1, entry =1 the proceed in as a Fibonacci. Find Ln/Ln-1. You will find after the number 322 the ratios are around tau (sometimes use instead of phi) So F & L sequences are thus related. There is also a possibility in using Tribonacci numbers with Time calculations but I have to explore this to any reasonable degree.
Hope that helps. And by the way, thanks for some encouraging words.
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 11, 2017
Blurred time is consequence of inhomogeneity of space-time (vacuum density fluctuations aka tiny gravitational lenses) at quantum distance scale. The images of distant stars get scattered and multiplied once they pass gravitational lens around massive galaxies - the above effect is similar stuff which manifest itself at small distance scale. The Everett-Bohm's "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is another description of this effect.
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 11, 2017
The research team demonstrated a new effect. According to QM, if we have a very precise clock its energy uncertainty is very large. Due to GR, the larger its energy uncertainty the larger the uncertainty in the flow of time in the clock's neighborhood. Putting the pieces together, the researchers showed that clocks placed next to one another necessarily disturb each other, resulting eventually in a "blurred" flow of time.
As described, this effect is not new, it's actually the basic building principle of atomic clock. Most of improvements consist in separation of their atoms each other, for example with usage of atomic fountain. Also this effect is notoriously known from spectroscopy: the spectral lines of densely packed atoms get blurred into bands because their atoms affect each other and the explanation of this effect usually doesn't involve the general relativity - just the uncertainty principle. So I'm getting a bit confused with usage of GR here.
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 11, 2017
The uncertainty principle says, that once two particles get close each other, then the uncertainty in their energy and momentum increases, because the uncertainty in their position decreases. Now this very classical quantum effect is interpreted like very new quantum gravity effect...?!?
Quantum Magician
3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017
WG wrote:
velocity also affects c. The higher your velocity the lower, c (albeit, not by much).

Umm, not exactly.

From your own refference frame, c will always be c. Even if you are speeding at 99.9% c, and there is a "photon" passing by you (@100% c), you will still measure it as passing you at 100% c - even though an external observer might disagree and measure the difference as only being 0.1% c.

This is because your "perception of time" also changes, depending on the relative motions of the evaluated refference frames.

Ergo, how you perceive/measure time, is also relative.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
WG wrote:
velocity also affects c. The higher your velocity the lower, c (albeit, not by much).

Umm, not exactly.

I should have been more specific - the higher the V of the observed object, the lower the V of C relative to it...
From your own reference frame, c will always be c. Even if you are speeding at 99.9% c, and there is a "photon" passing by you (@100% c), you will still measure it as passing you at 100% c - even though an external observer might disagree and measure the difference as only being 0.1% c.
This is because your "perception of time" also changes, depending on the relative motions of the evaluated reference frames.
Ergo, how you perceive/measure time, is also relative.

Yes. Exactly the point I am trying to make... Your reference frame (YOUR "reality") then changes, as well.
IF you let it...:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
if a particle moves from one point where the time is X, to another where the time is X +/- x, how can you say that it "can't" have moved to X - x?

Time is uncertain, under Heisenberg uncertainty.
That is the tricky part isn't it? It gets trickier: as the article points out, time and energy are complementary under uncertainty.

In the quantum you have to measure the event find X (or X +/- x). The act of measuring the event will take time, so that is one paradox of time reversibility.
More to the point, the better you know how big X and x are, the less you know about how much mass/energy is involved.

It all boils down to relativity. The saying; "nothing can go faster than the speed of light." You can do time dilation t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 and see v is limited by c.
Actually because of the uncertainty in time, it's difficult to define exactly what "faster than the speed of light" means in the first place, at the quantum level.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
... mentions the rational fraction, (can't get more diverse than eh? Ha!) but in both cases it is not treated as being special in any way. I wondered if I should treat these a mere coincidence or does it mean that there are more 'hidden' mentions 'out there' that I don't know about. I always try to be truthful and accurate so some years ago I gave myself constraints in as much that I will only accept, in my work, this number within a narrow + or - range. I hope this explanation suffices.
It absolutely does.
Try not to get caught up in complicating. The real truth of a result gets "fuzzy" when we do that.:-)
Keep each calculation process (and resulting observation) simple and short.
And by the way, thanks for some encouraging words.

My pleasure. Thanks for the info input!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
It gets trickier: as the article points out, time and energy are complementary under uncertainty.

All due respects, DS, but aren't they complementary regardless of uncertainty?

More to the point, the better you know how big X and x are, the less you know about how much mass/energy is involved.

I don't quite grasp this, yet... doesn't gravity (along with velocity) affect time?
It all boils down to relativity. The saying; "nothing can go faster than the speed of light." You can do time dilation t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 and see v is limited by c.
Actually because of the uncertainty in time, it's difficult to define exactly what "faster than the speed of light" means in the first place, at the quantum level.

This is where I run into trouble... Where is the uncertainty in time? Aren't we measuring it "all the time"? Isn't the periodicity of orbits (for example) a derivative of it?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, the problem with time is that most equations time is there as a parameter. For the Heisenberg u.p. this is the common Δ position Δ momentum but there is an analogous formulation Δ energy Δ time. However such formulation require that time be represented in operator form and then time MIGHT be defined in certain ways. One way to do this requires an (quantum) 'environment' variable. Couple of points with this is a) it assumes variable environment and also, imo, reflects t as being uncertain in measurement and not duration. SD might be to elaborate because I think that's what he meant...could be though, Ha!
I have myself compared this problem very simply (for me it has to simple Ha!). Say you a Force vector, you can represent F in terms 2D/3D basis vectors depending on the coord system you chose. With the Arrow of Time what are the corresponding basis elements? This is one problem my ideas MIGHT overcome easily...if my idea worked, that is.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
as the article points out, time and energy are complementary under uncertainty.
All due respects, DS, but aren't they complementary regardless of uncertainty?
Not sure I understand what you're talking about here. Specifically, they are complementary under Heisenberg uncertainty, like position and momentum, or like spin angular momenta of a particle on multiple planes of rotation. I don't see how else time and energy can be complementary.

the better you know how big X and x are, the less you know about how much mass/energy is involved.
I don't quite grasp this, yet... doesn't gravity (along with velocity) affect time?
Gravity is negligible on quantum scales. It doesn't contribute significantly to the effect discussed in this article.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
[contd]
It all boils down to relativity. The saying; "nothing can go faster than the speed of light." You can do time dilation t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 and see v is limited by c.
Actually because of the uncertainty in time, it's difficult to define exactly what "faster than the speed of light" means in the first place, at the quantum level.
This is where I run into trouble... Where is the uncertainty in time? Aren't we measuring it "all the time"? Isn't the periodicity of orbits (for example) a derivative of it?
As @Mimath explained above, the uncertainty in time is complementary to the uncertainty in mass/energy; this is a specific uncertainty that doesn't happen classically, defined by Werner Heisenberg. The more you know about exactly when an event occurred, the less you *can* know about the exact amount of mass/energy was involved, and vice versa.

This is a central point of the article.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Here's the point, @Mimath: what you're talking about is only true when the universe is young. ... [when it's old] there won't be any predictable difference between the entropy at that now and the entropy a billion years before it, or a billion years after it.
No actually, respectfully, that is not the point. The point is the common or garden arrow of time seems to refreshed but everything else changes.
We're not talking about a billion years in the future; we're talking about when the universe is thousands of times older than it is now. A time when all the entire period when there were burning stars or anything else that had not been sucked into black holes is less than a thousandth of the age of the universe. For most of its history, at that point, there will have been no entropic arrow of time. At that point there is no change and hasn't been for 99.9% of history.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
WG wrote:
velocity also affects c. The higher your velocity the lower, c (albeit, not by much).

Umm, not exactly.

From your own refference frame, c will always be c. Even if you are speeding at 99.9% c, and there is a "photon" passing by you (@100% c), you will still measure it as passing you at 100% c - even though an external observer might disagree and measure the difference as only being 0.1% c.

This is because your "perception of time" also changes, depending on the relative motions of the evaluated refference frames.

Ergo, how you perceive/measure time, is also relative.
Correct, Quantum Magician. I was going to point this out but you beat me to it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Oh, and I missed one of @howhot's posts, and it's important:
However, virtual particles and your example of the dipole maybe. Does the dipole have an imaginary i in its field equations?
An electric dipole moment is the geometry of the E field created when two charges are separated. Since the E field of Maxwell requires the imaginary unit for its analysis, I suppose the answer to your question is "yes," but trivially so. What's more important is the divergence in the E field which creates a time dependence. Because of this, two such EDMs that are topologically degenerate must be indistinguishable for time to be symmetric. And our measurements show that, in fact, they *are* indistinguishable, to the limit of our ability to measure it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
... What's more important is the divergence in the E field which creates a time dependence. Because of this, two such EDMs that are topologically degenerate must be indistinguishable for time to be symmetric. And our measurements show that, in fact, they *are* indistinguishable, to the limit of our ability to measure it.


I have re-read the article a couple of times and, in reality, I was about to call BS on the article...
However, I now feel I should re-process the total.
Thank you for the input...:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
And to complete the point, @howhot, that's an experiment we can do (and have done) that shows that time must be symmetric. Furthermore, it's both classically and quantum mechanically correct. For example, the EDMs of water molecules are degenerate; this has been investigated experimentally, and is responsible for some very interesting properties of water that have been documented on this site over the last few years. It's another case of diligent experimenters "filling in the gaps" in our knowledge, and it's important for exactly this reason.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Like I said earlier, @Whyde, this is a very important theoretical result that constrains how quantum gravity can work. I don't suggest you discard it.

@BouncedRealityCheck has led you astray. I suggest you remember that.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Like I said earlier, @Whyde, this is a very important theoretical result that constrains how quantum gravity can work. I don't suggest you discard it.

I have no plans on discarding it. INCLUDING it, however, is another story...:-)

@BouncedRealityCheck has led you astray.

LOL. Not likely...:-)
His confusion is just more noise to dig thru...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
I have no plans on discarding it. INCLUDING it, however, is another story...:-)
You don't get to choose. Reality is.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
I have no plans on discarding it. INCLUDING it, however, is another story...:-)
You don't get to choose. Reality is.

Change your reality - it's relative....:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Don't do that. It's a misuse of the word.

Experimental results are brute fact. There is nowhere to hide.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
@Da Schneib '...there will have been no entropic arrow of time...'. Yes I do understand what you are saying it is just that I don't agree that there was 'no time' before our (known) universe came to be nor that in the future (whatever the fate of the universe will be) that the a.o.t. will cease to exist. I'm not suggesting anything 'magical' here, I'm suggesting the reverse. Imo what produced our universe was a real entity of/in some state (say, when all the forces known to us were one) and there had to be a 'time' with some 'arrow' that was associated, before and after, with the change that took place and resulted in the BB. If I say that there was no entity before the BB then I'd be saying something from nothing in a magical way and I don't subscribe to that view. Nor am I religious so I don't subscribe to an 'almighty'. As you know from above my view of Time is multidimensional but concede of being long way from any 'testable' argument. Appreciate the discussion though, thanks
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
The entropic AOT exists now because the universe is young. When the universe is old, it won't anymore. That's not speculation or theory, it's fact.

As far as whether there was a time dimension, that is a dimension that was hyperbolic in its geometric relationship to other dimensions, before our universe existed, no one knows and no one has managed to figure out how to find out. You're not talking any more about the dimensions of our universe, you're talking about the dimensions of some multiverse within which our universe occurred; our universe has its own dimensionality and its own background, and the background of the multiverse within which it came to be doesn't necessarily have to be anything like it is here.

We can discuss ΛCDM cosmology and inflation if you like. We can also discuss our universe coming into being as a vacuum fluctuation within an unknowable background.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Note, @Mimath, that the mere existence of black holes is enough to tell us this. All the matter and all the energy and all the dark matter will, after trillions of years, have been sucked into black holes if you wait long enough. There will be nothing but dark energy and black holes left. How are you going to define "entropy" in such a universe?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Note, @Mimath, that the mere existence of black holes is enough to tell us this. All the matter and all the energy and all the dark matter will, after trillions of years, have been sucked into black holes if you wait long enough. There will be nothing but dark energy and black holes left. How are you going to define "entropy" in such a universe?

But these are entities that are subject to some physical law(s) which at present are elusive as far as we are concerned. Don't forget there is study of BH thermodynamics and there are theorems (such as S. Hawking, Bekenstein) that suggest BH's have entropy in some way proportional to the EH. And since we don't know what DE is (yet) but scientist say it affects our universe, then it too must obey some 'law'. What if...oh I do like that phrase...if DE is connected to what I consider Time to be. DE would then be the 'driving' of everything(?). Please, the last point is very 'exoctic' so don't dwell on it, it's just a 'what if' example.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
It doesn't matter out here what the laws are inside a black hole.

Oh, and I made a mistake and forgot Hawking radiation, but it's way too early in the morning yet to think my way through it and explain what happens. I'll have a post to write later.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Wow, things have really changed since the last time I looked at this. Glad I did some research before I started shooting my mouth off this time!

In the end it makes little difference to my point, but the details are somewhat different than I remember, and the timescale vastly longer.

I assume ΛCDM + dark energy, with no proton decay.

By around a hundred billion years from now, the Local Group (which includes the Milky Way, Andromeda, and Triangulum galaxies) will have merged into a single giant galaxy.

By around a hundred and fifty billion years, all other galaxy groups will have passed the cosmological horizon; the expansion of the universe makes them recede faster than the speed of light.

By around eight hundred billion years, the luminosity of all galaxies, including the Local Group, will begin to decay as gas to form new stars becomes rare and existing stars start to dim.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
[contd]
By around a trillion to a hundred trillion years, the final gas is incorporated into stars and star formation finally ceases.

By 2 trillion years from now, the final light from the last receding group of galaxies, even their gamma rays, is red shifted so far that it is longer than the width of the cosmological horizon, and they are all invisible from that point on.

By a quadrillion years, a thousand trillion, planets have been flung away from or fallen into their stars by orbital mechanics and encounters with stellar remnants.

By a hundred quadrillion years, stellar remnants will either have fallen into the giant black hole at the center of the galaxy formed by the Local Group, or been flung away.

By 10⁴⁰ years, a duodecillion, the universe will be dominated by black holes. What few stellar remnants remain will all be so far from them that they will be beyond the cosmological horizon.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
[contd]
At this point the universe consists of black holes, which dominate its mass, and stellar remnants, with every object so distant from every other that they will all be invisible to one another.

By a googol years, 10¹⁰⁰ years, all the black holes will have evaporated due to Hawking radiation.

This is the time I'm talking about; there is nothing left but dark energy and stellar remnants so widely scattered that they will almost never encounter one another. There are a few free photons and a little bit of dark matter and nucleons and electrons. If you wait for a billion years, you might see one of these things.

Yet things can go further.

By 10¹⁵⁰⁰ years, all the matter in the stellar remnants will have decayed by quantum tunneling and radioactive decay into Fe-56, the bottom of the Aston packing fraction curve. The stellar remnants that remain will all be iron stars.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
[contd]
Finally, by 10^(10^76) years (sorry for the notation, Unicode doesn't have doubled superscripts), the iron stars will have all decayed into black holes, and a googol years (a vanishingly infinitesimal value on these scales) later these will also have evaporated.

There is now nothing left but a bit of dark matter, all the dark energy, and some free photons, electrons, neutrinos, and nucleons (assuming as I said at the beginning that nucleons do not decay).

At this age, the universe has fully undergone heat death. Time is essentially meaningless; nothing ever happens. And if it does, then it does so so far away from any other event that the two cannot ever affect one another. Entropy is an undefined value; since no events ever occur, neither order nor chaos has any meaning.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib (and Whyde). :)

From Da Schneib to Whyde:
@BouncedRealityCheck has led you astray. I suggest you remember that.
From Whyde back to Da Schneib. :)
LOL. Not likely...:-)
His confusion is just more noise to dig thru...
Guys, how many times has Da Schneib/others tried this gambit against me and then been proven WRONG on all counts? Why do (supposedly) intelligent people keep doing that sort of subjective ego-tripping tactic when they are the ones either misunderstanding what was postd or just not-up-to-scratch on the fundamental physics/logics of the subject/topic.

Recall about the 'plasmoid in sun' issue where you were proven wrong and me correct all along? And the Non-Keplerian orbital/distribution regimes issue likewise? And the Bicep2 issue likewise?

Now you are again attacking based on your own misconstruings and ignorance because you DON'T fairly read/understand what was posted, but instead make up your own 'version' in your own 'mind'.

cont..
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Now, @Mimath, what do "physical laws" mean? Nothing; physical laws are about interaction, and nothing ever interacts. And if dark energy is all that is left, this all just keeps expanding faster and faster. More and more nothing.

If you include proton decay, then it's even worse; you have nothing but a little dark matter, lots of dark energy, photons, electrons, and neutrinos. No quarks, no gluons, no nucleons; no strong force, there's nothing for it to act on. Gravity, EM, and weak, and none of them ever does anything because there's nothing for them to act on either; they all require more than one particle for action to occur and there's never a particle inside the cosmological horizon of another. With no events, time becomes meaningless.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Go ahead, @BouncedRealityCheck. Explain to us how interactions can occur when every particle is so far from every other that no interaction can ever occur, because it would have to happen faster than the speed of light, and when there is no meaning to entropy, or gravity, or EM, or weak, or color interaction.

As usual, your imagination fails. And your EUdiot BS fails too.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
But don't everyone lose heart; merely the length of time required for star formation to stop is thousands of times the current age of the universe. The human species will have evolved far beyond anything we can imagine, or ceased to exist, long before this time has passed. It's easy to care for your grandchildren; it's impossible to imagine your progeny in a billion years, much less a trillion.

Heck, people from a thousand years ago can't imagine refrigerators. It's a magic box that's cold inside. Use some imagination.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
...cont @ Da Schneib (and Whyde)

Consider what I ACTUALLY POSTED. I merely disntinguished the PHYSICAL CONCEPT of duration/timing from the metaphysical/abstract-analytical 'dimension'n LABEL given to those durations/timings when WE construct maths-geom ABSTRACT MODELS of the actual energy-space features/dynamics. That was IT. The rest of yur discussion points are merely descriptions of what QM treats/calculates 'time' as.....and my posts explained how THAT is NOT 'reversible' in physical fact; but merely in abstract maths-geom GRAPHING/CALCULATING CONVENIENCE; and NOT an actual 'time-thing' IN ITSELF, and hence CANNOT BE REVERSIBLE action/parameter in reality.

If you can't/won't actually take the time to understand, why bother jumping/attacking based on your own misconstructions of what I actually posted? That only ends in the usual embarrassment for you; just like all those other times you tried this sort of personal/biased attacks based on your own WRONG headedness. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck, what you ACTUALLY POSTED [sic] is a bunch of BS that doesn't have the slightest contact with reality.

As such it justifies my placing of you on ignore.

I see little point in bothering more than the occasional glance with someone whose wit and imagination demonstrates a paucity of understanding and imagination such as yours.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Scheib (and Whyde et al). :)
As usual, your imagination fails. And your EUdiot BS fails too.
What is WRONG WITH YOU, mate? How many times does it have to be explained to you: I HAVE NO CONNECTION with EU proponents. In fact, I am INDEPENDENT/IMPARTIAL observer/commentator who has had occasions to REMIND 'both sides' that all phenomena is a HYBRID DYNAMICS involving scales of duration and distance which evolves and develops according to which 'force' is more dominant at which stage in that feature evolutionary trajectory!

Can you NOW, ONCE and for all, 'get' that' straight, mate? Please then immediately stop making attacks on me based on your OWN mistaken impressions/associations regarding me and my objective/impartial comments!

Thanks. :)

continued next post...
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Scheib. :)
@BouncedRealityCheck, what you ACTUALLY POSTED [sic] is a bunch of BS that doesn't have the slightest contact with reality.

As such it justifies my placing of you on ignore.

I see little point in bothering more than the occasional glance with someone whose wit and imagination demonstrates a paucity of understanding and imagination such as yours.
Do you never learn? It was precisely because you DON'T read, or you don't bother understanding the subtleties involved, that you have been embarrassed EVERY TIME you have jumped in boots and all making accusations and insults which are eventually traced back to YOUR OWN WRONGNESS ALL ALONG while calling me liar etc and threatening to put me on ignore etc; dspite the fact I WAS CRRECTALL ALONG and YOU WRONG ALL ALONG. It's in the record. Try to learn from your past mistakes (and stop your-ego-tripping attacks).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
...continued @ Da Schneib (from post before last)

Go ahead, @BouncedRealityCheck. Explain to us how interactions can occur when every particle is so far from every other that no interaction can ever occur, because it would have to happen faster than the speed of light, and when there is no meaning to entropy, or gravity, or EM, or weak, or color interaction.
Finally!..a question instead of unfounded attacks. You are improving, albeit slowly! Anyhow...

Your above far-future comments/thrust is merely a re-hash of Sir Roger Penrose's recent idea (regarding the meaningless of 'time concept' in an 'exhausted universe' where all that is left (after BH evaporation via Hawking etc radiation) is real and virtual (QM energy-space fluctuations-like) PHOTONS of various wavelengths.

Such idea highly hypothetical; only applies in NON-recycling/Infinitely Expanding etc HYPOTHESES.

So what's 'new' in your 'take', beyond Penrose's, Da Schneib? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
@NonceRealityCheck, your very posting style reveals your agenda, which is negative information.

I am uninterested in interacting with an agent of deliberate chaos. I therefore taunt you regularly, dismiss your maunderings at their face value, and keep you generally on ignore other than when I feel like playing with the trolls.

You have regular chances to change, and you eschew all of them.

Grow up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@NonceRealityCheck, your very posting style reveals your agenda, which is negative information.
Who is being negative, the one who sticks strictly to objectivity/impartiality of Scientific Method principles and observes/comments regarding all the facts from all 'sides'; or the one who keeps kneejerking form ego and ignorance to attack the one who is correct all along? Your very negative ego/agenda is 'showing', mate! :)
I am uninterested in interacting with an agent of deliberate chaos. I therefore taunt you regularly, dismiss your maunderings at their face value, and keep you generally on ignore other than when I feel like playing with the trolls. You have regular chances to change, and you eschew all of them. Grow up.
Yes, that is just your 'speed'; ignore the discussion points made, so that you can 'pretend' it 'never happened'. A recent eg: You GOT IT WRONG when you asserted (while insulting me) that Focus Fusion produces Neutrons. Learn. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
The Scientific Method is not based on any definition of impartiality. It is based on evidence, and evidence is partial to reality. There are two sides: reality and fantasy. The compromise between them is still fantasy.

As usual, you entirely miss the point, @RealityNonce.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
A recent eg: You GOT IT WRONG when you asserted (while insulting me) that Focus Fusion produces Neutrons. Learn. :)

Sorry, RC, but I have to jump in here.
Here is why DS was right;
(From Wikipedia)
"For nuclear weapons applications, dense plasma focus devices can be used as an external neutron source."
Hopefully you can learn a little something about "knee-jerking" from ego...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Any potential fusion scheme is also a neutron source. If it couldn't produce neutrons from light elements it wouldn't be capable of fusion.

@RealityNonce doesn't know enough about fusion to know this. Any claim it makes of "being right" is spurious negative information. It's right as often as a stopped clock.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde.:)
A recent eg: You GOT IT WRONG when you asserted (while insulting me) that Focus Fusion produces Neutrons. Learn. :)

Sorry, RC, but I have to jump in here.
Here is why DS was right;
(From Wikipedia)
"For nuclear weapons applications, dense plasma focus devices can be used as an external neutron source."
Hopefully you can learn a little something about "knee-jerking" from ego...
NOTE WELL: that discussion occurred under a FUSION POWER article; the context of MY observations being: what could produce fusion power SIMPLER, CHEAPER, SAFER and WITHOUT Neutrons (ie, A-NEUTRONIC fusion; which obviates problems for structural/control components/materials/repairs and maintenance etc cost)?

The Focus Fusion Device I linked to was clearly A=NEUTRONIC device, using a cheap, abundant and safe 'fuel' that plasmoid temps/compression readily fuses to produce ONLY HELIUM nuclei, ELECTRONS and X-Ray etc radiation. NO NEUTRONS produced in that context/device. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
(From Wikipedia)
"For nuclear weapons applications, dense plasma focus devices can be used as an external neutron source."

And the best part about it is - they are now directable (controllable) from which a use (work) can be extracted.
Which adds (what the Universe actually does - a LOT) to their pro list.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
@RealityNonce just denies reality. No acknowledgment of @Whyde's source, no acknowledgment of reality, no respect for evidence, typical disrespectful baseless denial without any contradicting data but its own statements.

@RealityNonce, do you suppose that no one notices? Are you really that stupid? All the evidence says you are.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
You GOT IT WRONG when you asserted (while insulting me) that Focus Fusion produces Neutrons.
As usual YOU have been shown to be INCORRECT ALL ALONG.

It does produce neutrons Cher. Not as much as fission or deuterium-tritium fusion. But it does Skippy.

Learn.:)
Do better diligence matey. ( "_" )
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RealityNonce just denies reality. No acknowledgment of @Whyde's source, no acknowledgment of reality, no respect for evidence, typical disrespectful baseless denial without any contradicting data but its own statements.

@RealityNonce, do you suppose that no one notices? Are you really that stupid? All the evidence says you are.
Why kneejerk without READING my response to Whyde above? I clearly pointed to CONTEXT; and why your bald assertion (and your insults/ignorance) was WRONG in that CONTEXT. Had you distinguished between the LINKED Lerner DPF DEVICE for A-NEUTRONIC POWER application (distinct from WEAPONS use of 'generic' focus device), you would have not been WRONG in that context/discussion.

So, Da Schneib, Whyde, Ira: do you NOW know there IS an A-Neutronic (NON NEUTRON PRODUCING) DPF deice for POWER applications as my observations in that thread involved? If so, then you can apologize, stop attacking based on your own confusions. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
NOTE WELL that that discussion occurred in the FUSION POWER article; the context being what could produce fusion power WITHOUT Neutrons (ie, A-NEUTRONIC fusion). The Focus Fusion Device I linked to was clearly an A=NEUTRONIC device which used fuel specifically so that the plasmoid/temps/compression readily fuses the atoms to produce ONLY HELIUM nuclei and ELECTRONS plus X-Ray etc radiation. NO NEUTRONS produced in that context/device. :)

Oh, you're good... you could almost be a woman...
From THAT article;
"When that is accomplished, atoms can fuse and release heat through neutron scattering. When more energy is created than it takes to sustain the reaction, sustained fusion becomes viable."

That article gives no mention of the "context" of which you speak.
Please re link to the particular device you are referring to so that I may read myself.
Never mind linking - I will just find it m'self...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
The Focus Fusion Device I linked to was clearly A=NEUTRONIC device, using a cheap, abundant and safe 'fuel' that plasmoid temps/compression readily fuses to produce ONLY HELIUM nuclei, ELECTRONS and X-Ray etc radiation. NO NEUTRONS produced in that context/device. :)
Which fuel might you be talking about?

Again, from wikipedia;
The pure 3He reaction suffers from a fuel-availability problem.
Oh... and your link was prob'ly to lppfusion.com
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
Ira: do you NOW know there IS an A-Neutronic (NON NEUTRON PRODUCING) DPF deice for POWER applications as my observations in that thread involved? If so, then you can apologize, stop attacking based on your own confusions.


ANeutron Focus Fusion DOES produce neutrons Cher. Let me explain it to you but DeSchnieb-Skippy can probably do it better.

ANeutron Focus Fusion uses hydrogen and boron. They fuse to make two heliums and no neutrons. BUT there are always some of the heliums banging into the borons which does produce neutrons. Like I said before, not as many as deuterium-tritium fusion, but still some. About 1/500 as much if I remember correct.

Now you apologize Skippy. Because I got that information from the A-Neutron Focus Fusion site them selfs.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Ira: do you NOW know there IS an A-Neutronic (NON NEUTRON PRODUCING) DPF deice for POWER applications as my observations in that thread involved? If so, then you can apologize, stop attacking based on your own confusions.


ANeutron Focus Fusion DOES produce neutrons Cher. Let me explain it to you but DeSchnieb-Skippy can probably do it better.

ANeutron Focus Fusion uses hydrogen and boron. They fuse to make two heliums and no neutrons. BUT there are always some of the heliums banging into the borons which does produce neutrons. Like I said before, not as many as deuterium-tritium fusion, but still some. About 1/500 as much if I remember correct.

Now you apologize Skippy. Because I got that information from the A-Neutron Focus Fusion site them selfs.

Oooo - Ira! You are ON it, brutha...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Oh... and your link was prob'ly to lppfusion.com

And even the site admits they are just committed to FINDING a fuel. Not that they actually have one in proto generator or anything...
Which will amount to ANOTHER 15-20 years of angel funding....
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Oh, you're good... you could almost be a woman...
A brave but foolish comment to make on a science discussion, mate! Careful your wife isn't reading your posts when you are not there. :)
From THAT article;
"When that is accomplished, atoms can fuse and release heat through neutron scattering. When more energy is created than it takes to sustain the reaction, sustained fusion becomes viable."
That article was NOT re Focus Fusion POWER device, it was about a 'new idea' involving lasers, ie:
The femtochemical technique is central to the new idea that nuclei can be pushed close enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier that forces atoms of like charge to repel each other. When that is accomplished, atoms can fuse and release heat through neutron scattering...
OK? :)

The context was my comparing fusion means: one of which was DPF for POWER (A-Neutronic) device. I linked to a Video for Mimath:

https://www.youtu...B-VxJWpg

Ok?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
Ira: do you NOW know there IS an A-Neutronic (NON NEUTRON PRODUCING) DPF deice for POWER applications as my observations in that thread involved? If so, then you can apologize, stop attacking based on your own confusions.


ANeutron Focus Fusion DOES produce neutrons Cher. Let me explain it to you but DeSchnieb-Skippy can probably do it better.

ANeutron Focus Fusion uses hydrogen and boron. They fuse to make two heliums and no neutrons. BUT there are always some of the heliums banging into the borons which does produce neutrons. Like I said before, not as many as deuterium-tritium fusion, but still some. About 1/500 as much if I remember correct.

Now you apologize Skippy. Because I got that information from the A-Neutron Focus Fusion site them selfs.


Bump it for Really-Skippy.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Ira. :)

As per that video I linked in that other thread for Mimath, and again linked for Whyde above, the Lerner DPF uses a fuel which fuses directly to Helium nuclei without intermediate Neutron heating/bombardment stage. And random but insignificant neutrons which are created in the plasmoid are immediately 'used up' within that fusion plasmoid, and so they do not get out to bombard the structural/control devices/materials. Any equally insignificant numbers of neutrons produced purely by the exiting Helium nuclei 'beam' impacting on unused Hydrogen-Boride fuel is not significant, and is controlled for by controlling the unused fuel expanse which said Helium 'beam' needs to traverse as it exits the focus region and enters the direct electricity generation coils leading out of that region.

The fusion/plasmoid ITSELF has no significant neutrons exiting from that plasmoid region, only X-rays etc radiation.

Reality beats your misunderstandings, Ira. :)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
... Careful your wife isn't reading your posts when you are not there. :)

She knows me and my method.
That article was NOT re Focus Fusion POWER device, it was about a 'new idea' involving lasers, ie:

The femtochemical technique is central to the new idea

Same idea as othe FFP's.
... When that is accomplished, atoms can fuse and release heat through neutron scattering...
OK? :)

Making it NOT a-neutronic.
OK?
The context was my comparing fusion means: one of which was DPF for POWER (A-Neutronic) device. I linked to a Video for Mimath:

An hour of people who like to hear themselves talk in a circle - (This is what it's supposed to do - we're not there, yet). It's called a circle jerk.
OK?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
The fusion/plasmoid ITSELF has no significant neutrons exiting from that plasmoid region, only X-rays etc radiation.

Reality beats your misunderstandings, Ira. :)

That's not their device, it's their desired model.
Reality beats not understanding that.
Read the following - in it's entirety.
https://en.wikipe...c_fusion
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)

No no no, mate! That article's 'new idea' concerned 'laser controlled' forcing of atoms together.

And it is an entirely DIFFERENT approach than the Lerner DPF device which is the subject of that video I linked for you.

That is why in that other thread, I pointed out: no external controls/magnetic confinement etc etc before, during or after fusion is needed in DPF device I alluded/compared the other fusion approaches to. OK? :)

As for the 'desired' angle, the point is that the plasmoid itself does the job a-neutronically, as explained; the 'desirable' aspect related to the future development/refinement of that basic approach in a better designed/robust device to make best use of those advantages, by developing optimum configurations/scale etc.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
Reality beats your misunderstandings, Ira. :)


Reality means YOU have been PROVEN by the SCIENTIFICAL METHODS to be INCORRECT all along.

Now why you don't go volumetrificate your self so you don't get hurt (any more), eh?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Ira. :)

Have you figured out that a-neutronic effectively means no neutrons to speak of? Unlike the significant neutrons produced in conventional approaches which have problems with neutron bombardment damage to containment/control structures/materials? Your bot-voting ignoramus approach is 'hurting' only yourself, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. Cher I got to get ready to do my job (watch an episode of my Leverage videos) because in two hours it is all me, eh? So I will fool around with you some more tomorrow, that alright with you? Laissez les bons temps rouler (That's coonass for: "Do better diligence while you are playing Scientist-Skippy, it would be more fun if you weren't PROVEN INCORRECT ALL ALONG")

@ Whydening-Skippy and DeSchneib-Skippy. I see you tomorrow too. Try to keep Really-Skippy honest. Laissez les bons temps rouler for you two too. (That's coonass for: "There ain't no way to keep Really-Skippy honest so you may as well have some fun with him.")

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
... aspect related to the future development/refinement of that basic approach in a better designed/robust device to make best use of those advantages, by developing optimum configurations/scale etc.

"FUTURE development and refinement" being the key words...
Show me the prototype...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
Show me the prototype...

Chute... I'd almost bet that Ira and I, with Schneib as info provider, could get together for a week of moonshine drinkin' and collaborating and come up with one faster than those guys will...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
... aspect related to the future development/refinement of that basic approach in a better designed/robust device to make best use of those advantages, by developing optimum configurations/scale etc.

"FUTURE development and refinement" being the key words...
Show me the prototype...
They have been running/developing their various prototypes for years, but lack of funding is delaying rapid progress (the funding is not from the usual sources that the conventional fusion projects/experiments, so proper funding on the scale that other approaches have been afforded would have produced startling results by now; as that VIDEO I linked to explains).

Chute... I'd almost bet that Ira and I, with Schneib as info provider, could get together for a week of moonshine drinkin' and collaborating and come up with one faster than those guys will...
You'd be better advised to forget those puffing/dropping/drinking binges, and FOCUS! (pun intended). :)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Now, @Mimath, what do "physical laws" mean? Nothing; physical laws are about interaction, and nothing ever interacts. And if dark energy is all that is left, this all just keeps expanding faster and faster. More and more nothing.
than one....of another. With no events, time becomes meaningless.

This sounds like you are saying that there IS a magical entity that is there but doesn't obey some rule for existence. Doesn't matter (pun not intended Ha!) whether it is a singularity or anything macro. Just because we don't know what those rules are does not mean to say they aren't there. The comment about 'physical laws' is below your standard, worthy of an RC comment. You know what I meant.
What happens inside BH's may well be significant but we haven't determined yet what that might be. I respect the standard models but don't become so entrenched in them that you are blind to anything else. Relax a little and be more flexible.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Ira. :)
... a-neutronic effectively means no neutrons to speak of?

A-neutronic, no neutrons.
NOT, no neutrons of any quantity "to speak of"...
Your bot-voting ignoramus approach is 'hurting' only yourself, Ira. :)

Your unwillingness to accept anything except the last word shows your own limits...
Making you appear as a control freak and indicating how much of your ego is invested in your comments.
You REALLY think there is a "bot-voting" mechanism in Ira's computer...?
If so - "there's one born every minute..."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
This sounds like you are saying that there IS a magical entity that is there but doesn't obey some rule for existence. Doesn't matter (pun not intended Ha!) whether it is a singularity or anything macro. Just because we don't know what those rules are does not mean to say they aren't there. The comment about 'physical laws' is below your standard, worthy of an RC comment. You know what I meant.
What happens inside BH's may well be significant but we haven't determined yet what that might be. I respect the standard models but don't become so entrenched in them that you are blind to anything else. Relax a little and be more flexible.

Five and - more if I could...:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Mimath. :)

From Mimath to Da Schneib:
Just because we don't know what those rules are does not mean to say they aren't there. The comment about 'physical laws' is below your standard, worthy of an RC comment. You know what I meant.
Careful, mate; so far the record shows I am correct and Da Schneib wrong on many issues which he has attacked me on based on his own ignorance/arrogance/ego-tripping 'needs' etc. With that record giving a guide as to his 'standard', his above comments to you have been in keeping with that 'standard' he has set by his unprovoked attacks/wrongheaded insistence he is right when he is not.
Further from Mimath to Da schneib:
What happens inside BH's may well be significant but we haven't determined yet what that might be. I respect the standard models but don't become so entrenched in them that you are blind to anything else. Relax a little and be more flexible.
Exactly in keeping with his standard'; as you now observed for yourself. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
This sounds like you are saying that there IS a magical entity that is there but doesn't obey some rule for existence.
Not at all. In fact exactly the opposite. What I'm saying is that in a universe where we know first order effects (force laws) don't apply, arguing about second order effects (entropy) is meaningless.

Just because we don't know what those rules are does not mean to say they aren't there.
No, we know what the rules are. They're the same ones we know here and now. We also know that in those circumstances they don't apply. If you have some other rules you'd like to propose please show where they come from.

What happens inside BH's may well be significant but we haven't determined yet what that might be. I respect the standard models but don't become so entrenched in them that you are blind to anything else. Relax a little and be more flexible.
There won't be any black holes. They'll all have evaporated by Hawking radiation.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Now that we dispensed with yet another distraction, can we focus (again, pun intended) on the question I posed to you in my earlier post, as follows:
...Your above far-future comments/thrust is merely a re-hash of Sir Roger Penrose's recent idea (regarding the meaningless of 'time concept' in an 'exhausted universe' where all that is left (after BH evaporation via Hawking etc radiation) is real and virtual (QM energy-space fluctuations-like) PHOTONS of various wavelengths.

Such idea highly hypothetical; only applies in NON-recycling/Infinitely Expanding etc HYPOTHESES.

So what's 'new' in your 'take', beyond Penrose's, Da Schneib? :)
So how about it, mate? What have you posted here that is not just parroting others' ideas?

Also, another question: What do you think/have considered, regarding perspectives which do NOT depend on hypothetical expansion/non-recycling universe assumptions? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that. Ta. :)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
@RC Oh come on, don't try to turn this into a competition and the 'attack' game. Points of view in discussion are important to me as I not only learn about the people I can observe different viewpoints too. At the moment I see the particular comment by DS's as a 'slip' and I give him the benefit of doubt. If DS were to continue along that path then it will be self destructive.
I have said before, if you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion then fine but the moment, as now for example, you take it as an opportunity to 'attack' others, forget it. I'm not interested.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Mimath. :)
@RC Oh come on, don't try to turn this into a competition and the 'attack' game. Points of view in discussion are important to me as I not only learn about the people I can observe different viewpoints too. At the moment I see the particular comment by DS's as a 'slip' and I give him the benefit of doubt. If DS were to continue along that path then it will be self destructive.
Why the double standards, mate? Do I have to stand here and allow scurrilous attacks on me, while others are doing that very thing against me? But am not allowed to defend and point out the defect in the attacks and the tactics used against me, which you (correctly) find deplorable yet do not condemn same when others are employing it against me?

I only highlighted what you yourself just observed is the problem with my discussions with Da Schneib. Add to that the unfounded attacks, and you should get why my right to self-defense is proper and necessary. Be fair, mate! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
@RealityNonce blurted,
Why the double standards, mate?
They're not double standards. You have bluster, everyone else has data. The standard is, bring data.

Now grow up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RealityNonce blurted,
Why the double standards, mate?
They're not double standards. You have bluster, everyone else has data. The standard is, bring data.
That won't wash anymore, mate. Even Mimath has finally twigged to your conceited 'certainty' while being wrong yourself yet attacking others.

And as for you/everyone else having the 'standard' of 'bringing data', how come you and they failed to bring that 'data standard' to scrutiny of Bicep2 'work/claims'? Whereas I tried to get you to check out the obvious flaws for yourselves!

And where was that 'bring data standard' you crow about during all those past instances when you attacked/trolled me while being incorrect yourself (I already alluded to some examples earlier, in case you had 'conveniently forgotten' the data/standard you 'brought' in those instances).

Has that Bicep2 fiasco not taught you anything about scientific objectivity/impartiality/humility? Try, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
More bluster.

It won't work here, nonce.

I won't even dignify your bluster with a point by point response. That it is bluster is obvious to anyone reading it.

Grow up.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Now, @Mimath, what do "physical laws" mean? Nothing; physical laws are about interaction, and nothing ever interacts. And if dark energy is all that is left, this all just keeps expanding faster and faster. More and more nothing.

Actually the higher the ratio of Dark Energy to matter, the less matter-energy (in a dense form) it has to compensate for. So it's "energy output" requirement is reduced. Apply the Bell curve to dark energy, too.
If you include proton decay, then it's even worse; you have nothing but a little dark matter, lots of dark energy, photons, electrons, and neutrinos. No quarks, no gluons, no nucleons; no strong force, there's nothing for it to act on. ...

Be the Dark Energy.
Dark matter, photons, electrons and nuetrino's...
Hunh....
Here, hold my beer, I think I can make somethin' out o' that...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
More bluster.

It won't work here, nonce.

I won't even dignify your bluster with a point by point response. That it is bluster is obvious to anyone reading it.

Grow up.
So, lte;s get this straight: you attack based on your own misconstructions, making insulting accusations/aspersions and trying to re-write your history of being wrong an me correct. Then, when your interlocutor/victim posts information to clarify your OWN errors/misunderstandings, and posts in-self-defense examples which support my points re you and your attacks/errors 'tactics', you just IGNORE and/or EVADE with one-liners which do not actually acknowledge/address the other side of the story. Now that is what I call a 'personalized method' for NOT having a clue about the other guy/side of the issue. Is THAT the 'method' taught to you by your tutor; to ignore and insult, from a base of self-imposed ignorance and personal malice born of ego? Go ask for your money back, mate! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Actually the higher the ratio of Dark Energy to matter, the less matter-energy (in a dense form) it has to compensate for. So it's "energy output" requirement is reduced. Apply the Bell curve to dark energy, too.
Dark energy doesn't "compensate for" any kind of matter. It is the Λ in the Einstein Field Equations, and the Λ in ΛCDM. It is a property of spacetime, and it is a part of gravity, on the left side of the EFE.

Be the Dark Energy.
Dark matter, photons, electrons and nuetrino's...
Hunh....
Here, hold my beer, I think I can make somethin' out o' that...
You can't if the photons, dark matter particles, and neutrinos (and everything else) are so far apart that they can't ever meet one another because they'd have to move faster than light to do so.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
PS @ Da Schneib.

Try to forget your ego and personal tactics/agendas, and just stay on-science; then I will not need to defend against same. :)

PPS: Have you given any further thought to my earlier question to you re Penrose's idea and your further thoughts on any alternative scenario to the one in Penrose's scenario? Thanks in advance for your polite on topic response, if any, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
So, lte;s get this straight
You won't ever get it straight. All you're ever going to do is bluster and pretend no one can see it.

You are a sorry excuse for a human being. A nonce. You are @RealityNonce.

Try to forget your ego
It's not about me. It's about you. And your bluster. And your lack of facts. And your condescending style when lacking facts. You're a nonce. A blathering, blustering agent of bullsxxt. A nattering nabob of negative information.

Grow up.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
PS @ Da Schneib.

Try to forget your ego and personal tactics/agendas, and just stay on-science; then I will not need to defend against same. :)

PPS: Have you given any further thought to my earlier question to you re Penrose's idea and your further thoughts on any alternative scenario to the one in Penrose's scenario? Thanks in advance for your polite on topic response, if any, mate. :)

For everyone else because RC doesn't get it -
See what I meant about having the last say on crap?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
You can't if the photons, dark matter particles, and neutrinos (and everything else) are so far apart that they can't ever meet one another because they'd have to move faster than light to do so.

If there's no time, what's it matter? They'll catch up eventually, It's all going in the same "direction".
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
You can't if the photons, dark matter particles, and neutrinos (and everything else) are so far apart that they can't ever meet one another because they'd have to move faster than light to do so.

If there's no time, what's it matter? They'll catch up eventually, It's all going in the same "direction".
That seems to make sense superficially, but the universe will be expanding so fast that in fact they can't ever catch up to one another no matter how fast they move. And remember, according to SRT, they can't move faster than light.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)q]
PS @ Da Schneib.

Try to forget your ego and personal tactics/agendas, and just stay on-science; then I will not need to defend against same. :)

PPS: Have you given any further thought to my earlier question to you re Penrose's idea and your further thoughts on any alternative scenario to the one in Penrose's scenario? Thanks in advance for your polite on topic response, if any, mate. :)[/qFor everyone else because RC doesn't get it -
See what I meant about having the last say on crap?
So, Whyde, the victim of unfounded attacks having the last word in his defense against such attacks, is now "forbidden" in your version of 'fairness'? Bad, mate; real bad; even more so because you don't see it; being as how you are busy consorting with bot-voting ignoramuses and attack trolls who have no regard for either the facts or science or fairness. Shame on you, mate. The "crap" is from your/their end; as you would see if your own crap hadn't got in the way. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
It's not about me. It's about you. And your bluster. And your lack of facts. And your condescending style when lacking facts. You're a nonce. A blathering, blustering agent of bullsxxt. A nattering nabob of negative information.

Grow up.

Geez, Schneib... You're becoming what you drink (Grumpy Old Bastard)
I love it...:-)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
LOL, it's called Arrogant Bastard, it's brewed by Stone Brewery in San Diego, and "you're not worthy." Heh. I have only one in a week, and I had it last night.

On edit: http://www.arrogantbrewing.com

Apparently it's popular enough that they've split it off from Stone. Stone also makes an IPA called "Ruination," and a number of other very nontraditional brews. If you're close enough to get them fresh, it's worth your while.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)q]
PS @ Da Schneib.
Try to forget your ego and personal tactics/agendas, and just stay on-science; then I will not need to defend against same. :)
PPS: Have you given any further thought ... one in Penrose's scenario? Thanks in advance for your polite on topic response, if any, mate. :)[/qFor everyone else because RC doesn't get it -
See what I meant about having the last say on crap?
So, Whyde, the victim of unfounded attacks having the last word in his defense against such attacks, is now "forbidden" in your version of 'fairness'?

You just proved my point, thanks.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib, Whyde. :)

Note well: In QM, the vacuum is not 'nothing'. Hence quantum fluctuations will occur under ANY universe involving a QM 'vacuum'. So Da Schneib's comments to you (Whyde) and others does not take this into account when assuming that nothing will interact in expansion-assumed scenarios as he describes. Consider all these other subtle aspects before asserting a particular perspective as the only one, even in expansion scenarios (then there are all the non-expanding and recycling scenarios which do not have such a 'problem' at all). Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Hi Whyde. :)q]
PS @ Da Schneib.
Try to forget your ego and personal tactics/agendas, and just stay on-science; then I will not need to defend against same. :)
PPS: Have you given any further thought ... one in Penrose's scenario? Thanks in advance for your polite on topic response, if any, mate. :)[/qFor everyone else because RC doesn't get it -
See what I meant about having the last say on crap?
So, Whyde, the victim of unfounded attacks having the last word in his defense against such attacks, is now "forbidden" in your version of 'fairness'?
You just proved my point, thanks.
Your point being? Oh, that's right, you allow attacks but do not allow defense against same....just because the defense logically has the last word in rebuttal when successful (as already proven). Whyde, lay off whatever it is making you sound so clueless and unfair/illogical.

Anyhow, did you understand the on-science note I posted for your/others' consideration? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
LOL, it's called Arrogant Bastard,

Meh. Same thing...
Heh. I have only one in a week, and I had it last night.

I shudder to think of what might happen with 2 a night...;-)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
@RealityNonce actually says something meaningful. Quite a surprise. Unfortunately nonce doesn't quite Get It.

In QM, the vacuum is not 'nothing'. Hence quantum fluctuations will occur under ANY universe
That would be "in" ANY [sic] universe, in proper English.

Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation. The effects of such perturbations upon individual particles that cannot ever encounter another particle because they're separated from all other particles by a cosmic horizon are just as meaningless as anything else that can happen to such particles.

Meaningless squared.

I don't think you have the theoretical chops, never mind the imagination, to engage in this discussion, though I am more impressed with this post than anything else you have said on this thread, nonce.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
Heh. I have only one in a week, and I had it last night.

I shudder to think of what might happen with 2 a night...;-)
So do I. I've never done that. I think it would require worship at the porcelain idol. It's a potent brew. ;)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Mimath. :)
@RC Oh come on, don't try to turn this into a competition and the 'attack' game. Points of view in discussion are important to me as I not only learn about the people I can observe different viewpoints too. At the moment I see the particular comment by DS's as a 'slip' and I give him the benefit of doubt...
Why the double standards, mate? Do I have... against me? But am not allowed to defend... the tactics used against me, which you (correctly)...?
I only highlighted what you yourself just observed is the problem with my discussions with Da Schneib. Add to that the unfounded attacks, and you should get why my right to self-defense is proper and necessary. Be fair, mate! :)

Of course you can defend yourself just don't use me or someone else as a springboard. I can read what is written here just like everyone else and make up my own mind. Don't tell me 'I told you so because so and so did it me'. That's the last I will say on this, RC.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RealityNonce actually says something meaningful...
In QM, the vacuum is not 'nothing'. Hence quantum fluctuations will occur under ANY universe
That would be "in" ANY [sic] universe, in proper English. Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation. The effects of such perturbations upon individual particles that cannot ever encounter another particle because they're separated from all other particles...
There you go again, mate; finding 'typos' while missing the science/logics.

Consider: IF Big Bang can arise from a quantum fluctuation, then how logical/valid is your denial of the importance of qm fluctuations in any universal context involving a QM vacuum? You have no info re any OTHER kind of universe (ie, without QM vacuum/fluctuations). Try to be consistent. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
for everyone else because RC doesn't get it -
See what I meant about having the last say on crap?
So, Whyde, the victim of unfounded attacks having the last word in his defense against such attacks, is now "forbidden" in your version of 'fairness'?

Not forbidden, just un-necessary.
You just proved my point, thanks.
Your point being? Oh, that's right, you allow attacks but do not allow defense against same...

There's a point where expense of energy in a defense is not effective. I'll give you a little credit for tenacity. But not much.
accept just because the defense logically has the last word in rebuttal when successful (as already proven).

Just means you waste energy to tire everyone else out.
Which doesn't mean right or wrong.
Which just means - You no longer understand the most important part - the integrity of the process...

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
I don't mind anyone defending their opinion with facts.

What I object to is them defending it with meaningless bluster devoid of facts. I think most people who post on the science site will object to that too, and I note that those who don't generally don't bring facts and whine when they are presented with them rather than responding. Whining is disgusting, despicable, pitiful, and intellectually barren. It's not "forbidden," but it makes you look stupid.

Grow up, @RealityNonce.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)

Mate, do you even hear yourself while composing your replies on that issue? That is exactly what a bot-voting/trolling 'gangmember' WOULD say, wouldn't they? And exactly the 'rationale' which WOULD be employed to 'justify' their woeful and unfair behavior. Mate, before pretending to tell a victim what is best for them, how about walking a mile in their shoes first? But oh, you can't do that, can you; because you are encouraging/condoning such bad behavior which requires victims to defend to the utmost limit so that no hint of ambiguity can be left about who is the perpetrator and who the victim. You enjoy '5' from the 'gang', and then have the hide to 'advise' the victim as to how to cow-tow to that 'gang' like you have been doing? There is a special 'sharp fenceline' reserved for those who encourage gangs and fear to speak up in defense of victims. Whyde, be sure your pants have extra padding, for you have been sitting on that fence line for too long now. Stop.:)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
Sorry, @RealityNonce, that's all the time I care to spend on your meaningless bluster devoid of facts.

Go post somewhere else, or grow up.

@Mimath and @Whyde are asking valid questions based on the data they have. You have no data and ask meaningless questions. You are disrupting a conversation that other folks on the site find meaningful, and are learning things from. As such I will begin reporting your posts from now on.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2017
In QM, the vacuum is not 'nothing'. Hence quantum fluctuations will occur under ANY universe
That would be "in" ANY [sic] universe, in proper English.

Faauugh.... Don't those OCD English teachers EVER die?
Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation.

in order to maintain that conservation dictum, That means there are MORE of them fluctuating ...



Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation.
in order to maintain that conservation dictum, That means there are MORE of them fluctuating ...
I don't understand your thinking here. Please elucidate it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)

Mate, do you even hear yourself while composing your replies on that issue?
.
Sorry RC, (Shit, does that make me a liberal?!?) but I refuse to be a foil in your "defense" game, any longer.
Good luck with that ToE.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Sorry, @RealityNonce, that's all the time I care to spend on your meaningless bluster devoid of facts.
Yu brig it upon yourself, mate! When your 'facts' are wrong and my defense is based on recorded fact easily checked by any reader for themselves (just like I tried to get you to do with that Bicep2 crap, Da Schneib, but you all REFUSED to do that), then what worth your dismissals; when you admit you don't even bother to actually read the other side's posts? That is the 'ignorance is bliss' method, not the scientific method, mate. And it has been your 'ignorance is bliss' method that has got you into trouble whenever you attack/insult without being up to date on the actual facts (as opposed to your own misunderstandings/partially informed state). Your arrogant dismissals ring hollow, mate, given your admitted 'method' and past record of failing to bring the facts. Do better. Learn from your Bicep2 etc failures. Do science discourse, not tactics. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Hi Whyde. :)

Mate, do you even hear yourself while composing your replies on that issue?
.
Sorry RC, (Shit, does that make me a liberal?!?) but I refuse to be a foil in your "defense" game, any longer.
Good luck with that ToE.
It would be better if you refused to be an enabler for the bot-voting/trolling/insulting 'gang' here, mate. That way you wouldn't be part of the problem in the first place, and you wouldn't need to be dragged into it at all by your own actions. Yes? :)

Thanks for again returning to the science/logics; and thanks in advance for NOT condoning and enabling/joining any longer the troll gang activity here at PO. My own good wishes for you and your work/family, Whydening Gyre. :)

PS: I 'got' your allusion re 'apologies'. I saw the recnt PO article re apology 'tendency' comparisons made between Liberals and Conservative. Good one. Cheers. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation.
in order to maintain that conservation dictum, That means there are MORE of them fluctuating ...
I don't understand your thinking here. Please elucidate it.

(Sorry, had to fend off RC's BS....)
If not more, than at higher energy output for those that are stil there. Have to maintain symmetry... I think you are maintaining the hyperbolic aspect without considering it's comparative partner - parabolic...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Hi Whyde. :)

Mate, do you even hear yourself while composing your replies on that issue?
.
Sorry RC, (Shit, does that make me a liberal?!?) but I refuse to be a foil in your "defense" game, any longer.
Good luck with that ToE.
It would be better if you refused to be an enabler for the bot-voting/trolling/insulting 'gang' here, mate. That way you wouldn't be part of the problem in the first place, and you wouldn't need to be dragged into it at all by your own actions. Yes? :)

You missed your calling, RC. You could have been a slimy politician or used car sales man and made some REAL money...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2017
(Sorry, had to fend off RC's BS....)
As do we all. I recommend reporting it rather than responding. Otherwise it will not stop. If multiple reports from multiple sources are posted, it will be stopped by the moderators.

If not more, than at higher energy output for those that are stil there. Have to maintain symmetry... I think you are maintaining the hyperbolic aspect without considering it's comparative partner - parabolic...
I've gone here, and it doesn't help. Unfortunately for your point, parabolic geometry doesn't differ from elliptic or circular sufficiently to make it mathematically distinct. It's only hyperbolic geometry that presents two lobes. This is the difference that has an effect.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Hi Whyde. :)
Mate, do you even hear yourself while composing your replies on that issue?
.
Sorry RC, (Shit, does that make me a liberal?!?) but I refuse to be a foil in your "defense" game, any longer.
Good luck with that ToE.
It would be better if you refused to be an enabler for the bot-voting/trolling/insulting 'gang' here, mate. That way you wouldn't be part of the problem in the first place, and you wouldn't need to be dragged into it at all by your own actions. Yes? :)

You missed your calling, RC. You could have been a slimy politician or used car sales man and made some REAL money...
Yeah, I 'settled' instead for the thankless task of being a true scientist and completing the universal theory in consistent reality-based terms.

PS: That "RC's BS" (as you put it in another post) is increasingly being confirmed CORRECT ALL ALONG by new astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews by mainstream itself! Nice. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Yeah, I 'settled' instead for the thankless task of being a true scientist and completing the universal theory in consistent reality-based terms.

PS: That "RC's BS" (as you put it in another post) is increasingly being confirmed CORRECT ALL ALONG by new astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews by mainstream itself! Nice.

Your Honor and jury- I rest my case...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
(Sorry, had to fend off RC's BS....)
As do we all. I recommend reporting it rather than responding. Otherwise it will not stop. If multiple reports from multiple sources are posted, it will be stopped by the moderators.
Mate, do you even realize how 'disconnected' is your delusion from the reality of your own unceasing attacks when being incorrect/uninformed yourself? Your insensible 'dismissals' and 'denial' without proper recognition of all the facts is WRONG?

Anyhow, have you realized yet the implications of qm vacuum/fluctuations for your own perspective based on Penrose's idea I alluded to?

Thanks in advance for your polite and on-science response without perpetuating your attacks/insults. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
(Sorry, had to fend off RC's BS....)
As do we all. I recommend reporting it rather than responding. Otherwise it will not stop. If multiple reports from multiple sources are posted, it will be stopped by the moderators.

If not more, than at higher energy output for those that are stil there. Have to maintain symmetry... I think you are maintaining the hyperbolic aspect without considering it's comparative partner - parabolic...
I've gone here, and it doesn't help. Unfortunately for your point, parabolic geometry doesn't differ from elliptic or circular sufficiently to make it mathematically distinct. It's only hyperbolic geometry that presents two lobes. This is the difference that has an effect.
It's not the separate geometries, it's the blend of the 2... (bend like the grass, grasshopper...)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Yeah, I 'settled' instead for the thankless task of being a true scientist and completing the universal theory in consistent reality-based terms.

PS: That "RC's BS" (as you put it in another post) is increasingly being confirmed CORRECT ALL ALONG by new astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews by mainstream itself! Nice.

Your Honor and jury- I rest my case...
What 'case', mate? It's a 'sieve'. :)

So, being confirmed correct by new mainstream astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews is now also 'bad' in your thinking? Try to lose that ego and read up on all the facts being presented in PO over the last few years, Whyde. Then maybe, if you understand it properly, you may be in a position to actually judge the matters. Yes? :) Good luck with that...and lay off the booze etc; else you will have more problems than just being not-up-to-date with all the facts. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
I've gone here, and it doesn't help. Unfortunately for your point, parabolic geometry doesn't differ from elliptic or circular sufficiently to make it mathematically distinct. It's only hyperbolic geometry that presents two lobes. This is the difference that has an effect.
It's not the separate geometries, it's the blend of the 2... (bend like the grass, grasshopper...)
No, this is a difference that makes a distinction. Circular, elliptical, and parabolic geometries are all single lobed. Hyperbolic is different: it is dual lobed.

This is central to @howhot's objections.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
@Nonce, be aware that I am reporting every further post you make on this thread to the moderators. I hope others are doing the same. Your immature whining is making it difficult for anyone reading this thread to move forward, and contaminating their understanding, and I evaluate this as a violation of the rules here. I hope others concur and report you as well. It would be a relief to not have to deal with your constant whining blustering blivets.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
PS: That "RC's BS" (as you put it in another post) is increasingly being confirmed CORRECT ALL ALONG by new astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews by mainstream itself! Nice.
Your Honor and jury- I rest my case...
What 'case', mate? It's a 'sieve'. :)

Sieving is how we weed out the chaff. In this case, you.
So, being confirmed correct by new mainstream astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews is now also 'bad' in your thinking? Then maybe, if you understand it properly, you may be in a position to actually judge the matters.

What happens when those discoveries are replaced (and they will be) with new data?
You're trying to surf the crest with your "observations". Which, BTW, are never predictive, simply summative.
Yes? :) Good luck with that...and lay off the booze etc; else you will have more problems than just being not-up-to-date with all the facts. :)

Rest my case, AGAIN, your Honor.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@Nonce, be aware that I am reporting every further post you make on this thread to the moderators. I hope others are doing the same. Your immature whining is making it difficult for anyone reading this thread to move forward, and contaminating their understanding, and I evaluate this as a violation of the rules here. I hope others concur and report you as well. It would be a relief to not have to deal with your constant whining blustering blivets.
That's pretty rich, isn't it, mate, even for you? So, I post on-science, polite and impartial comments/observations/suggestions, and you attack as usual based on your own misunderstandings and partially informed 'facts base' (because as you admit you either ignore or just deny and dismiss without bothering to allow the other side to put all the facts)...and then YOU want to REPORT ME? What are you drinking, mate!?

It is YOUR/others unfounded, unprovoked attacks/trolls/insults that is the problem. Stop it. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
Reported.

Do feel free to keep posting, nonce. My aim is to get you kicked off. You are a problem and I aim to be the solution.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
So, back to the science/logics discussion:

@ Da Schneib, have you considered your response to my earlier question to you re your take on Penrose's idea and any further thoughts you may have for non-expanding/recycling scenarios which avoid the problems/fate which you described? Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
Reported.

As I said, nonce, do feel free to keep posting. Do also feel free also to worry about who else might be reporting your negative information trolling tactics intended to deliberately disrupt the site.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
That's pretty rich, isn't it, mate, even for you? So, I post on-science, polite and impartial comments/observations/suggestions,

No. You post partial to YOU. Mostly defense tactic stuff.
and you attack as usual

As a justified defense?
based on your own misunderstandings and partially informed 'facts base' (because as you admit you either ignore or just deny and dismiss without bothering to allow the other side to put all the facts)...and then YOU want to REPORT ME? What are you drinking, mate!?

It is YOUR/others unfounded, unprovoked attacks/trolls/insults that is the problem. Stop it. :)

Subjective.
And FINALLY, A decision use the "ignore" button. My FIRST.
Will be GOOD for me and I don't care how it will be for RC.
I'm such a guy....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
You will find that you can still report posts you have ignored, @Whyde.

;)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Reported.

Do feel free to keep posting. My aim is to get you kicked off. You are a problem and I aim to be the solution.
When the problem starts to delude themselves that others are the problem, then truly all sensibility has 'left your universe', mate. So, not ontent with encouraging/exploiting the bot-voting gang to skew the metrics, you 'want' to get others banned because YOU keep attacking them from your own base of misunderstandings/ignorance/conceit etc? How 'scientific' is that, mate? Whom you cannot troll to death, you will then try to have banned! Do you even listen to what you are posting now....or is that beer 'dulling' that 'voice in your head' which should tell you right from wrong? Censorship by gangs/trolls is NEVER a good idea or a scientific thing to want, Da Schneib. How long will it take for the lessons from Bicep2 to sink into your consciousness and ethics, mate? Try harder, be less egotistically invested in science discourse. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
You will find that you can still report posts you have ignored, @Whyde.

;)

I see that...:-)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Reported.

More bluster, no more data than what you have posted before which is zero, nonce.

I am actually bothering to check before I report these posts. And every one is completely devoid of facts, and totally dependent upon blustering blivets of bullsxxt. There isn't anywhere to hide, and hopefully you're getting hammered from all sides. I will not stop, and I hope no one else does either.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
What 'case', mate? It's a 'sieve'. :)
Sieving is how we weed out the chaff. In this case, you.
I thought the IDEAS/FACTS were the point in science/reason, not the 'person'. You should try that instead. :)
So, being confirmed correct by new mainstream astronomical/cosmological discoveries/reviews is now also 'bad' in your thinking?

What happens when those discoveries are replaced (and they will be) with new data?
You're trying to surf the crest with your "observations". Which, BTW, are never predictive, simply summative.
Mainstream orthodoxy was built on discovery; why would you deny me the same right to confirmation by new discovery? Convenient double standards again, mate?
..and lay off the booze etc; else you will have more problems than just being not-up-to-date with all the facts. :)

Rest my case, AGAIN, your Honor.
Whyde, you opened that door, not me. You were discussing beer drinking with DS instead of science. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)

No. You post partial to YOU. Mostly defense tactic stuff.
What ARE you drinking, Whyde? If the unwarranted trolling insulting attacks in error upon me were not happening, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Why blame the victim and put all the onus on that victim for YOUR and others' behavior; and so try to limit a victim's self-defense 'rights of reply'? Do keep up with the principles of fairness, reality and logics, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Reported.

More bluster, no more data than what you have posted before which is zero, nonce.

I am actually bothering to check before I report these posts. And every one is completely devoid of facts, and totally dependent upon blustering blivets of bullsxxt. There isn't anywhere to hide, and hopefully you're getting hammered from all sides. I will not stop, and I hope no one else does either.
Why lie and deny like that? I made on-science posts and was attacked by you/others based on your own misconstruings and incapacity to understand what was posted. All these off-topic exchanges were triggered by YOUR rabid and unprovoked personal attacks in lieu of addressing what points were made re the science.

When will your lessons from Bicep2 fiasco sink in, mate? If you keep going like this and at this rate, you will have a long time in 'ignorance is bliss' land to soothe your 'need' for ego-tripping trolling attacks. Too bad; a waste of intellect. Pity.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
I know. I know. It's so easy to be distracted by crap these days. I would like to responded to a few earlier thoughts. I plan to discuss some quantum mechanics so if the terminology seems math heavy, chime in. First, I don't think time is reversible and it's a property of the dimension t, that t willi always be limited to a forward direction.

So lets have a thought experiment; Looking around your room, you have objects you recognize and can say they are located in space as X,Y,Z. Now just for a moment (pun intended) the dimension Y went crazy and could never reverse, it could never be negative. In that situation, would not the Y dimension look exactly like time (t) in our 4 space dimensions of X,Y,Z,t?

I can't think of any meaningful physics that requires time(t) to go negative in the psi(x) wave function. I would expect (t) to fall off to 0 at the edges of the psi function. At the event horizon of a blackhole, that's where to expect time dilation.
howhot3
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Man... @Reality Check, just shut the F)(( up. Ok? Trolling a physics discussion is kind of a dick move isn't it? Chill dude.
---

Ok so at the edge of a blackhole, the even horizon, the time blur should be at it's maximum. However @Da Schneib, once past the event horizon, what defines (t)? t stops, so t=t on the wave function collapse. While (t) can be fuzzy during the existence of Psi(t) I can not see anything that would allow t to be negative in the quantum cloud of psi(x).
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi howhot3. :)
Trolling a physics discussion is kind of a dick move isn't it?
Couldn't agree more, mate. That's why I started by posting on-science and politely. It was wrong for Da Schneib, Whyde et al to start the personal trolling/insulting crap instead of just politely addressing themselves to the science points instead of going ape based on their own misunderstandings/biased attacks...against which one must defend if those attacks are to be rebutted and the thread brought back to science discourse....which is where I started. :)

Anyhow, thanks for bringing it back to the science, mate. (I tried, but Da Schneib remains reluctant to respond to my science related question asked of him earlier. Perhaps after he sees your post he will return to fair and polite science replies instead of personal attacks. I for one will be pleased to see the end of those irrelevant personal exchanges forced on me).

Good luck and enjoy your science discourse, howhot3, everyone. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
Man, I got up too early
First, I don't think time is reversible and it's a property of the dimension t, that will always be limited to a forward direction.

Correct.
... a thought experiment; ... objects ... are located in space as X,Y,Z. Now just for a moment (pun intended) the dimension Y went crazy and could never reverse, it could never be negative. In that situation, would not the Y dimension look exactly like time (t) in our 4 space dimensions of X,Y,Z,t?

view t as another vector that x/y/z are orthogonal to - and in bundled in complementary rotation with...

I can't think of any meaningful physics that requires time(t) to go negative in the psi(x) wave function. I would expect (t) to fall off to 0 at the edges of the psi function. At the event horizon of a blackhole, that's where to expect time dilation.

Actually, time contraction. It slows, the faster matter moves. Centripetal + centrifugal in complement.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
... the dimension Y went crazy and could never reverse, it could never be negative. In that situation, would not the Y dimension look exactly like time (t) in our 4 space dimensions of X,Y,Z,t?

Like time each of those vector directions are already fixed in it's own "forward" direction...
derphys
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2017
Please read the paper :
https://arxiv.org...07.01955
this basic effect will appear for nuclar clocks inside atomic nuclear in subatomic bound states ?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
The Heisenberg Principle indicates that a single measurement does not necessarily produce an accurate result. However, two simultaneous measurements CAN produce an accurate results.

Exactly. Measure twice, cut once (an old carpenter saying)
I say, sharpen your pencil first and then measure it again, after you've cut it (just to make sure)...
So many flaws in this paper.

I wouldn't call them flaws, I'd call them tiny missed steps in translating from pure math to words.

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I hope you are feeling better today. I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

We had a little meeting and since I am nicer than most of the peoples here, they chose me to come out and give you a warning about acting out on your mental conditions here like you did last night.

Cher, you got to knock that bat-doo-doo crazy stuff off. You are disrespecting all the humans and scientists that come here to put the finishing touches on their Nobel Prize Projects.

No more of your defending your dishonor and your objectionable observing, okayeei?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Ira. :)

All the non-botvoting/trolling members who are interested in the science not your troll crap, had a meeting and came to a resolution that the thread should be left to on-topic, on-science posters. You just trolled the thread (again), by which action you effectively categorized yourself as persona-non-grata according to the thrust of the aforementioned resolution, Ira. Please take note of the members' expressed desire that the thread not be trolled. Thanks in advance for your future compliance, Ira. If you have any on-science contributions to make in future to the scientific topic and related science issues discussion, please feel free to contribute away. But please desist from posting troll crap such as your latest above. Good luck and good thinking to you, Ira...and please don't hesitate to post polite, relevant, on-science comments/ideas instead of what you have been posting so far. Thanks. :)

We now return this thread to members wishing to discuss science. :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2017
Please take note of the members' expressed desire that the thread not be trolled.


Okayeei, I did that and this is what they told me,,,

Recent Activity for RealityCheck
Average rank: 1.7

Recent Activity for Uncle Ira
Average rank: 4.1
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
Hi Ira. :)
Please take note of the members' expressed desire that the thread not be trolled.
Okayeei, I did that and this is what they told me,,,

Recent Activity for RealityCheck
Average rank: 1.7

Recent Activity for Uncle Ira
Average rank: 4.1
The same members who resolved the thread should not be trolled, have asked me to remind you (and everyone) that the reason why many of the net's science sites have removed the ratings/feedback pages/function due to their metrics therein being 'gamed' and skewed by bot-voting trolling ignoramuses (like you have made it your life's ambition to be).

As such, your posted 'rank' comparison is flawed and misleading, not least because the rank 'scores' are the direct result of you/your bot-voting trolling 'buddies'. Hardly a scientifically valid metric, hey? It's like America being 'ranked' by ISIS....a most horribly compromised 'vote'....from a most horrible 'gang'. Please use objective metrics, not gang-crap, in future. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
First, I don't think time is reversible and it's a property of the dimension t, that t willi always be limited to a forward direction.
OK. I'll point out that Feynman said that antiparticles are particles reversed in time, and that this also requires they be reversed in charge conjugation and parity.

However, he never said particles *could be* reversed to make them into antiparticles; what he said is, they *are* reversed in CPT from particles.

The existence of reversed time is implicit in the hyperbolic geometrical relation of the time dimension to the space dimensions. This is part of SRT. A hyperbola has two lobes; this is what makes time different from space dimensions. We also know from SRT that time and space change transform into one another by a fixed ratio based on velocity when we transform from one inertial reference frame to another.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
[contd]
So we know as a result that time is a dimension just like the three space dimensions; otherwise, it couldn't be transformed in this manner. And we understand also why it appears different.

So I disagree with your opinion in this matter on valid physical grounds, I think.

So lets have a thought experiment; Looking around your room, you have objects you recognize and can say they are located in space as X,Y,Z. Now just for a moment (pun intended) the dimension Y went crazy and could never reverse, it could never be negative. In that situation, would not the Y dimension look exactly like time (t) in our 4 space dimensions of X,Y,Z,t?
To become crazy in that manner, Y would have to become hyperbolically related to X and Z; and if it did, then there would be a second time dimension. It's mathematically tractable, but would be intuitionally confusing to say the least.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2017
[contd]
I don't know that the thought experiment has enlightened matters much.

I can't think of any meaningful physics that requires time(t) to go negative in the psi(x) wave function. I would expect (t) to fall off to 0 at the edges of the psi function.
I don't think time can "go negative." I think SRT shows us that there are two directions in t. The positive one (as we define it) is the direction particles appear to us to move in; the negative one is the direction antiparticles appear to us to move in.

At the event horizon of a blackhole, that's where to expect time dilation.
I'm not sure what time dilation has to do with this, other than demonstrating that time and spatial dimensions are the "same type of thing."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2017
Ok so at the edge of a blackhole, the even horizon, the time blur should be at it's maximum. However @Da Schneib, once past the event horizon, what defines (t)? t stops, so t=t on the wave function collapse. While (t) can be fuzzy during the existence of Psi(t) I can not see anything that would allow t to be negative in the quantum cloud of psi(x).
I make no speculation about what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. We know that it depends on quantum gravity, and we have no viable theory of quantum gravity. I don't think it's even worth talking about particularly when we're drilling down as far as this into the nature of physics. I don't think it has much to say about physics out here in the rest of the universe.

I'm not quite sure how to say what we've found out here. What's your opinion?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
The Heisenberg Principle indicates that a single measurement does not necessarily produce an accurate result. However, two simultaneous measurements CAN produce an accurate results.

Exactly. Measure twice, cut once (an old carpenter saying)
I say, sharpen your pencil first and then measure it again, after you've cut it (just to make sure)...
I disagree here. While there are pairs of measurements that can produce accurate simultaneous results, there are pairs that cannot. That's what Heisenberg uncertainty is: the amount of uncertainty in one of such a pair that cannot, given the accuracy of the measurement of the other.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2017
@Da Schneib I ask a genuine question here. howhot3 mentioned the wave function and as you might imagine I have tried to use the Schrodinger in my own work. (so far no good as I end up with infinities, Ha!.) But that is not my question. If I remember correctly you do or have had experience in Laser technology so I'd imagine you have had to deal with a wave function of some kind. When phi is squared (probability density) does this imply that there is a quadratic form? If it does are there likely to be negative values in the solution albeit possibly ignored because of difficult interpretation? I am not trying to 'pick your brains' as it were, I am simply just curious. Thanks in advance.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
@Mimath, I just know a fair amount about lasers, I don't work with them. And I know more about the older gas lasers than newer types.

With regard to the wavefunction in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, its output at a particular time (and therefore at a particular place) is an amplitude, which is exactly what you expect from a wavefunction. I am guessing that this is what you mean by "phi." It's more traditionally represented by psi in the traditional formulation of the Schroedinger equation, and also in Dirac notation.

These amplitudes at various times are squared to obtain the probability of finding the particle in a particular state; the reason they must be squared is to obtain the absolute value of the probability, since amplitude can be both positive and negative. I don't think this implies a quadratic form. In fact, it's done in order to obtain a probability that is always positive, and therefore meaningful.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
[contd]
Merely mathematically seeing to it that an impossible result, a negative probability, is not obtained, is not sufficient justification; but since both the positive and negative amplitudes represent maxima, there is also a physical justification, and this is why the amplitude is squared to obtain the probability distribution.

On a side note, this has different results when comparing the probability distributions of bosons and fermions; the probability distributions of the wavefunctions of the spins of these classes of particles result in opposite behavior, and as a result we see bosons as energy, and as gregarious, and fermions as mass, and exclusionary. This is because the spins add for bosons, since their amplitudes are always positive, but the spins subtract for fermions because they can be both positive and negative and therefore can cancel creating states with probability zero.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2017
[contd]
Obviously a spin state that has probability zero is something that never happens, so there is a quantum mechanical principle called the Pauli Exclusion Principle that causes the probability for two fermions in the same spin state and same energy state to be zero, preventing them from occupying the same position at the same time.

Conversely, there is a rule for bosons that means that it is *more probable* that two bosons will occupy such a state than that they will not, and this causes coherence. And this of course links back to lasers, which produce coherent light. The probabilities are enhanced as the photons move together, causing them to emerge from the lasing cavity resonator with identical phase (which implies identical frequency).

Fermions make rocks; bosons make laser beams.

Hope that helps your thinking.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2017
@Da Schneib Thank you very much. I was aware of some that you explained (Pauli E.P. etc) but you enlightened me quite a bit otherwise. Yes, I did mean psi, it was my mistake because my 'chat' with W.G and had Fibonacci etc on my mind, ha! One thing that is certainly clear to me is that I need to learn much more on spin states. I have several 'modern physics' books, all less that 5 years old, that contain the necessary info...studying them is quite another thing 'cos I ain't young anymore. While I'm not so sure about the article here I am certain of one thing...trying to work on my projects Time sure does whiz by at a phenomenal rate, Ha. Once again, thanks
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2017
Mimath@
howhot3 mentioned the wave function and as you might imagine I have tried to use the Schrodinger in my own work. (so far no good as I end up with infinities, Ha!.) But that is not my question. If I remember correctly you do or have had experience in Laser technology so I'd imagine you have had to deal with a wave function of some kind. When phi is squared (probability density) does this imply that there is a quadratic form? If it does are there likely to be negative values in the solution albeit possibly ignored because of difficult interpretation?

phi squared works to create loops in 2d, which generate hyperbolas. If ya want 3d representation - cube it...
Hyperbola's are only open ended in 2d. Apply the 3rd vector and voila - reality.
Same with any geometric calc, I would assume....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2017
phi squared works to create loops in 2d, which generate hyperbolas. If ya want 3d representation - cube it...
Hyperbola's are only open ended in 2d. Apply the 3rd vector and voila - reality.
Same with any geometric calc, I would assume....
Actually, cubing it CREATES the next vector direction...
And that, is a simplified explanation of what DS is saying, I think...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2017
@Whydening Gyre yes I have geometrical representations in my 'library' and we needn't stop at 3D. But that's a different game and can converse on an appropriate thread should one arise. have a nice day.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2017
@Whydening Gyre yes I have geometrical representations in my 'library' and we needn't stop at 3D. But that's a different game and can converse on an appropriate thread should one arise. have a nice day.

Not sure of that likelihood...:-)
However, probabilities are subject to the same rules as everything else, so....:-)
I know I am not explaining nearly clear enough for many, but it's in my "layman" head. I'm glad you see it, too.
(All it takes is one and one... :-)
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 15, 2017
@Da Schneib, I found "atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty space" Reference https://www.physi....74297/. That seems like a hellofalot of spacetime to swallow in one sip of matter. In which case can I assume there is a whole lot of compressed spacetime in black holes? So can we say black hole accretion counteracts the expansion of spacetime so that the extent of the disappearing visible U is eventually going to be limited as more spacetime is collected in the black holes? Sounds like a good set-up for another inflation scenario if all this compressed spacetime eventually breaks loose. Another consideration is Hawking radiation becomes more and more limited as the size of black holes increase.
rrwillsj
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2017
Well, Hell! I was impressed by this thread of commentary. Then several of you got into a pissing squabble.

Sorry boys but mine is bigger than yours, get over it. As per my original comment, I pointed out the difficulty of our choices of words and interpreting how those are used to communicate ideas.

This is why Philosophy can still be meaningful even after the split away from Science.

In my opinion, you all need to step back, take the time to resolve your own definition of collected evidence. Admit that hypothetical speculations, as useful as those are for the Scientific Method, are NOT of an equal value to factual evidence. UNTIL AFTER you have accomplished the experiments with results that confirm (or not) your original ideas.

Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 15, 2017
Admit that hypothetical speculations, as useful as those are for the Scientific Method, are NOT of an equal value to factual evidence. UNTIL AFTER you have accomplished the experiments with results that confirm (or not) your original ideas.
So have any experiments you'd like to do with the arrow of time? Maybe the Big Bang?
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
Oh my, someone even brought up Feynman! @Da Schneib you make some great arguments. You said earlier;
The existence of reversed time is implicit in the hyperbolic geometrical relation of the time dimension to the space dimensions. This is part of SRT.
SRT (Special Relativity Theory) fused in "psi" is where the article takes us, and in SRT you have Minkowsky diagram that show the arrow of time separating 4-space as "Elsewhere" and "Elsewhen". The Elsewhen is unreachable unless you can exceed the 'c' (the speed of light). The argument I wanted to make is that "psi" will not allow a particle to venture into the Elsewhen. Certainly "psi(x,y,z,t)" can be blurry in time on the "Elsewhere" from the present t=0. As |psi|^2 only makes t=present possible t<0 is meaningless and un-measurable. Thus quantum time blurriness does not allow a quantum time blurriness that is negative from the present.
howhot3
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
@realitycheck, thanks for the nice words and please do study physics. We all can use fresh ideas. That said I just don't like climate change deniers. If climate change frosts your bones, I just don't see how you can be enlightened by what physics has to say about this fragile life we have on this small planet. How can we (the smartest entities on the planet) allow pollution to destroy our only home in the universe so very quickly? How can anyone be so dim and not see how we are modifying the planet so much as to be un-inhabitable in just a few 100 years.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2017
@howhot, thanks, I hope to make good arguments! I'll return the compliment, so do you.

I think we are arguing at cross purposes. I do not claim that a particle can be somehow "time reversed." As you say, this is impossible and would require FTL. Another way of saying essentially the same thing is to say that to reverse a particle's trajectory in time would require it to pass a region in hyperbolic geometry that contains both an imaginary angle, and an undefined angle. I very much encourage you to explore rapidity, since it is key to understanding how hyperbolic geometry works in SRT.

What I *do* argue is that the combination of the uncertainty relation between time and energy, and the effects of mass/energy on time through gravity, represent an unexplored area of quantum mechanics that may well yield key insights into quantum gravity.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
[contd]
What we're looking at here is eerily similar to the type of self-interaction in the electric force that Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman resolved with renormalization. The difference is that it's not a self-interaction, it's a circular interaction: the more closely you measure the time, the less certain you are about the energy; the less certain you are about the energy, the more potential impact it has on the time.

This difference, I believe, is why we keep getting absurdities like infinite probabilities when we try to construct a naive quantum gravity theory, or more precisely why they cannot be naively renormalized away. When this Gordian Knot is untangled, I believe it will either be strong theoretical confirmation of whatever quantum gravity theory we come up with, or an actual lead to such a theory.

Those are my claims. Let's stick to the subject, unless of course you agree.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
Pssst, @howhot, RealityBlert isn't a climate denier; it makes really bad arguments sometimes for climate change, but it doesn't deny it. One of its few positive attributes.

@rrwillisj, blaming those being trolled for the actions of the troll is silly, and looks a lot like trolling to me. You are on the edge of being put on ignore. I suggest you take a little closer look, rather than taking the Faux "News" position that all arguments are equal. If you don't know enough physics to tell the difference perhaps you're not competent to judge. You got a 3.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
Given all of that SRT says, where this all really goes haywire is at the event horizon of a black hole. At that point space/time is so sharply curved, that an "Elsewhen" exists just beyond the event horizon. If you create an iso-surface over the black hole where 'c' is overcome by the acceleration of gravity, which would define the boarder of "Elsewhen" vs "Elsewhere" it brings up the question of how thick is that iso-surface, and certainly quantum mechanics will define it in terms of "psi".

Let say a blackhole is quantum singularity, then the iso-surface of "elsewhere" vs "elsewhen" should be 0 thickness. 'psi' should collapse at the horizon. Otherwise, if a blackhole vibrates the iso-surface thickness should be describable by it's own "psi" in which case there maybe time reversal as a portion of the wavefunction would reach into the "Elsewhen".

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2017
@howhot, I still won't talk about what's inside the EH of a BH. We simply don't know enough to make any such discussion more than rank speculation.

It might make sense to talk about what happens in the ergosphere of a KN BH. But inside the EH, it's over and all pink unicorns AFAIC.
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2017
I agree @Da Scheib, it time to bring this to a close for now. These are all excellent questions to raise in the "future". As a physics guy, you have to wonder if at the EH the "psi" extends past the EH? And if it can doesn't that mean that particle from the "Elsewhen" can come through? I think Hawking's had some things to say on it but I don't recall that he addressed time blurriness at the EH. Hum.. It might make for a good paper. :- )
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2017
Also learned readers, do go to the khanacademy.org and watch the video

https://www.khana...diagrams

It should give you an idea of why this is such an issue when you talk of time in the quantum worlds.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2017
Hi howhot3. :)
@realitycheck, thanks for the nice words and please do study physics. We all can use fresh ideas. That said I just don't like climate change deniers.
As Da Schneib (and even Uncle Ira) have admitted, I've been very effective AGAINST climate change denier propaganda/tactics (by pointing out POLITELY reality-trends/physics arguments which explain those reality-trends more than all the 'iffy' modeling from either 'sides').

That's what I DO, without fear or favor, objectively, based on physics not politics/personal agendas...hence my username: RealityCheck. :)

PS: You will note Da Schneib is still personal/pissed; so can't bring himself to give credit where its due....even in things we agree! Just goes to show the 'damage' caused by long time personal emotional/egotistical 'investment' in matters which should be treated/discussed strictly objectively/impartially. I have tried to get all to BE objective/impartial, but its a slow thankless job!

Cheers. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
@DS
Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation.
Could it be? The HUP is the banker. He lends out energy depending on how long you need it. The longer you need it the less energy he can loan you without violating conservation of energy. In the very early U when times were very short this could lend you enough to kick start the big bang and balance out positive and negative energies without violating conservation of energy. Just a suggestion.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
@DS
Dark energy doesn't "compensate for" any kind of matter. It is the Λ in the Einstein Field Equations, and the Λ in ΛCDM.
Yep.
It is a property of spacetime, and it is a part of gravity, on the left side of the EFE.
It is the energy on which spacetime feeds in its exponential growth. It seems to be pervasive. That is wherever spacetime grows there's always more of it to feed on. Like a giveaway gas station on every corner you could ever come to. Gravity is the result of this growth. Or so it seems.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
@RC
Your above far-future comments/thrust is merely a re-hash of Sir Roger Penrose's recent idea (regarding the meaningless of 'time concept' in an 'exhausted universe' where all that is left (after BH evaporation via Hawking etc radiation) is real and virtual (QM energy-space fluctuations-like) PHOTONS of various wavelengths.
In light of quantum entanglement this is a rather parochial POV. Cause and effect travel instantaneously in this U. Every action is balanced by a reaction - somewhere - because nothing you can do will change the center of mass of the U or objects in free fall. Eventually the photons will get carried along by the expanding spacetime in which case they will be seen as moving right along with the other objects carried by growth in spacetime. The lights won't go out but get carried along with everything else. Or some such scenario.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 16, 2017
@DS
@howhot, I still won't talk about what's inside the EH of a BH. We simply don't know enough to make any such discussion more than rank speculation.
For example I recall something about quantum entanglement limiting what goes into the BHs. Better to light one candle than curse the darkness, I would say.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
@DS
Quantum fluctuations only produce particles that can exist for the brief time their energy dictates under Heisenberg uncertainty, and the more energy they have the less that time is. Otherwise they'd violate energy conservation.
Could it be? The HUP is the banker. He lends out energy depending on how long you need it. The longer you need it the less energy he can loan you without violating conservation of energy. In the very early U when times were very short this could lend you enough to kick start the big bang and balance out positive and negative energies without violating conservation of energy. Just a suggestion.

Seeker,
Good analogy. However, that's's only the way it LOOKS from our relative viewpoint in time and space.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
. Every action is balanced by a reaction - somewhere - because nothing you can do will change the center of mass of the U or objects in free fall. Eventually the photons will get carried along by the expanding spacetime in which case they will be seen as moving right along with the other objects carried by growth in spacetime. The lights won't go out but get carried along with everything else. Or some such scenario.

Rather than expansion, why not try envisioning it as spin?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
@WG
Try spinning when you're in free fall. Good luck. Now however if you want to slice yourself in two, you could spin one part in the opposite direction from the other part. Or maybe you'd rather just twist yourself around. This would work until you twisted yourself enough to break yourself into separate parts.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
I think Hawking's had some things to say on it but I don't recall that he addressed time blurriness at the EH

Well, the idea of Hawking radiation is based on the 'energy blurriness'. And since energy and time are conjugate variables (a fact I would bet good money that Hawking is well aware of) there's an implicit notion of time burriness involved. But it doesn't play into the fact of Hawking rediation is produced per se.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
@DS
I don't think time can "go negative." I think SRT shows us that there are two directions in t. The positive one (as we define it) is the direction particles appear to us to move in; the negative one is the direction antiparticles appear to us to move in.
I think most people would say no, antiparticles are moving in forward time. Just watch them. So we have to assign an opposite charge, parity, spin direction, or whatever. Probably would be smarter to bite the bullet and say ok, we have the same particle but it's moving in reverse time. Odd thing is particles moving in opposite time both have to live in the same space. Welcome to the neighborhood.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
@WG
Try spinning when you're in free fall. Good luck.

I was a gymnast in HS. Always had a little gravitational assist...
Now however if you want to slice yourself in two, you could spin one part in the opposite direction from the other part. Or maybe you'd rather just twist yourself around.

Or, if I was spinning fast enough, I could impart my spin in the opposite direction to the space around me. Of course the only way to do this would be to add a half spin in an orthogonal vector...
This would work until you twisted yourself enough to break yourself into separate parts.

That's the price ya pay for spinning too fast...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
I think Hawking's had some things to say on it but I don't recall that he addressed time blurriness at the EH

Well, the idea of Hawking radiation is based on the 'energy blurriness'. And since energy and time are conjugate variables (a fact I would bet good money that Hawking is well aware of) there's an implicit notion of time burriness involved. But it doesn't play into the fact of Hawking radiation is produced per se.

The rate, therefore the AMOUNT of radiation will increase - over time... (inasmuch as spin of the BH varies with mass gained or lost)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
@DS
I don't think time can "go negative." I think SRT shows us that there are two directions in t. The positive one (as we define it) is the direction particles appear to us to move in; the negative one is the direction antiparticles appear to us to move in.
I think most people would say no, antiparticles are moving in forward time. Just watch them. So we have to assign an opposite charge, parity, spin direction, or whatever. Probably would be smarter to bite the bullet and say ok, we have the same particle but it's moving in reverse time. Odd thing is particles moving in opposite time both have to live in the same space. Welcome to the neighborhood.

Vector dualities create waves (or trouble...) :-)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017

The rate, therefore the AMOUNT of radiation will increase - over time

That's not a result of time blurriness. That's a result of a steeper gradient at the event horizon the smaller the BH gets. With a steeper gradient the probability for pair production increases.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
I still won't talk about what's inside the EH of a BH. We simply don't know enough to make any such discussion more than rank speculation.

While we can't say what's deep inside, I think we can speculate on what happens just after passing the event horizon. The way I understand it nothing that relies on exchange particles (W/Z bosons, photons, gluons) could be stable because as soon as one part (e.g. a quark in a proton) is 'further in' to the black hole than another quark in the same proton there's no way for the first one to exchange any force carrier with the second one, as that would require speeds in excess of the speed of light for the force carrier.

Generally: Anything further out from the center cannot 'feel' any force* from anything further in as soon as the event horizon is crossed

*besides gravity
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
@aap, after passing the event horizon the x dimension is 100% transformed into the t dimension and vice versa. The t dimension's relation to the space dimensions is not circular; it's hyperbolic. Now you have a hyperbolic x dimension, and a circular t dimension; you can theoretically go any direction you like in time. What's that mean? Nobody knows. In Black Holes, Kip Thorne says "the singularity is your future." What's *that* mean? Again, nobody knows.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
@antialias_physorg,Da Schneib I think it is best to err on the side of DS but even here, as DS says we don't know, space,time, this dimension, that dimension may change into something completely different and mind boggling (comparatively speaking). One thing that I think is a reasonable assumption is that whatever goes into a BH stays there and increases the BH's mass. If there were such things as WH's where material is expelled then wouldn't that, at least in apart, stop the increase in mass?. The other way round is that IF the singularity does connect with another part of the universe then would there be an accretion disk there too? If that were so is it possible that some of the the BH's belong to the same singularity?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
@aap, after passing the event horizon the x dimension is 100% transformed into the t dimension and vice versa. The t dimension's relation to the space dimensions is not circular; it's hyperbolic. Now you have a hyperbolic x dimension, and a circular t dimension; you can theoretically go any direction you like in time. What's that mean?...

It means that, at the very last instant, it becomes hyperbolic in two (orthogonically) different directions, eventually creating spherical characteristic... which is, layman terms, a 3rd vector direction.
Hyperbola's are only a reality if you except that 0 (zero) is a real thing, not just a reference point to balance everything else against... I't only a math concept, not a reality.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ponder it...:-)
Damn, I wish I was better at math to explain it in more exact detail....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2017
Kip Thorne says "the singularity is your future." What's *that* mean?

I always thought that was straigh forward: Every geodesic within the event horizon ends at the singularity (or whatever is at the center...if the notion of 'center' even applies*). So no matter what your motion inside the black hole - you cannot but hit the center eventually. It literally is in your future, because wherever you look and wherever you go you'll end up there.

* One could also have an ever expanding region of space - or at the very leats an expansion that is so fast that nothing moving at c can ever reach a center.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
WH's where material is expelled

Well, there's a couple of issues with white holes. For one, they should be blindingly obvious. Their radiation outputs should be enormous and I'm not aware of any observations of a phenomenon that would fit the bill.

If they continually put out mass then that would create shock fronts and all kinds of slowing effects (yes, maybe even accretion disks) which would cause them to eventually collapse back into a black hole (or at the very least create a lot of black holes from the outflying matter).

So, while a fancyful idea, I don't think white holes are something we need to worry about (and make no mistake, if they did exist we really would need to worry about them. Something like that in our galactic neighborhood would be quite the buzz-kill).
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
@antialias_physorg thank you. Yes I am aware of current thoughts concerning WH's and in addition, unlike BH's, there is no evidence of them. Having said that, WH are considered in Kruskal coordinates but that doesn't make them any more than a interesting offshoot to the equations.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
Kip Thorne says "the singularity is your future." What's *that* mean?

I always thought that was straigh forward: Every geodesic within the event horizon ends at the singularity (or whatever is at the center...if the notion of 'center' even applies*). So no matter what your motion inside the black hole - you cannot but hit the center eventually. It literally is in your future, because wherever you look and wherever you go you'll end up there.

* One could also have an ever expanding region of space - or at the very least an expansion that is so fast that nothing moving at c can ever reach a center.

Thank goodness we have C to put the brakes on and make sure we don't get there before we left...:-)
howhot3
not rated yet Mar 17, 2017
@realitycheck. Sorry. I apologize, I did have you confused.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
... Cause and effect travel instantaneously in this U.

Almost...
Every action is balanced by a reaction - somewhere - because nothing you can do will change the center of mass of the U or objects in free fall.

Astute observation. But, changing the gravity of one thing one place, will offset the gravity of another thing, elsewhere, relative to the set that they BOTH belong to - The Universe...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
Kip Thorne says "the singularity is your future." What's *that* mean?

I always thought that was straigh forward: Every geodesic within the event horizon ends at the singularity (or whatever is at the center...if the notion of 'center' even applies*). So no matter what your motion inside the black hole - you cannot but hit the center eventually. It literally is in your future, because wherever you look and wherever you go you'll end up there.
No, he was quite careful to differentiate what he was saying from it being *in* your future. It *is* your future.

Supposing of course (as he did) that even has meaning inside an event horizon.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
Kip Thorne says "the singularity is your future." What's *that* mean?

I always thought.... So no matter what your...you'll end up there.
* One could...or at the very least an expansion that is so fast that nothing moving at c can ever reach a center.
Thank goodness we have C to put the brakes on and make sure we don't get there before we left...:-)

Well, lets not be to hasty about C eh? As long as we are talking information transfer or physical objects the fine no problem. However, is the Arrow of Time a physical object? Guess that might depend on the definition. If an argument says the a.o.t. is not physical then it may not be restricted to C and then we need to decide if the a.o.t. carries info. Then there is the Casimir effect, shadows, phase velocity, coordinate 'trick' and one or two other arguments for FLT. Now my point is, if info is destroyed by the BHS then we are no longer restricted. Does this mean inside the EH, FLT is likely?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
@antialias_physorg thank you. Yes I am aware of current thoughts concerning WH's and in addition, unlike BH's, there is no evidence of them. Having said that, WH are considered in Kruskal coordinates but that doesn't make them any more than a interesting offshoot to the equations.

Every knows that SRT breaks down at the event horizon (EH), but what is totally unclear is whether the EH causes the complete collapse of the wave function(s) of impending particles on the EH? So should one think that past the EH all things follow strictly Newtonian physics? And do they do so without time (t)? From relativity, the BH point of view is t=0 or non-existent.

A white-hole implies a worm-hole such that one side of spacetime can be gravitationally pinched into the the other side of spacetime. If the "psi" can exist across that barrier of the BH into the White-hole then I might concede in time reversal, but where? You also have to wonder about this if time wasn't reversible.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
I just want to mention there is a whole book called "The Hyperbolic Theory of Special Relativity" at https://arxiv.org...0462.pdf

@Da Schnieb mentioned it and it's it's good and deep material to read on SRT. I think it just reinforces the fact that the time component in any spacetime description is irreversible, even at the level of the 'psi' function description.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
@Mimath says;
However, is the Arrow of Time a physical object? Guess that might depend on the definition. If an argument says the a.o.t. is not physical then it may not be restricted to C and then we need to decide if the a.o.t. carries info.

You've made some interesting posts and I wanted to follow up. Is the a.o.t a physical object? Deeply philosophical ... but for science, does X in a coordinate system x,y,z,t represent a physical "object"? It depends on what you are looking at (ie what you are measuring). Dimension t is just the same x,y,z thing.
So thought experiment; looking around your room; you can see stuff that you can move back and forth, up-down, left-right and through time. Now imagine what your up-down direction could only go down (no up, no reverse). ... Now look at what time does. In a 4D spacetime, that is what time does (it has no-up, no reverse). I don't think that really effects anything in physics except when it comes to EHs, BHs, WHs etc.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
Well, lets not be to hasty about C eh? As long as we are talking information transfer or physical objects the fine no problem. However, is the Arrow of Time a physical object?

Since neither time nor space can exist without the other - yes. But time is an emergent property of dimensionality of space.
If an argument says the a.o.t. is not physical then it may not be restricted to C and then we need to decide if the a.o.t. carries info.
Not without space it can't.
Now my point is, if info is destroyed by the BHS then we are no longer restricted.

Not destroyed. Massively "stirred"...
Does this mean inside the EH, FLT is likely?
Not likely. Just possible, dependent on the "spin speed" of the center of the BH, itself, I would suppose...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
@howhot3 '...Deeply philosophical ..' I quite agree, and without directly saying so that was my intended conclusion. I had noted and so did DS that we at present don't KNOW what goes inside a BH and so is purely speculative, very interesting but at the moment beyond us. but if we to the step before a BH, a Neutron Star, the upper bound limit of the speed of sound, roughly about 0.57735c is thought not to hold and the reason is that it puts a limit on NS mass that does not agree with observations. The sos is thought to be much higher in the core of large NS and some have suggested approaching the causality limit. (several papers on the net including physorg.)This then poses the question about the greater density of BH's. Obviously not as simple as this and probably QM, and not just gravity,has a role to play.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
@Whydening Gyre 'Since neither time nor space can exist without the other - yes. But time is an emergent property of dimensionality of space.'
As you will guess from my previous posts, I wouldn't agree with this but may I ask the question which your comment surely begs, Ha! Dimensionality. How do visualize that, artistically and how would you extend that to a tesseract? (as we are doing a lot of speculation here, ha!)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
@Whydening Gyre 'Since neither time nor space can exist without the other - yes. But time is an emergent property of dimensionality of space.'
As you will guess from my previous posts, I wouldn't agree with this but may I ask the question which your comment surely begs, Ha! Dimensionality. How do visualize that, artistically and how would you extend that to a tesseract? (as we are doing a lot of speculation here, ha!)

Turn the inner cube 1/4 turn (90 degrees) both vertical and horizontal... keep all lines connected. Keep doing that and watch what happens...:-)
And THAT is the simple version...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
@Whydening Gyre 'Since neither time nor space can exist without the other - yes. But time is an emergent property of dimensionality of space.'
As you will guess from my previous posts, I wouldn't agree with this but may I ask the question which your comment surely begs, Ha! Dimensionality. How do visualize that, artistically and how would you extend that to a tesseract? (as we are doing a lot of speculation here, ha!)

Turn the inner cube 1/4 turn (90 degrees) both vertical and horizontal... keep all lines connected. Keep doing that and watch what happens...:-)
And THAT is the simple version...:-)

or better yet, keep the inside one fixed and do that process on the outside one...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
No, he was quite careful to differentiate what he was saying from it being *in* your future. It *is* your future.

Well, since you end up being (part of) the singularity after you hit it (which, as noted, is a certainty) - I see no great mystery in his statement. It is your future (and you are its future for that matter)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
@Whydening Gyre No, no, you can't do that because you are using 3D to represent a 4D cube, Ha, that's 'cheating'. There are various 3D representations but there is one that is, perhaps??, more 'legitimate'. Just as unfolding of an ordinary cube gives 2D squares so a tesseract would give 8 3D cubes when unfolded, it has more degrees of freedom. But so as to remain on topic, the 3D cube can be viewed somewhat loosely, as a flat space-time and a BH forming from that would be the usual tubular, thus circular, representation. The tesseract BH might start from a similar flatness but the structure thereafter would be spherical. Where would you time component be? Could have gone the other way but that leads to compactification and SST
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2017
@Whydening Gyre No, no, you can't do that because you are using 3D to represent a 4D cube, Ha, that's 'cheating'.

No I am repping relative ACTION of the cube within another cube. You are thinking too linearly (2d).
Just as unfolding of an ordinary cube gives 2D squares

Nope. 4 pyramidal (if you want to maintain equal symmetry to the center).
so a tesseract would give 8 3D cubes

Nope. 4 marginally rhomboidal and the the cube from the center. (again, maintaining symmetry)
It's about the interactions between the two. The flatness you describe comes UNfolding them unidirectionally..
Could have gone the other way but that leads to compactification and SST

Isn't that what a BH IS? Compacted matter?
An event horizon is a PRODUCT of what's inside AND outside...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2017
@Whydening Gyre 'Since neither time nor space can exist without the other - yes. But time is an emergent property of dimensionality of space.'
As you will guess from my previous posts, I wouldn't agree with this but may I ask the question which your comment surely begs, Ha! Dimensionality. How do visualize that, artistically and how would you extend that to a tesseract? (as we are doing a lot of speculation here, ha!)

Turn the inner cube 1/4 turn (90 degrees) both vertical and horizontal... keep all lines connected. Keep doing that and watch what happens...:-)
And THAT is the simple version...:-)

or better yet, keep the inside one fixed and do that process on the outside one...

or better yet, have them BOTH doing the process - in opposite directions(alternatively)!
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, Okay, simple one first. 'compactification' is the term used in SST for other extra dimensions but on the quantum level and doesn't refer to macro matter. Basically, a tesseract is linear or planar anyway. Also you are clearly thinking 3D by saying a cube within a cube. It isn't. A tesseract contains 8 cubes not one. Pyramidal structures can be obtained using any of the 16 corners of the of the tesseract. Hyperpyramids = simplexes. The cube, rhombic (dodecahedron) point you mention is referred to as a decomposition (of a tesseract) not an unfolding. Imo unfolding lends itself more easily to flat space, BH & time representation.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, Okay, simple one first. 'compactification' is the term used in SST for other extra dimensions but on the quantum level.

Ok. You clearly have a better handle on the specific terms used...:-)
Did you know "quantum-ness" is subject to relativity, too?
(I know, I know, in physics it's specific to the smallest component of something... But, I'm not a schooled physicist, so I'm not bound by that covenant...;-)
A tesseract contains 8 cubes not one.

Actually 9, if you wanna keep the one in the middle... :-)
The cube, rhombic (dodecahedron) point you mention is referred to as a decomposition (of a tesseract) not an unfolding.

MORE definition constraints...
sheesh...
Imo unfolding lends itself more easily to flat space, BH & time representation.

Yeah, but... if you see and think in 3D, why limit yourself?
Wanna make it REAL fun?
CUBE the cube...:-)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, Ha! okay,point taken about fun. Actually I'm going to absent for some weeks now due to yearly paperwork and projects (immigration as I don't live in my native country). So apart from the odd post to keep my account open I won't be posting comments.
A tessaract has 8 cubes according to the dimensional formula (N(N-1)(N-2)x2^N-3)/3! for cubes. When N = 4 the answer is 8. (But if you want put another one in the middle, yeah why not, Ha!)
But on topic, Laws, like Gauss's law etc, are considered to be valid in higher dimensions although any such depending on 'r' need adjustment with extra power factor (Gravity for example) one would therefore 'guesstimate' 'burred time' might also be, if affected by gravity in exotic situations.
Perhaps we can continue in the future on another appropriate thread but until then, thanks for an interesting chat, I do appreciate it. So to all, have a nice day.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2017

MM@
But on topic, Laws, like Gauss's law etc, are considered to be valid in higher dimensions although any such depending on 'r' need adjustment with extra power factor (Gravity for example) one would therefore 'guesstimate' 'burred time' might also be, if affected by gravity in exotic situations.

When ya come back, no need for the "layman" label - you're pretty well up on this stuff...:-)
Perhaps we can continue in the future on another appropriate thread but

I look forward to it.
until then, thanks for an interesting chat, I do appreciate it.

as have I.
So to all, have a nice day.

Ditto..:-)
And in the meantime, let's have some fun out there!
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2017
You all have a good one going @why and @mimath. Let me interject one thought experiment that always makes you go hummm... One of the outcomes of Special Relativity Theory (SRT) is that as an observer traveling at the speed of light (c) time stops (t=0). What that means is from the point of view of the photon emitted from an atom, the photon already knows it's destination light years away because v=c, t=0. so d=0. So from atom to atom, regardless of distance, information can exchange in the space/time (reference frame) of the photon. Of course that's just the view point from photon. For us, the two object are separated vast amounts of space and everything takes place from an outside observer at 299,792,458 meter / sec.

"Spooky action at a distance" really bends people's minds. If the 'psi' on this side can effect the 'psi' on that side on the t=0 collapse of space/time, would that not create some interesting possibilities?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2017
You all have a good one going @why and @mimath.

Thanks!

Let me interject one thought experiment that always makes you go hummm...

Do I need goggles?
an observer traveling at the speed of light (c) time stops (t=0). [
Almost...:-)
...from the point of view of the photon emitted from an atom, the photon already knows it's destination light years away because v=c, t=0. so d=0.
Nope. It only knows it's radius + 1/2 (orthogonally) to the right or left (whatever, it's an observer thing...)
Photons aren't that smart...:-)
So from atom to atom, regardless of distance, info can exchange in the {ALL} space/time ... of the photon.

Of course that's just the view point from photon. For us, the two object are separated by vast amounts of space and everything takes place from an outside observer at 299,792,458 meter / sec.

Lucky for us, relativity works in ALL reference frames... :-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2017
You all have a good one going @why and @mimath.

Thanks!

Let me interject one thought experiment that always makes you go hummm...

Do I need goggles?
an observer traveling at the speed of light (c) time stops (t=0). [

Almost...:-)
(...from the point of view of the photon emitted from an atom, the photon already knows it's destination light years away because v=c, t=0. so d=0.)Nope. It only knows it's radius + 1/2 (orthogonally) to the right or left (whatever, it's an observer thing...)
Photons don't know 0...:-)
So from atom to atom, regardless of distance, info can exchange in the space/time ... of the photon.

I question this. Relative-ness an' all...
Of course that's just the view point from photon. For us, the two object are separated by vast amounts of space and everything takes place from an outside observer at 299,792,458 meter / sec.

Lucky for us, relativity works in ALL reference frames... :-)
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2017
@aap
WH's where material is expelled
Well, there's a couple of issues with white holes. For one, they should be blindingly obvious.
I'm thinking that's exactly what happened at http://wallstreet...4098210. The general idea being spacetime falling into a black hole pops up somewhere else in the U as a white hole composed of the antimatter particles entangled with the particles falling into the black hole. You don't see the antimatter because I'm thinking antimatter falls up, but the spacetime influx can be seen as observed at this link.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2017
@howhot
A white-hole implies a worm-hole such that one side of spacetime can be gravitationally pinched into the the other side of spacetime. If the "psi" can exist across that barrier of the BH into the White-hole then I might concede in time reversal, but where? You also have to wonder about this if time wasn't reversible.
Time reversal in the neighborhood of the WHs. Specifically, repulsive antiparticles moving in reverse time - as they always do IMOP and Feynman's.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2017
cont
Note - the antimatter entangled with matter falling into BHs may exist in various white holes, so the spacetime falling into BHs would be distributed into these various WHs as the particles approach the black hole (IOW, check your spacetime at the event horizon).
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2017
@aap
So, while a fancyful idea, I don't think white holes are something we need to worry about (and make no mistake, if they did exist we really would need to worry about them. Something like that in our galactic neighborhood would be quite the buzz-kill).
I'm thinking antimatter falls up so you won't be finding too many WHs inside galaxies.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 23, 2017
@Da Schneib, I found "atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty space" Reference https://www.physi....74297/. That seems like a hellofalot of spacetime to swallow in one sip of matter. In which case can I assume there is a whole lot of compressed spacetime in black holes?
More likely the space associated with atoms gets checked in at the EH and sent through a wormhole to the white hole or wherever in the U the antimatter associated with the matter of the atom entering the BH exists at the time. Actually this may happen somewhere inside the EH but outside the inner horizon, as I understand there is such a thing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.