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.
originally posted by: flice
originally posted by: wildespace
I think when Einstein said that time is an illusion, he meant that time is relative. It flows slower in some places and faster in others (depending on local gravity), as well as flowing at a different rate depending on your relative speed.
Speed of light is extremely slow at cosmic scales (it would take light about 10,000 years to cross from one end of our galaxy to the other), but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.
This is getting close imo...
Time is funny..... move to Mars and the concept of seconds, minutes, hours and so on would be useless, except to reference to something back home on Earth.
There are both objective and subjective times. Time is what a clock measures and if you boil a pot of water in the same conditions it takes the same length of time each time you boil it according to the clock. But we have the expression "A watched pot never boils" which means if you're not looking at a clock but look at the pot instead, yes it might seem to take longer to boil because our internal clocks are very imprecise and subjective. That's true but it doesn't mean that there aren't objective external clocks.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
The thing about time is that it's personal. There is no way to objectively separate it from your personal existence. That's where the math falls down. Math is meant to be objective, and it's terrible at figuring out what it's like for us each to experience existence from behind our own individual eyeballs.
Yes that's more or less what he meant, something along those lines.
originally posted by: wildespace
I think when Einstein said that time is an illusion, he meant that time is relative. It flows slower in some places and faster in others (depending on local gravity), as well as flowing at a different rate depending on your relative speed.
Closer to 100,000 but that's not exact either.
Speed of light is extremely slow at cosmic scales (it would take light about 10,000 years to cross from one end of our galaxy to the other),
That's what the mathematician in the OP's link says, but I disagree. Infinite time dilation is a breakdown of the equation, not a valid computational result and he's treating it as the latter instead of the former which I think most physicists believe is true.
but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That's what the mathematician in the OP's link says, but I disagree. Infinite time dilation is a breakdown of the equation, not a valid computational result and he's treating it as the latter instead of the former which I think most physicists believe is true.
but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.
How is it reasonable that light travels across the room in the same time that it travels across the galaxy or across the universe? It's not reasonable, and that's not what happens, and a correct application of the equation doesn't work that way.
originally posted by: wildespace
In the time dilation equation, the variable that reflects time dilation becomes zero at c (signifying infinite time dilation), which I found to be reasonable.
Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coordinate which use the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to its worldline. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldline are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.
This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon should have a reference frame.
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JesusXst
The Einstein quote was actually; "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
This does not mean that time itself is an illusion, but that past, present and future all exist simultaneously, so our instantaneous perception of time, where we classify time into past present and future, is the illusion.
Time is a dimensional axis and must actually exist as something fundamental for what we know of physics to work.
Previously we had measured time in its own unique units (Hours, Minutes and Seconds) but Einstein gave us tools to measure the dimension of time in exactly the same units as we measure all other spatial dimensions. One second of time is equal to 299,792,458 meters, the maximum distance anything can move in a second - the speed limit of 'the speed of light'.
Note that calling it 'the speed of light' is really a misnomer. Light can, and does, sometimes travel slower than 'the speed of light'. The real value "c" (out of the E=Mc^2 equation) is like a speed limit and is the theoretical velocity that a massless particle like a photon moves with.
originally posted by: SuicideKing33
I've always liked that Einstein quote as well. I mean here's this scientific genius saying that time is just an illusion. I wish he would elaborate.
Although there must be many more here more qualified than I, I'll take a crack at those questions.
A photon moving at the speed of light is 144,000 meters per second I believe? So it's fast but not instantaneous. From what I understand from "entanglement" or "spooky action from a distance" that IS instantaneous...but that is like a particle over here gets spun, and another particle anywhere in the universe is spun at the exact same time. So it's not like a beam or particle traveling through space. More like they are connected no matter how far apart.
And as far as the Uncertainty Principle, which I feel is a glorious concept that shows how this "dimension" or "reality" is built to its core, the more you know the position the less you know the velocity and vice versa. So if you "know" a particle is going lightspeed the position is blurry. If you "know" with certainty where the particle is the speed will be blurry. Like you can't pin it down to a certain time and place.
I think you can know both but it will be approximate. And then you got the whole "observing something changes it" scenario which is indeed mind bending. Quantum physics can be quite the trip.
originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: JesusXst
I had a thought a few days ago... i kind of 'what if' theory...
What if... the original natural state of the entirety of existence (whatever that is), is actually without time. Time doesnt exist, therefore entropy doesnt exist. But there was an 'event' or 'trigger' that caused a malfunction in the natural state and it split and became what we see today - a universe (reality) with different natural factors like time or light or space that make up everything, and the size of the universe, its desolation, the age, what it came from and why it exists in such a form is all mysterious to us, because we dont realize that entropy/time factor may actually be a malfunction, an unnatural process.
Im beginning to think that time is an unnatural occurrence that is required to run a simulation.
originally posted by: Xeven
Has to be an observer and memory of change for time to exist.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
How is it reasonable that light travels across the room in the same time that it travels across the galaxy or across the universe? It's not reasonable, and that's not what happens, and a correct application of the equation doesn't work that way.
originally posted by: wildespace
In the time dilation equation, the variable that reflects time dilation becomes zero at c (signifying infinite time dilation), which I found to be reasonable.
Einstein's special relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same for every inertial observer. So if you try to use the speed of light as a reference frame for an inertial observer, what measurement do you get for the speed of light? This assumption violates Einstein's postulate for an inertial observer because you can't even measure the speed of light from the reference frame of a photon; it's not a valid reference frame, and if you try to use it as one you get nonsense. Special relativity says the photon isn't a valid inertial frame so I don't know why some people try to pretend it is, well the mathematician maybe because they aren't as concerned with reality as physicists in general.
A photon is NOT an inertial observer in special relativity
Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coordinate which use the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to its worldline. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldline are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.
This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon should have a reference frame.