It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Time does NOT exist

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:49 AM
Here's something I've been thinking about lately: Could Quantum Mechanics be the beginnings of the theory that will replace Special Relativity and other classic physics? I'm not talking about adding to current thoughts, I'm talking about completely replacing them as a new kind of physics. Naturally, we're a long ways from this, but I wonder if a theory of everything necessarily means combining classical and quantum physics. This doesn't mean classical physics is wrong, it just means that maybe quantum mechanics or some form of it will better explain everything as opposed to just what we were able to observe 100+ years ago when Einstein made his theories.

I'm saying Einstein was right, but his theory is too narrow to explain everything TODAY. Especially at the quantum scale of things! Once we can attach the quantum scale to the classical then we might find that Quantum Mechanics better explains everything than do classical theories.

Newtonian physics made sense in its day. So did Aristotle. But we broaden our horizons. By digging deep into quantum phenomena we're similarly broadening our horizons. It doesn't matter whether you're getting smaller or bigger. The same effect of broadening our horizons results. From this a new theory will form that can explain how these macro-scale events transpire. Our classical theories are explaining macro-scale events, but I don't think it will stay that way.

Something I read recently comes to mind. It says the main thing to learn from Quantum Mechanics is that local realism (at that scale) may not be true. There may not be realist explanation for things at that scale. It's as though they do not exist until we observe them. Or that we cannot find a cause-effect. When you really boil away the hubris, what you find is that Quantum Mechanics IS the new physics, it's just in its infancy. It conveniently isolated itself to the smaller scales to not create additional tension. The reality is that the quantum world is so strange and unexpected that the classical theories are dumb and blind by comparison. Einstein was so misled by his theories that he was hopeless to understand the quantum world. If I was a classical physicist I would not worry now, but in 100-200 years or more I would start to worry that Quantum Mechanics will soon infringe on my domain in a way that would leave me behind.
edit on 18-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:54 AM
i would say the change between frames is what constitutes time. the past and future are physical places that we will travel to, and are traveling to, and have traveled.

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
reply to post by CAELENIUM

I love that book though I think the late Michael Talbot was a little to gulible sometimes. Think Sai Babba.

Fred Alan Wolf has the nice idea that the probability waves are real ones and that one comes from the past and the other from the future. Only when they match they become one creating the now.

Reminds me of interpolation. Interpolation is used to make random landscapes, for example. It allows you to have results that are persistent, as opposed to blatantly random and noisy.

Another example:
1 Size
2 Shape
3 Growth
4 Density

Assume each has a value. Now interpolate between all of them and arrive at their synthesis. Each would have a variable and likely different weight in the final outcome. The more there're, the more complex it's to understand cause-effect. This is useful in real-time procedural games.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a programmer. It's a topic I need to learn more about.

Eventually most games will use these techniques to produce fine textures and details and to satiate the consumers desire for rich and ample content that continually improves with time. Otherwise, games will hit a wall and mounting development costs will make them unaffordable. We're already seeing this happen with textures and landscapes and even plants (there're programs to generate random plants). But unless disk space increases markedly or goes down in cost in equal measures then we will hit a limit for other things. For example, to store a single 32-bit value for each half foot or so space on earth we would need many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of 1 terabyte drives. Consumers will eventually want these large landscapes for play. There's no way you can fit that in memory so you'd need a cache for it. You can forget roaming algorithms for something that size too. There're many challenges up ahead.

That's why google earth amazes me so much. In my mind it's the only computerized landscape in existence that follows the laws of physics at the scale of an earth-sized planet. You see can rivers, ecological indicators, biological indicators, so much! If you want a realistic landscape in your game, google earth is a good start! Don't have to woryr about roaming algorithms - huge!
edit on 18-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:31 AM
Nothing ever exists until we give it a name...

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz

I agree.

Everything is like a lucid dream, as evil and warped as it is.

new topics

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in