Coming from Nothing?

[fromderinside]

When is the photon going to escape from the electron. We know that that event will take place. We can't know when. Time is supported to be continuous, but, with quantum events we have order (this then that). At the quantum level when is uncertain.

Uncertain, yet radioactive decay has rates of decay based on probability?

Time the dimension: Tic toc tic toc .... Quantum decay: toc.......toc..tic..........tic.......kaboom .......

So time is a macro dimension say like humans seeing form and color while eyes take in quantum information blue here, red there, red here, red here, ...... blue there

I'm at a loss to connect the two even though one is constituent to the other. Maybe an emergent dimension except emergence is a conclusion not a dimension. If there is a unifying principle it probably doesn't include time.

We see pattern in randomness too. So I'm just not buying that something that only holds in macro theater is fundamental to nature.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When is the photon going to escape from the electron. We know that that event will take place. We can't know when. Time is supported to be continuous, but, with quantum events we have order (this then that). At the quantum level when is uncertain.

Uncertain, yet radioactive decay has rates of decay based on probability?

Yes, probability. It will happen, but exactly when is unknown. A roller coaster once at the top, will go down in the macro world. A rollercoaster in the quantum world is all over the place. Perhaps near the end before it started.

Science is about being able to reproduce things and predict what will happen. The oddity is that science seems to have discovered something science has a problem dealing with, the quantum realm.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Here's an interesting article:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ4airob7MAhWEMGMKHerfB2IQFghrMBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html&usg=AFQjCNFdV_JIiIYoRtyscTMNtqJH8uv4ug&sig2=qhagSnKCWreSn6SKQBnC1g

 

[fromderinside]

Here's an interesting article:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...tyscTMNtqJH8uv4ug&sig2=qhagSnKCWreSn6SKQBnC1g

Given that no evidence of time travel effects have been demonstrated it may be that time travel isn't possible, that there is no threat to the idea of uniqueness of location in things which are arranged by precedent.

Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers.“In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”

 

[bilby]

Time travel into the future is not only possible; it is mandatory.

 

[fromderinside]

Time travel into the future is not only possible; it is mandatory.

So time isn't a dimension and time travel is .... mandatory?

 

[bilby]

Time travel into the future is not only possible; it is mandatory.

So time isn't a dimension and time travel is .... mandatory?

I didn't say that time isn't a dimension.

But if you think that time travel is optional, try to stop doing it.

 

[fromderinside]

So time isn't a dimension and time travel is .... mandatory?

I didn't say that time isn't a dimension.

But if you think that time travel is optional, try to stop doing it.

right. You didn't say time isn't a dimension.

Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar said that time isn't a dimension Here's an article in General Physics by Lisa Zyga "Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension" http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html where she reports their theory which I grabbed from Tristan Scott's input on another thread.

Since you posted after I posted I jumped to the conclusion you were responding in context.

I had just posted the idea that physicists are now considering the likelihood that time is not a dimension. Rather these researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers. “In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”

Travel would be numerical of whatever order in space.

 

[beero1000]

FYI

Amrit Srecko Sorli is an independent research scientist. His main interest is what is observer in science and how observer can serve as an active research tool for realisation of Einstein’s completeness theorem according to which each element in the scientific model should corresponds exactly one element in physical existence. He has developed bijective epistemology based on bijective function of set theory. His main research interests are dynamic quantum vacuum, cosmology, time, gravity, Relativity Theory, Theory of everything, consciousness research.
Amrit is a member of SpaceLife Institute which he co-founded back in 2000 with Italian physicist Davide Fiscaletti. In 2013 he founded Foundations of Physics Institute – FOPI. He has published around 50 scientific articles and 11 books.

Run, don't walk, in the opposite direction...

 

[Juma]

Here's an interesting article:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ4airob7MAhWEMGMKHerfB2IQFghrMBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html&usg=AFQjCNFdV_JIiIYoRtyscTMNtqJH8uv4ug&sig2=qhagSnKCWreSn6SKQBnC1g

What do they provide as explanation of time dilatation or the relativity of what different obsevrvers observes as happening at the same time?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't say that time isn't a dimension.

But if you think that time travel is optional, try to stop doing it.

right. You didn't say time isn't a dimension.

Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar said that time isn't a dimension Here's an article in General Physics by Lisa Zyga "Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension" http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html where she reports their theory which I grabbed from Tristan Scott's input on another thread.

Since you posted after I posted I jumped to the conclusion you were responding in context.

I had just posted the idea that physicists are now considering the likelihood that time is not a dimension. Rather these researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers. “In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”

Travel would be numerical of whatever order in space.

I agree with the idea that time may be merely the way our brain represents change. If you think of the successive states of the brain, and in particular memories, and arrange these views along a fourth dimension of space, there is no longer a need for a time dimension. I see this view as consistent with what the physical world seems to be. But I can't really reconcile this view with my subjective experience as the sense that I am moving through time so to speak remains undeniable. I guess the point is that the present has a particular quality compared to past moments giving this sense that you are at a particular moment now and will be at "the next one" soon. That may be illusory but I don't think one can beat down that sense of time. Well, at least this would explain why some people fail to understand the very idea of there being no time dimension.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

What you are experiencing is similar to your reference with the sun which provides you the undeiaible experience the sun is moving across your reference. I think physicists have to work out how material gets from one quantum moment to the next, how numerical order in space is achieved.

 

[Juma]

right. You didn't say time isn't a dimension.

Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar said that time isn't a dimension Here's an article in General Physics by Lisa Zyga "Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension" http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html where she reports their theory which I grabbed from Tristan Scott's input on another thread.

Since you posted after I posted I jumped to the conclusion you were responding in context.

I had just posted the idea that physicists are now considering the likelihood that time is not a dimension. Rather these researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers. “In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”

Travel would be numerical of whatever order in space.

I agree with the idea that time may be merely the way our brain represents change. If you think of the successive states of the brain, and in particular memories, and arrange these views along a fourth dimension of space, there is no longer a need for a time dimension. I see this view as consistent with what the physical world seems to be. But I can't really reconcile this view with my subjective experience as the sense that I am moving through time so to speak remains undeniable. I guess the point is that the present has a particular quality compared to past moments giving this sense that you are at a particular moment now and will be at "the next one" soon. That may be illusory but I don't think one can beat down that sense of time. Well, at least this would explain why some people fail to understand the very idea of there being no time dimension.
EB

And how do you explain time dilatation?
How do you explain that simultainiousness is relative?

 

[ryan]

The Growing Universe Theory is a neat alternative because it says that the universe is growing, not so much changing. The present is the "end" of the universe as it grows. Scientifically, we may say that it grows as per certain laws.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Here's an interesting article:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ4airob7MAhWEMGMKHerfB2IQFghrMBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html&usg=AFQjCNFdV_JIiIYoRtyscTMNtqJH8uv4ug&sig2=qhagSnKCWreSn6SKQBnC1g

What do they provide as explanation of time dilatation or the relativity of what different obsevrvers observes as happening at the same time?

In the article they just say:

It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

 

[Juma]

What do they provide as explanation of time dilatation or the relativity of what different obsevrvers observes as happening at the same time?

In the article they just say:

It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Thus none.

 

[fromderinside]

In the article they just say:

It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Thus none.

Really? So change in appearance of quantum distance is nothing.

 

[Juma]

In the article they just say:

It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Thus none.

Really? So change in appearance of quantum distance is nothing.

It is definitely not an explanation for time dilatation and how simultainety can be relative.

 

[fromderinside]

In the article they just say:

It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Thus none.

Really? So change in appearance of quantum distance is nothing.

It is definitely not an explanation for time dilatation and how simultainety can be relative.

Sure it is. Greater energy, example greater gravity, increases minimum distance. You are subject to your minimum distance, mass, etc, as is the one you are observing. So even if your counts are equal appearances will be different.

 

[Juma]

In the article they just say:

It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Thus none.

Really? So change in appearance of quantum distance is nothing.

It is definitely not an explanation for time dilatation and how simultainety can be relative.

Sure it is. Greater energy, example greater gravity, increases minimum distance. You are subject to your minimum distance, mass, etc, as is the one you are observing. So even if your counts are equal appearances will be different.

Interesting, but still fantasy. You are still not explaining why time is different than space.