I thought this was a well done article and exploration of "What is time?" by CalTech Theoretical Physicist, Sean Carroll
What is time?
- Thread starter LuxLuthor
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
TedTheLed
Flashlight Enthusiast
:shrug:
I never had a problem with time not going in reverse..
but, even if time (whatever it is) did stop on occasion
we'd have no way of knowing it, anyway..same if it went backwards too,
come to think of it.
I never had a problem with time not going in reverse..
but, even if time (whatever it is) did stop on occasion
we'd have no way of knowing it, anyway..same if it went backwards too,
come to think of it.
Pretty cool read I need to read and probably re-read to get a better grasp on his theory. This for sure got my attention-
"I'm fitting in with a line of thought in modern cosmology that says that the observable universe is not all there is. It's part of a bigger multiverse. The Big Bang was not the beginning." - Sean Carroll
"I'm fitting in with a line of thought in modern cosmology that says that the observable universe is not all there is. It's part of a bigger multiverse. The Big Bang was not the beginning." - Sean Carroll
PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
Really interesting stuff and one of my favorite subjects actually. I enjoy pondering this subject albeit at a fraction of the level of mind of a guy like Sean Carroll. The multiverse and quantum mechanics has been a huge buzz for the past 5-6 years but the problem is that there is absolutely zero evidence and nearly zero hope for any future evidence to support the idea. Even if new developments in the next 50 years allow us some speck of insight though further study of the visible universe, the subject is still relatively "untouchable" in that it's so intangible. Also, the minute discoveries, if any, aren't going to benefit or mean much to the common person with regards to our place in the universe/multiverse. Even the idea of the multiverse, which isn't even a theory and probably won't even develop into one any time soon, still doesn't preclude the idea that everything that begins to exist has a cause, whether it be a universe or a multiverse.
Primarily, the cosmological argument is comprehensible like this:
1) What ever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe ha a cause.
Exchange "Universe" with "Multiverse" and apply the same cosmological argument now. Even if we could move forward in our understanding by 100 years and develop solid, testable methods to support the theory of a multiverse, who's to say that the multiverse isn't in fact just one of many multiverses which spawn out of a giga-verse? All the idea does is push back the cosmological argument one step.
While insanely intriguing, I must point out that the idea of the multiverse is still pure speculation. It does little to answer perspective based larger questions such as, why we exist in the first place or why there is apparent design, order, and fine tuning, whether we call it the universe or the multiverse. The key here is that whether we study the beginning of our own visible universe or speculate at the possible existence of a multiverse, it all still had a beginning and the ultimate question must still be asked, 'how does everything come out of nothing?' Even secular science tells us that it cannot when the ideas are extruded to finality. In other words, it's illogical to ever think that something can come from nothing, just as Carroll's "arrow" dictates that "the egg comes from a chicken which is part of a farm, which is part of a biosphere, etc, etc."
So what's the "something?" That's what every person must ask themselves if they claim to possess a worldview and there are only two possible outcomes. Either everything is and accident (purposeless molecules in motion) or everything is on purpose.
Primarily, the cosmological argument is comprehensible like this:
1) What ever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe ha a cause.
Exchange "Universe" with "Multiverse" and apply the same cosmological argument now. Even if we could move forward in our understanding by 100 years and develop solid, testable methods to support the theory of a multiverse, who's to say that the multiverse isn't in fact just one of many multiverses which spawn out of a giga-verse? All the idea does is push back the cosmological argument one step.
While insanely intriguing, I must point out that the idea of the multiverse is still pure speculation. It does little to answer perspective based larger questions such as, why we exist in the first place or why there is apparent design, order, and fine tuning, whether we call it the universe or the multiverse. The key here is that whether we study the beginning of our own visible universe or speculate at the possible existence of a multiverse, it all still had a beginning and the ultimate question must still be asked, 'how does everything come out of nothing?' Even secular science tells us that it cannot when the ideas are extruded to finality. In other words, it's illogical to ever think that something can come from nothing, just as Carroll's "arrow" dictates that "the egg comes from a chicken which is part of a farm, which is part of a biosphere, etc, etc."
So what's the "something?" That's what every person must ask themselves if they claim to possess a worldview and there are only two possible outcomes. Either everything is and accident (purposeless molecules in motion) or everything is on purpose.
Last edited:
blasterman
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,802
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.
TedTheLed
Flashlight Enthusiast
we know particles appear from nowhere and then disappear, why not universes? Maybe there is a somewhere we can't see, yet.
PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
What I dont understand about Entropy is this: why does it speed up when the warranty runs out?
blech, what a load of hogwash, hes trying too hard to be like einstein. Only einstein could look at the universe and pretty much tell you how everything worked, (down to calculating how much the gravity of the sun would warp light travelling past it) with little measurements. ONLY einstein, this guy is obviously trying very hard to just make up a universe. I get the whole "big bang" idea, and the fact that we are constantly accelerating away, but then...if all galaxies started at a single point and we are all accelerating out from that point, how to galaxies ever collide (something we HAVE observed) obviously there were multiple origin points for the universe, or MANY more forces out there that we can't even begin to comprehend and won't be explained by a guy just "thinking up solutions." He is obviously a brilliant man, but hes still not einstein, and hes already too old to ever accomplish his theory. Most major scientific theories/breakthroughs happen before the age of 28. It was still a good read though.
That warranty-entropy tie-in is God's idea of a practical joke.
The past, present and future represented as a continuous whole. Time is
relative to certain things though. Life on Earth is dependent on time,
nothing lasts forever. So there needs to be a central basis on gauging time.
Humans use light to gauge the span of time passing. A "day" on Earth isn't
the same as a "day" in space. A day is measured by the Earth rotating 360
degrees in 24 hours. If you are not on Earth but say, Venus, your "day"
would consist of 243 Earth days. A Venus year is only 225 Earth days. Would you know how much time has passed without something to notify you? No. Now if you were able to travel at the speed of light, time wouldn't effect you the same. Time travels at nearly 300,000 meters per second. If a single human were able to travel at that speed(which would disintegrate you, and even if we could everything would become invisible) they would stay young while everyone back on Earth would age at a normal pace. The person traveling at light speed would return to Earth to find that a few minutes passing in Space equaled around 30 Earth years.
Sorry it's hard to read. I'm new here. Thanks for letting me talk your ears off.
Time is what you make it. :shrug:
relative to certain things though. Life on Earth is dependent on time,
nothing lasts forever. So there needs to be a central basis on gauging time.
Humans use light to gauge the span of time passing. A "day" on Earth isn't
the same as a "day" in space. A day is measured by the Earth rotating 360
degrees in 24 hours. If you are not on Earth but say, Venus, your "day"
would consist of 243 Earth days. A Venus year is only 225 Earth days. Would you know how much time has passed without something to notify you? No. Now if you were able to travel at the speed of light, time wouldn't effect you the same. Time travels at nearly 300,000 meters per second. If a single human were able to travel at that speed(which would disintegrate you, and even if we could everything would become invisible) they would stay young while everyone back on Earth would age at a normal pace. The person traveling at light speed would return to Earth to find that a few minutes passing in Space equaled around 30 Earth years.
Sorry it's hard to read. I'm new here. Thanks for letting me talk your ears off.
Time is what you make it. :shrug:
I'm making a wild guess that you are not a theoretical physicist?
If you accept the premise I would make the case that two questions posed by the interviewer answer each other.
The two main questions he had about the calm uneventful parent universe with time unmeasurable were, How can it be so calm (first question) and still (create) throw off the arrows of time that start the entropies of our type of existance.
If the parent universe exists in a condition that does not allow the causal effect of entropy to occur with time, and time causality always causes entropy, then that is the reason the beams "arrows" of time move out from the precise static universe. They simply cannot exist in that dimension so they are thrust into another, creating to satisfy the dimensional rules, not only our universe, but if you accept the theory, you would have to concede, many others that probably have similar characteristics (although there are probably different types with different rules). This could explain some of the mysteries of multi-verse theory so I can see why it would be attractive to a theoretical physicist, it would answer some difficult questions.
The questions are the answers if you think about it logically.
EDIT: I love this stuff thanks for posting!
Last edited:
Great Thread.....heady stuff. The multiverse, Black Holes, White Holes, Quarks, dark matter. I wonder if well documented prognosticators have a gateway into the future, or the many versions of the multiverse that exist. Edgar Cayce's mind may have been able to travel slightly ahead or on a different plane of our own Universe's linear time line. He was truly gifted IMHO. The brain is a complex electromechanical device- maybe some are gifted in that way.
In 1932, while giving a reading to another individual, Cayce had a dream in which he saw himself as a tiny dot that began to be elevated as if in a whirlwind. As the dot rose, the rings of the whirlwind became larger and larger, each one encompassing a greater span of space than the one that had gone before it. There were also spaces between each ring that the sleeping Cayce recognized as the various levels of consciousness development. A reading was given (294-131 ) confirming that this experience had provided a visual representation of the very thing that transpired as Cayce entered the trance state. The information went on to say, "As indicated, the entity is - in the affairs of the world - a tiny speck, as it were, a mere grain of sand; yet when raised in the atmosphere or realm of the spiritual forces it becomes all inclusive..." In other words, as he entered the readings state, he was no longer limited to the confines of space or time and was able to make available to himself higher levels of consciousness. It was a talent which would enable him to access insights into virtually anything imaginable.
In 1932, while giving a reading to another individual, Cayce had a dream in which he saw himself as a tiny dot that began to be elevated as if in a whirlwind. As the dot rose, the rings of the whirlwind became larger and larger, each one encompassing a greater span of space than the one that had gone before it. There were also spaces between each ring that the sleeping Cayce recognized as the various levels of consciousness development. A reading was given (294-131 ) confirming that this experience had provided a visual representation of the very thing that transpired as Cayce entered the trance state. The information went on to say, "As indicated, the entity is - in the affairs of the world - a tiny speck, as it were, a mere grain of sand; yet when raised in the atmosphere or realm of the spiritual forces it becomes all inclusive..." In other words, as he entered the readings state, he was no longer limited to the confines of space or time and was able to make available to himself higher levels of consciousness. It was a talent which would enable him to access insights into virtually anything imaginable.
Last edited:
bluecrow76
Enlightened
To quote on the great minds of our time:
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
-Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Thanks for the link... it got me to think about something besides computers and flashlights for a change! :thumbsup:
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
-Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Thanks for the link... it got me to think about something besides computers and flashlights for a change! :thumbsup:
Jay R
Flashlight Enthusiast
First off, a day isn't a measurement of time though it is commonly used as such. It's a measurement of how long it takes a particular planet to revolve 380 degrees and it even varies on Earth depending on which way the wind is blowing. An hour is a measurement of time and an hour on Earth is the same as an hour on Venus.
Secondly, if you travelled at the speed of light of course time would affect you the same. Travel at the speed of light for an hour and you would get one hour older.
Thirdly, why would everything become invisible. I'd reason that stuff behind you would appear still, stuff beside you would appear normal except for going by REAL fast and stuff in front of you would appear to be happening twice as quickly.
