It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Quantum Eraser Experiment show that consciousness creates reality?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Exactly,

It's a very important question that can't be ignored especially since quantum mechanics has come into the picture.




posted on May, 26 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Unfortunately your wrong there is a past there has to be to have a present. Worse yet we can see into the past and astronomers do it all the time seeing the universe as it was billions of years ago. Again your concept of time doesnt mesh with what we observe. Thats why your confusing probabilities AKA the uncertainty principle to mean what you want it to. See time is assymetric we have yet to find anything going backwards in time. Time moves in one direction in fact were not exactly sure why physics tells us we should observe things moving backwards in time. Any way since we know time only moves forward by that it has to have a past. Just so you know relativity has to have a past to work time cant be relative to the observer without being able to have a past and future. Funny you argued against yourself in your on post just didnt realize it because you dont understand relativity.

Oh and probabilities of events occurring doesnt mean they all occur simultaneously it means any of the events can happen not that they do happen. This is your warped misinterpretation of the uncertainty principle.
edit on 5/26/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support anything that you're saying. You said:


Unfortunately your wrong there is a past there has to be to have a present. Worse yet we can see into the past and astronomers do it all the time seeing the universe as it was billions of years ago.


Where's you're evidence that there's a past? Where's you're evidence that the past has any meaning outside of a conscious observer calling it the past?

The laws of physics work backwards and forwards in time. The most you can say is that there's an arrow of time because of entropy. There's isn't any evidence of classical time separation as an objective reality. Einstein knew this and said the past, present and future is a persistent illusion. These now moments happen in space time and we give meaning and order to these events. We don't see this order on the smallest scales. Here's Professor Brian Green.



Again, you have to provide some evidence. You can't say it must be this way because this is what I see. People should learn that this isn't a good position to have when you look at the history of relativity and quantum mechanics. You're saying I experience the past so the past must exist. Where is the evidence that the past exist beyond you calling it the past?

These are just now moments that we put into the category of past, present or future. Because of decoherence, humans measure things from moment to moment.

Say I go to the store, buy a pack of Big Red, get back into my car and go home. As classical observers we see these things as the past flowing into the future. This is because of the arrow of time caused by entropy and decoherence so we don't see any interference from moment to moment.

For a subatomic particle it's much different. It could buy a pack of big red and get in the car and go home at the same time. It can do things like quantum tunneling because it can borrow energy from the universe and give it back before the law of energy conservation is violated.

A hypothetical being billions of miles away can be on the same now slice as the earth 10,000 years ago. A hypothetical being billions of miles from earth can be on the same now slice as earth 10,000 years into the future. The past, present and future exist now.

You have no evidence that classical time separation isn't anything more than than a construct of human consciousness or as Einstein said as he was writing to the family of a dead friend, it's just a persistent illusion.
edit on 27-5-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

In Physics there is something called T symmetry aka time symmetry. Presence of motion is the most obvious way time is perceived.So a force is required and as we know events requiring a force to produce an action has a strong sense of direction.We see actions occurring in only one direction we see particles decay as they get older never once have we seen this process in reverse.Suppose I pick up a rock and throw it and see it fall. Now why I do not ever see a rock suddenly bounce off the ground fly up in the air and land in my hand which is waiting open to suddenly grasp it. That does not happen as there is no force gradient in the reverse direction. So time moves forward as we can see through observations of the universe. But most importantly why time moves forward is simple lets say i took a rock and through it into the pond. Now the force of the rock hitting the water would cause waves or ripples. But there is no way in the universe to reverse this effect. Because we have no force that could cause this action in reverse imagine we need a force to create ripples at the end of the pond meet in the middle than pick up the rock off the bottom and toss it back to me. So force is the reason time exists and force is the reason time has a direction.


As far as Einstein Relativity is time dependent thats what Einstein showed us time always passes at the same rate to an observer only an outside observer can actually see a difference. Einstein showed us that time itself is constant if i had an atomic clock and i was traveling at the speed of light i wouldnt be able to tell in the least between that and if my ship was standing still. He did not tell us it doesnt exist he said our perception of time can be different. This is the illusion part as i explain to students our perception of time doesnt change the reality of time. For example if you are out playing football with friends you can spend two hours and not realize it, but then spend two hours in a waiting room at the doctors office it will seem like days.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is just flat out wrong.

Of course human observation plays a big role in Quantum Mechanics. If it didn't we wouldn't have a measurement problem and we wouldn't have all of these interpretations that try to explain the role of consciousness.

In many worlds interpretation, it's apparent collapse of the wave function. With Penrose it's self collapse do to quantum gravity and consciousness occurs on planck scales. In Copenhagen, the wave function is statistical and represents the uncertainty of the observer.

It's always funny how some people say these things. If you were correct, we could just throw out every interpretation of quantum mechanics. Of course you're not correct and you can't escape consciousness or the observers choice and it doesn't matter how many universes may be out there.

You say these things depend on the existence of a measuring device, yet a measuring device we use in a lab depends on the existence of a conscious observer to CHOOSE to make it. How can you separate a measuring device from the conscious observer that created it in order to know things like which path information?


The various interpretations of QM have nothing to do with consciousness.

There isn't a single mention of the word 'consciousness' in any scientific text published by any scientist.

The mixing of consciousness and QM is a very silly attempt by snake-oil salesmen to increase the legitimacy of their snake-oil, and of course the public that believes such stuff took the bate hook, line and singer.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you're not making any sense that's why I keep asking you for any evidence that shows classical time separation is an objective reality. When you talk about a "sense of time" you're talking about the arrow of time due to entropy. Everything in the universe has this "sense of time" on a classical level because the universe began in a low entropy state.

The laws of physics work backwards and forwards in time and the distinction between the past, present and future is just a persistent illusion. We see this on a quantum scale with things like entanglement and non locality. There's no evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality no matter how strong the illusion or are "sense of time" is.

So I would like some evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality and not a persistent illusion.

You also keep misrepresenting Einstein. Einstein didn't say our perception of the distinctions between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. If you're telling your students this then you're lying to them. This has nothing to do with anything Einstein said as it pertains to the the distinctions between the past, present and future. Here's more from Professor Brian Greene. He also goes into entropy and the arrow of time.



What you just said about Einstein is just breathtakingly wrong. What students are you teaching?



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: masterp

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is just flat out wrong.

Of course human observation plays a big role in Quantum Mechanics. If it didn't we wouldn't have a measurement problem and we wouldn't have all of these interpretations that try to explain the role of consciousness.

In many worlds interpretation, it's apparent collapse of the wave function. With Penrose it's self collapse do to quantum gravity and consciousness occurs on planck scales. In Copenhagen, the wave function is statistical and represents the uncertainty of the observer.

It's always funny how some people say these things. If you were correct, we could just throw out every interpretation of quantum mechanics. Of course you're not correct and you can't escape consciousness or the observers choice and it doesn't matter how many universes may be out there.

You say these things depend on the existence of a measuring device, yet a measuring device we use in a lab depends on the existence of a conscious observer to CHOOSE to make it. How can you separate a measuring device from the conscious observer that created it in order to know things like which path information?


The various interpretations of QM have nothing to do with consciousness.

There isn't a single mention of the word 'consciousness' in any scientific text published by any scientist.

The mixing of consciousness and QM is a very silly attempt by snake-oil salesmen to increase the legitimacy of their snake-oil, and of course the public that believes such stuff took the bate hook, line and singer.


Sadly for you, this isn't the case at all. It always makes me laugh when people make proclamations that consciousness doesn't have anything to do with QM when they don't have a clue as to what consciousness is. It's obvious why people have this irrational fear of consciousness. It's because there isn't any physical explanation for consciousness so people make silly claims like consciousness has nothing to do with QM when they don't know what it is. How can you say what consciousness can't be when you don't have a clue as to what consciousness is?

Consciousness has always played a role in QM and this is why you have all of these interpretations trying to explain QM. Rather it's Wigner's friend which is part of scientific literature or Schrodinger's cat. Schrodinger's whole thought experiment was about a conscious observer opening the box then collapsing the wave function.

If consciousness played no role, why don't particles have a path independent of the choice of the observer? Have you ever read the delayed choice, quantum eraser or entanglement swapping experiments?

Have you ever heard of a guy named Roger Penrose who talks about consciousness existing at Planck scales instead of emerging from the classical brain? Here's an abstract from a recent paper:


The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.


www.sciencedirect.com...

There's a list of papers talking about consciousness and how it relates to quantum mechanics on Planck scales. There's also been recent evidence that supports Penrose/Hameroff when quantum vibrations were discovered in microtubules of the brain.


Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness
January 16, 2014
[+]

Structure of a microtubule. The ring shape depicts a microtubule in cross-section, showing the 13 protofilaments surrounding a hollow center. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Elsevier’s Physics of Life Reviews (open access) claims that consciousness derives from deeper-level, finer-scale activities inside brain neurons.

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.


www.kurzweilai.net...Quantum Vibrations-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

So again, your blanket claims make no sense. Since the discovery of QM they're has been talk throughout science about consciousness and how it relates to QM and it's still ongoing.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You should watch your video he explains entropy increase with the passage of time. Time has to exist for entropy to occur. While this is certainly true, the curious thing is that the laws of physics are "time reversible" ... which is to say that the laws themselves look as if they would work perfectly well if the universe were played in reverse. From a physics standpoint, there's no real reason why the arrow of time should by necessity be moving forward.The most common explanation is that in the very distant past, the universe had a high degree of order (or low entropy). Because of this "boundary condition," the natural laws are such that the entropy is continuously increasing.

One common misconception spread by an unclear discussion of the nature of relativity and other physics related to time is that time does not, in fact, exist at all. Einstein proved, through his theory of relativity, that time by itself was not an absolute quantity. Rather, time and space are united in a very precise way to form spacetime, and this spacetime is an absolute measure that can be used - again, in a very precise, mathematical way - to determine how different physical processes in different locations interact with each other.

This does not mean that everything is happening simultaneously, however. In fact, Einstein firmly believed - based on the evidence of his equations (such as E = mc2) - that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. Every point in spacetime is limited in the way it can communicate with other regions of spacetime. The idea that everything happens simultaneously is exactly counter to the results that Einstein developed.Relativity cannot function if there is not a separation in time period.

What we dont understand is why entropy only happens in one direction it should occur in both directions. But it doesnt there is something here we are missing there is definitely frame references for time as entropy increases. Please watch your video and dont try to misinterpret his meaning this time you cant cherry pick one statement and go see time is irrelevant. As i said we cant reverse force for example it takes less energy to break a glass than you would need to put it together like i said earlier in the thread. So in your understanding of physics where would this extra energy come from or even better show me anything in the universe that goes from disorder to order without adding alot of energy into the system.

Einstein meant time is not rigid it can be slowed and even stopped,However its still exists and would have a past just no future.Your understanding of physics is severely limited but understand in physics most equations have to take time into consideration especially if using the second law of thermodynamics.
edit on 5/29/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You're not understanding Einstein and that's obvious. This is why I keep asking you for evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality and post after post you provide zero scientific evidence. Show me a published paper or an experiment that shows classical time separation is an objective reality.

Nobody said time doesn't exist. Earlier I associated the holistic nature of time with consciousness. Again, the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion. That's why I keep asking you for evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality and post after post you basically say nothing as it pertains to what's being said.

Here's quotes from Einstein:


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein


Again, when Einstein said the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future are a persistent illusion, he was talking about the classical time separation that we subjectively experience. I don't think you understand what's being said because you're all over the place trying to fit things into what you believe. You can't grasp this simple concept? Einstein didn't say time doesn't exist, he said the DISTINCTION between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. We see this in quantum mechanics as well as classical physics.

This is why I keep asking you for evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality.





Again, if you really teach these things, you should no time is something that doesn't have a universal existence outside our perception of it. Time could be an illusion of consciousness. Whatever time is, it doesn't appear to match up with our subjective view of it. Here's a video by Physicist Julian Barbour asking the question Does Time Exist and he says no.



Barbour says this:


His 1999 book The End of Time advances timeless physics: the controversial view that time, as we perceive it, does not exist as anything other than an illusion, and that a number of problems in physical theory arise from assuming that it does exist. He argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory of it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. "Change merely creates an illusion of time, with each individual moment existing in its own right, complete and whole." He calls these moments "Nows". It is all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that the illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time capsules", which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the appearance of motion, change or history".


en.wikipedia.org...

The nature of time and the question does time really exists is a question that's not settled because Einstein showed that there's no distinction between the past, present and future and we also see this on a quantum level. Here's more from Scientific American.


As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.


As someone who teaches these things, I find it troubling that you don't understand what Einstein was saying. Here's more about the Wheeler-Dewitt equation.


Newsflash: Time May Not Exist

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (which govern the realm of the tiny). Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.

“One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time—that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless.”

Einstein, for one, found solace in his revolutionary sense of time. In March 1955, when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, he wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Rovelli senses another temporal breakthrough just around the corner. “Einstein’s 1905 paper came out and suddenly changed people’s thinking about space-time. We’re again in the middle of something like that,” he says. When the dust settles, time—whatever it may be—could turn out to be even stranger and more illusory than even Einstein could imagine.


discovermagazine.com...



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

First your stuck on pseudo science get off those websites. Einstein showed us time exists only are perception of time exists but our perception of it is relative to the observer on how fast or slow it occurs.Without the equation on including space time relativity doesnt work than we just have a bunch of points with nothing going on.Using Julian Barbour doesnt help there is a reason he wasnt accredited. The two biggest problems i see on his theory is this. he ignores all the incredibly powerful predictions you can make if you treat time like a sort of space. (The difference between time and space is that in the equation for distance between two space-time points, as you go farther in space, it's harder for a particle to visit both points, but as you go farther in time, it's easier to visit both points - time gets a negative sign that space doesn't).

For example, energy conservation can be derived from Noether's famous theorem in just the same way as momentum conservation - but momentum conservation comes from the properties of space, while energy conservation comes from the properties of time.

His argument about being able to split things up into "frames of a movie" and fit them back together proves more than he bargained for. Because the different parts of space follow laws as well, with electrical fields and non-point like quantum-mechanical atoms extending through it. So you can split space up into points, and by Barbour's argument the points just go together based on the laws that govern how electrical fields or atoms work.Problem is without time the points would interfere with one another. Meaning that interactions couldnt occur because all the different forces acting on a particle all at once instead of only in one moment in time. Now im not going to continue the back and forth battle post anything that shows the universe time is merely a human creation of our mind and didnt exist before we were here. Id love to read that paper by the way dont look to Barbour he doesnt actually create scientific papers only garbage books for general release to a gullible public.


en.wikipedia.org...

PS Here was Einsteins description of relativity when asked about time notice he doesnt claim it doesnt exist only different people can observe it differently. To say time doesnt exist and merely in our minds is well stupid.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
Albert Einstein



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I did never understand that theory.... To put it simple, I am very conscious about the little credit I have on my bankaccount. No matter how much I consciously want it to be larger, bigger or slowly increace..IT DOES NOT WORK, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Maybe money is part of a different and selective consciousness which we can not 'dream' up.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You said:


First your stuck on pseudo science get off those websites. Einstein showed us time exists only are perception of time exists but our perception of it is relative to the observer on how fast or slow it occurs.


Again, you're not making any sense. What does this have to do with the classical separation of time being an objective reality? You say you teach this but you're the first teacher I ever debated that doesn't understand what Einstein was saying about classical time separation.

I have asked you over and over again to provide some evidence to show that classical time separation is an objective reality I now don't even think you know what I'm talking about. Again, Einstein said this:


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein


Do you even understand what's meant by the DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE MEANS?

So again I ask, where is your evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality?

You act like time has to be real because you believe it's real. This is an open debate in science when it comes to the nature of time or even if time has an objective existence.

Einstein said the DISTINCTION between past, present and future is a persistent illusion.

Again, Brian Greene explains in a way a 10th grader could understand. It's the DISTINCTION between past, present and future and that's why I keep asking you for evidence that classical time separation is an objective reality. Can you please try to answer the question? If you don't fully understand the issue watch this:


edit on 30-5-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Last time Einsine said reality is a stubbornly consistent in fact Stephen Hawkings made a book explaining relativity with that title. Since apparently you have to see things here look at this its a quote from Einstein.

By the way stop saying classical time separation sorry doesnt exist in physics this doesnt exist in physics this was a made up term. In physics they have something called blocks its one theory and i guess that could be considered the classical version.

Now to Einstein you again show a lack of understanding of relativity so lets look at this quote from him and you tell me what you think he means.




As ive tried to tell you over and over physics cant have everything occur at the same time so there has to be a past present and future. It cant be an illusion if it were you wouldnt be here to argue with me. Im really amazed you bought into psuedo science and misunderstanding of physics. Physicists will tell you time moving forward or backward is irrelevant to physics but 1 key point is it must move. Second the universe has a preference we dont know why other that the explanation of entropy as of yet no one thought of a way to test this. In order to prove it wrong someone would have to find something in the universe going backwards in time. Your constant insistence on science proving time moves only in one direction is the same as saying prove fairies doesnt exist. Theirs no evidence they do but theirs no way to prove they dont.

Now take the time to learn in physics time is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. we can combine it with other physical quantities to show things like kinetic energy and motion.This is how we predict orbital velocities using time call it seeing in to the future if you like.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you keep avoiding the question like the plague. You keep making these proclamations without any shred of evidence. You said:


As ive tried to tell you over and over physics cant have everything occur at the same time so there has to be a past present and future.


Why does there has to be a past, present and future? Because you think it must be so? You haven't provided one shred of evidence outside of your declaration that the past present and future must exist. You can't teach physics because anyone who studies these things no it's foolish to make sweeping declarations and you haven't provided one published paper or any experiment that shows this is the case. The only thing you have said is, well it must be so. Why should anyone listen to you when you can't grasp the basics of relativity?

Did you even read the Scientific American article? You act like these matters are settled just because you want them to be settled and you don't provide a shred of evidence.

DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE MEANS?

You say the past, present and future must exist but you provide zero evidence to support this outside of you declaring it must be so.


As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.


www.scientificamerican.com...

Again, I keep asking you to present evidence and you just ramble on about nothing. If you have evidence about the true nature of time and you have evidence that the past, present and future isn't just a persistent illusion, you need to present it to Nature or some other Journal and claim the Nobel Prize in Science. This is just laughable. You will just write another response that says nothing and doesn't provide any evidence.


The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (which govern the realm of the tiny). Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.

“One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time—that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless.”


So Scientist understand relativity and they are debating the nature of time but you declare without a shred of evidence that the past, present and future must exist. Here's more:


The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.” It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum. Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics don’t explain why time always points to the future. All the laws—whether Newton’s, Einstein’s, or the quirky quantum rules—would work equally well if time ran backward. As far as we can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.

“It’s quite mysterious why we have such an obvious arrow of time,” says Seth Lloyd, a quantum mechanical engineer at MIT. (When I ask him what time it is, he answers, “Beats me. Are we done?”) “The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition.”

Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.

“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”


discovermagazine.com...

Here's more from Professor Brian Greene:



Again, do you have any idea what it means to say the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion?

Could you provide scientific evidence that shows that time is an object reality and the past, present and future must exist outside of you saying it must exist. I think all of science would like to see this evidence you have that answers questions that they're still debating.

Like I said, this is laughable.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I did but you have to have at least a basic understanding in science to understand. I showed you entropy occurs in order for it to occur it needs time i explained why as well. Showed you a theory which covers it explained force as well. And all you do is continue to post the same videos which you dont even realize dont agree with you. You take one statement where in physics we admit time cna travel in either direction and take that to mean there is no time its an illusion. Your missing the main reason we bring that up were missing something because reality doesnt work that way that means are theory is incomplete it doesnt mean time doesnt exist. Luckily most people will read our exchange and realize there is no proof to your claim since even in physics we take time into consideration when we do equations. If time didnt exist even plotting orbital velocities would be unnecessary and for that matter impossible.

See in your logical universe all things happen simultaneously meaning orbital velocities would be random after all just depends on the frame reference we looked at since no order would be possible.In physics we know a planet can be located anywhere yet miraculously we are apparently really good at figuring out where it will be by using an equation for time.How would you explain this in your world view where time is an illusion. Does the planet suddenly cross space to match are calculations?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I realize now that you can't be a Teacher because you don't know what your talking about. Scientist after Scientist knows what this means and they're debating the nature of time, yet you have no idea as to what they're talking about when they say the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is an illusion. This is because you don't understand Relativity. You said this:


Your missing the main reason we bring that up were missing something because reality doesnt work that way that means are theory is incomplete it doesnt mean time doesnt exist.


This is pure Gobbledy-Gook and is just meaningless. Who said time doesn't exist? Do you even read my post? I said this:


Nobody said time doesn't exist. Earlier I associated the holistic nature of time with consciousness. Again, the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion.


Again, I have to think you don't understand Relativity and I have simply laid it out for you to learn something because you can't teach anyone about these things because you obviously don't understand them.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE IS A PERSISTENT ILLUSION.

You can't possibly understand what this means because you keep talking about the existence of time. What is time? Scientist are still debating the issue and some say time doesn't exist.


Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time.

“What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing this game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable—time, which itself is not observable—we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it’s only a macroscopic effect. It’s something that emerges only for big things.”


You need to call up Physicist Carlos Rovelli and others to break the news that the past, present and future must exist because you say it must exist.

Einstein said this to a friends family at his death.


Einstein, for one, found solace in his revolutionary sense of time. In March 1955, when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, he wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”


Saying that the DISTINCTION between past, present and future doesn't mean time doesn't exist. The fact that you keep saying this shows you don't understand Relativity.

It just means Scientist don't know the true nature of time and some do think that time doesn't exist. But again, it must exist because you say so not because of any evidence.

All of these Scientist debating the nature of time because of Relativity are just idiots and you know the the nature of time because well, you just know and everyone should just accept it. Give me a break. Like I said, I don't think you understand what it means to say the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

I realize now that you can't be a Teacher because you don't know what your talking about. Scientist after Scientist knows what this means and they're debating the nature of time, yet you have no idea as to what they're talking about when they say the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is an illusion. This is because you don't understand Relativity. You said this:


Your missing the main reason we bring that up were missing something because reality doesnt work that way that means are theory is incomplete it doesnt mean time doesnt exist.


This is pure Gobbledy-Gook and is just meaningless. Who said time doesn't exist? Do you even read my post? I said this:


Nobody said time doesn't exist. Earlier I associated the holistic nature of time with consciousness. Again, the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion.


Again, I have to think you don't understand Relativity and I have simply laid it out for you to learn something because you can't teach anyone about these things because you obviously don't understand them.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE IS A PERSISTENT ILLUSION.

You can't possibly understand what this means because you keep talking about the existence of time. What is time? Scientist are still debating the issue and some say time doesn't exist.


Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time.

“What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing this game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable—time, which itself is not observable—we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it’s only a macroscopic effect. It’s something that emerges only for big things.”


You need to call up Physicist Carlos Rovelli and others to break the news that the past, present and future must exist because you say it must exist.

Einstein said this to a friends family at his death.


Einstein, for one, found solace in his revolutionary sense of time. In March 1955, when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, he wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”


Saying that the DISTINCTION between past, present and future doesn't mean time doesn't exist. The fact that you keep saying this shows you don't understand Relativity.

It just means Scientist don't know the true nature of time and some do think that time doesn't exist. But again, it must exist because you say so not because of any evidence.

All of these Scientist debating the nature of time because of Relativity are just idiots and you know the the nature of time because well, you just know and everyone should just accept it. Give me a break. Like I said, I don't think you understand what it means to say the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion.



Wow you twist yourself into knots trying to explain yourself im done with this your obviously moving on to insults instead of looking at science. Go back to believing what you like unfortunately what you believe to be the case isnt true. Time isnt an illusion and you keep misquoting Einstein as some kind of proof or your case. See if time is only an illusion of our perception than logic dictates you dont believe it to exist. Where i shoed indeed it has to good luck with the thread because apparently a logical discussion just isnt possible.

Oh and anytime you want to actually discuss physics ill be more than happy to explain it to you but please enough of the public consumption videos there made to get ratings not be accurate.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

What???

You said:


Time isnt an illusion and you keep misquoting Einstein as some kind of proof or your case. See if time is only an illusion of our perception than logic dictates you dont believe it to exist. Where i shoed indeed it has to good luck with the thread because apparently a logical discussion just isnt possible.


Again, you just don't know what the Distinction between past, present and future being a persistent illusion means. Where have I misquoted Einstein? Again:


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein


You just don't understand what it means to say the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion.

You say the past, present and future must exist but you offer no evidence to support this.

Einstein saw the universe as an undivided whole of four dimensional space-time and our local experiences between past, present and future are just a persistent illusion. He said this:


Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.


Like I said, if you really are a teacher which I doubt, it's just surprising that you don't understand Relativity or the on going debate about the nature of time.

Einstein was saying our experience of now as the past, present and future is a persistent illusion of the evolution of our three dimensional existence. The true objective nature of now is four dimensional. He also said this:


A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”


Again, Einstein was saying our separation from the whole (four dimensional space-time) is an illusion of our three dimensional evolution. Anyone who has studied the basics of Relativity knows this and this is a big reason why there's an on going debate in Science about the nature of time.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Wow Einstein didn't say that time is an illusion He said the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion. If time is relative no two people can agree on the timing of two events much less three events being past, present and future. Let me break this down Einstine felt time ran through slices of space time. So lets say we have man a man b and man c and there a supernova explosion. observer towards the explosion at the speed of light theirs One on earth and the other is heading at the speed of light in the opposite direction.

Observer A reports the event taking place in the present, observer B observes the event hasn't taken place yet and observer C agrees it hasn't taken place yet both B and C perceive the event will happen in the future.

Now a little time has passed.

Observer A reports the event happened in the past, observer B reports the event is happening in the present and observer C reports the event hasn't happened yet and will happen in the future.Now a littel more time has elapsed.

Observer A and B both agree the event happened in the past and Observer C reports the event is happening in the present - nobody thinks the event has yet to happen.

Now even more time has elapsed.

now everyone agrees the event happened in the past.

Thus if time is indeed relative as Einstein said, then one person's past is another person's present and someone else's future, thus the distinction between past present and future is rendered obsolete by relativity. This isnt saying time does not exist it says we cant get or three observers to agree whats past, present and future!!!!!!!

This isnt complicated The event happens time passes but depending on ones slice of space time decides whats past present or future for that observer only. We saw this in Einsteins explanation of a man getting in a space ship travelling near the speed of light (try as you might you cant actually reach the speed of light in relativity) he returns to earth a year later and discovers all his friends and family dead time passed slower for him relative to the people on earth. This is an important principle in our GPS satellites and we show this every day with there corrections we make to there internal clocks. Now im sorry if you dont understand the concept and misusing his quote but for gods sakes its called relativity for a reason everything is relative to the observer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

After all this time you finally get it in part. I know you're not a Teacher and that's why you put all the exclamation marks at the end of your post. You just didn't understand what Einstein meant when it comes to the distinction between past, present and future. You kept talking about time not existing and you're now talking about time as an illusion.

Yes, time can be an illusion, it can be non existent or something else. This is an on going debate in Science. You must have watched the Brian Greene video over and over again, because now your talking about slices of time which Professor Greene called now slices.



Even still, you're off base. You said:


Now a little time has passed.


What's time? What is the nature of time? Einstein saw our local experiences of time as an illusion.


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein


Again, Einstein saw the universe as a four dimensional whole and are local experience of time as past, present and future as a persistent illusion. He said this:


Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.


It's obvious that you don't understand what Einstein was saying or what he meant by the past, present and future being a persistent illusion. The entire post, everything you have said has nothing to do with Relativity or anything Einstein said. Now you think you understand it, which you don't, you have went heavy with the use of exclamation points.

You said:


This isnt saying time does not exist it says we cant get or three observers to agree whats past, present and future!!!!!!!


Nobody has said time doesn't exist. Have you actually read my post? The nature of time is an on going debate in science and some think time doesn't have an objective existence. I said this:


Nobody said time doesn't exist. Earlier I associated the holistic nature of time with consciousness. Again, the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion.


You keep saying time elapsed, what is time? Show me a picture of this time that has elapsed. Show me an experiment or published paper that shows that this time that has elapsed is objective to the universe.


The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.” It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum. Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics don’t explain why time always points to the future. All the laws—whether Newton’s, Einstein’s, or the quirky quantum rules—would work equally well if time ran backward. As far as we can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.

“It’s quite mysterious why we have such an obvious arrow of time,” says Seth Lloyd, a quantum mechanical engineer at MIT. (When I ask him what time it is, he answers, “Beats me. Are we done?”) “The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition.”

Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.

“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”


First, you don't understand Einstein or Relativity and then you want to claim "time" elapsed but you have no evidence that this time you speak of has an objective existence.

This is still being debated in Science and yest, time can be an illusion and non existent. Like I said, I know you're not a Teacher because you're basically saying that time exist just because you say it exist. This is an open and on going debate and the fact that you can't accept that you don't know and neither does the Scientific community, tells me you don't understand these things and you can't accept the fact that you don't know or can't know and time could be an illusion.

Also, don't be so heavy handed with the exclamation points, just admit you don't understand and then go and try to learn something.
edit on 31-5-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)







 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join