It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: VP740
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: chr0naut
What about looking in the other direction?
Can we only look out at the same perimeter, does it exist in a circle that we are somehow near the c enter of or does it move I to a specific direction more linear like outwards from a starting point?
The time dimension is shown to be linear and can be measured in meters by Einstein's equations. (1 second = 299 792 458 meters). However, mass can distort time (and space).
If time were the way some people conceive it, you could reverse time and in the case of the diffusion of a gas, it would go back into the container it came from. However, if you use a negative for a time value in most physics equations, the gas actually continues to diffuse. The genie won't go back into the bottle.
It is this divergence between the perceptual and physical concepts of time that causes the most confusion.
If we could see the future, then nothing in the universe could ever change. It would be a static monolithic block.
As it stands, things in the future are indeterminant and although we know the gas will diffuse, we cannot say precisely how each atom will end up. It is random and stochastic, to us.
I've always had a very strong instinct that nature is deterministic. In other words I think if you had the right equation and data, you could play things backwards on your computer simulation and watch the smoke go back into the container. The observations I make of the universe just don't look like they were generated at random. I suspect the increase in entropy observed over time has a resemblance to what happens as you calculate successive digits in say, the square root of two. In a sense the digits become more 'random' as you calculate each one. Probably best to take that up on another thread though.
originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: Phage
The closest I have heard is like a raisin cake in the oven, all the raisins (points) are getting further away from each other, not from the center.
Having said that, I was wondering: if space time is expanding, then why do we get red shift, if the space time that the light is travelling in/through is expanding?
originally posted by: AceWombat04
As a layperson who can only begin to grasp such ideas conceptually, I always have the same questions and I've never received a truly satisfactory answer (possibly because there isn't one yet, and possibly because I'm simply, literally, too unintelligent to understand the answers.)
- Is the "time" component of spacetime ontologically real in and of itself, or is it just a way of mathematically representing and measuring different kinds of relative movement? E.g. is there really a thing called "time" that "passes" and dilates, or is it just another facet of space and movement therein? (I know time dilation has been proved, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking whether said dilation really represents the classical mental conceptualization of "time," or just another kind of spatial movement.)
- Likewise, is the "membrane" described as being at the base of everything (in the sense that fundamental particles can apparently be described/thought of merely as coherent pertubations of said membrane) ontologically real, or is it just a mathematical construct describing something otherwise indescribable to us? E.g. is there really a substance or a thing that is "the membrane" that is being pertubed to constitute particles, or is it just mathematically correct? (Sort of how spacetime isn't really accurately described as a "rubber sheet" that bends because it's not two dimensional, but people still describe it that way because in its simplest form it can be mathematically represented as a warpable sort of graph right? Or is that wrong, too? Lol.)
- This is the one we can't really answer, I know, because any attempt to measure or perceive the "substance" of the membrane would be predicated upon particles and forces which are "part of" the same membrane, so we can't ever really "look at" it. But is there any burgeoning, early reasoning yet on what the membrane actually IS? What it could be comprised of? (It can't be particles as in our own universe right, since they're all just ripples in said membrane?)
As I said... just a layperson seeking answers to things that tease my simple monkey brain.