Temporal Uniformity

[Daedalus]

When we make a measurement of a physical phenomena, we can only do so by taking advantage of an attribute inherent in the phenomena itself. For instance, we use a rod to measure length. The rod has markings that allow us to measure lengths that are within its boundaries. We use a voltmeter to measure electrical potential differences between two points. The voltmeter uses attributes inherent in electricity and magnetism to make its measurements. This leads us to measurements of time as provided by a clock. All clocks use oscillations of known intervals to measure time. This can be demonstrated in the fact that a sun-dial uses the oscillations as provided by the rotation cycle of the Earth, grandfather clocks use pendulums, and light clocks bounce light between two reflective surfaces. There are many more mechanisms that clocks use to measure time, such as oscillations as provided by crystals, but the point is that they are all based on mechanisms that oscillate. Oscillation in itself is motion and, more specifically, it is motion that repeats with a specified frequency. It is because time can only be measured with motion that motion must be inherent in time. The same statements are true for motion through any other spatial dimension. We can use oscillation to measure our speed along the x axis the same way a speedometer uses the oscillations of the vehicle's wheels to measure the speed of the vehicle. But, if the vehicle always had a constant velocity along the x axis, then we could also measure physical processes in the vehicle in relation to the vehicle's x position. However, we have the freedom to change our speed and direction along the x axis, making this pseudo-temporal dimension unordered. The physical nature of time seems to be one where motion is the only attribute inherent in the phenomena and it is restricted to moving forward along the temporal dimension.

 

If time is motion no different than motion in other spatial dimensions, then how can we expect to time travel to a past that only exists as a memory or to a future that will exist as a memory? We would have moved away from this point in time and would have not made it to a point in the future. If time travel was possible, then I would have to currently exist at all points in time from birth to death. This is because if I could time travel, then it would not be possible for me to take the mass-energy of the entire universe with me and arrange it the way it was back then or will be in the future. Plus, this behaviour is not true for any other spatial dimension. I may have existed at location zero on the x axis, but I am no longer at that position. I have moved on and when I go to visit location zero on the x axis, I find that it is not that same as before. There is always something different such as new cars in the parking lot. Furthermore, If all things exist currently at all points in time, then wouldn't the past and future attract gravitationally? Time may not flow linearly but surely we only exist at a given point in time and not simultaneously at all points. From this view I suggest that time travel to a memory of the past or to a memory that will exist in the future is impossible. However, traveling to a point in time that is parallel to ours may reveal a new view of our universe. These temporally displaced universes would move through time at the same rate as we do, except they are ahead or behind us along the temporal dimension. We could fast forward or rewind time in all instances and show that each universe would have its own unique history, etc... But I have not taken GR into account, so I am looking for people to disprove this view or support it and perhaps we all can learn something to the nature of time.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[michel123456]

Applause.

Yes I agree that we are "moving" in time.

 

I have only a slight punctuation. When you say "These temporally displaced universes" in the following statement

 

 

However, traveling to a point in time that is parallel to ours may reveal a new view of our universe. These temporally displaced universes would move through time at the same rate as we do, except they are ahead or behind us along the temporal dimension.

 

you are talking about our Universe, not some other strange parallel universe. Simply, this parralel parts of our universe are not observable. IMHO of course, because my ideas don't belong to mainstream science, so don't rely on me.

[Daedalus]

Applause.

Yes I agree that we are "moving" in time.

 

I have only a slight punctuation. When you say "These temporally displaced universes" in the following statement

 

you are talking about our Universe, not some other strange parallel universe. Simply, this parralel parts of our universe are not observable. IMHO of course, because my ideas don't belong to mainstream science, so don't rely on me.

 

I am aware that these "parallel universes" would be nothing more than a different view of our universe. I was just making a statement that they would not have the same mass-energy located at our point moving through time. So they would appear to be completely unique universes with their own history unique from ours. However, if time is nothing but motion through a fourth dimension, then it would be possible to explain dark matter as temporally displaced matter with observable gravitational effects from our point in time. But this is where my knowledge ends because I do not have a complete understanding of GR and how it would treat this view of time.

 

I would like to state the relativistic speed is not the same as time-travel. This is because you would theoretically be observable along each and every point of your trajectory. You do not disapear and reappear in the future or past. This suggests that instead of traveling faster or slower through time, that the rate at which your atomic processes oscillate govern your aging process and affects your motions as you approach the speed of light. If we observe particles on the surface of Earth that should have decayed, it may be a function of the particles oscillation and not one of time.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[michel123456]

I am aware that these "parallel universes" would be nothing more than a different view of our universe.

yes we agree 9that makes 2 of us. some billions remaining to agree too.

 

I was just making a statement that they would not have the same mass-energy located at our point moving through time. So they would appear to be completely unique universes with their own history unique from ours.

Not exactly. there are intersections.

 

However, if time is nothing but motion through a fourth dimension, then it would be possible to explain dark matter as temporally displaced matter with observable gravitational effects from our point in time.

yes that's what i think too.

 

But this is where my knowledge ends because I do not have a complete understanding of GR and how it would treat this view of time.

You shouldn't say that. Your point of vue is based upon GR in the sense that this view of time corresponds to the fact that the speed of light is constant, that everything is relative to the observator and that time is a 4th dimension not so different from the other 3 dimensions of space. Your POV, and mine, are fully compatible with GR.

[Daedalus]

You shouldn't say that. Your point of vue is based upon GR in the sense that this view of time corresponds to the fact that the speed of light is constant, that everything is relative to the observator and that time is a 4th dimension not so different from the other 3 dimensions of space. Your POV, and mine, are fully compatible with GR.

 

 

I never said that my view went against GR. I made a statement that I do not have enough knowledge of GR to determine how this view of time works out with mass-energy being spread out temporally.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[michel123456]

Maybe you can find something in some old threads of mine

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/44134-the-pencil-universe/

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53438-hollow-disk-of-space/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52836-scale-factor/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46672-can-we-see-it/page__st__20

 

 

and last but not least from this Forum's Trash Can

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/43241-space-time-diagram/

 

I never said that my view went against GR. I made a statement that I do not have enough knowledge of GR to determine how this view of time works out with mass-energy being spread out temporally.

 

O.K. well understood. But NEVER make honest statements about your lack of knowledge. It is intellectual suicide in this Forum. No need to lie, just don't say anything. That is my humble advice.

[Daedalus]

O.K. well understood. But NEVER make honest statements about your lack of knowledge. It is intellectual suicide in this Forum. No need to lie, just don't say anything. That is my humble advice.

 

Point well made. However, I should not have to hide the limits of my knowledge. I'd rather someone know that I have a limited knowledge of GR so that they can provide a proof that will help direct my way of thinking, rather than let them assume that I imply to understand GR only to have misinterpreted the theory from their point of view.

 

 

One way to view time as motion through the fourth dimension would be as follows:

 

We will begin at a position located at time zero at the center of the big bang. This frame of reference will remain at time zero at the center of the big bang, observing the expansion of the universe from this view. Let there be a light clock located at this frame of reference and let us synchronize this light clock in accordance to the definitions in special relativity. We shall denote the time it takes for light to travel from point A to point B and back to point A in this frame of reference as [math]\Delta t_{b}[/math]. The subscript [math]b[/math] denotes the big bang reference. According to SR the light clock in this frame of reference would measure time according to:

 

[math]\Delta t_{b} = \frac{2L}{c}[/math] where [math]L=|AB|[/math]

 

If time was nothing more than motion, then the observer in this reference frame would infer motion through time by observing the expansion of the big bang. So their light clock would still be able to bounce light between two reflective surfaces because, even though they are not moving with the expansion of the big bang, motion would still be possible.

 

Now let us consider the motion of an identical light clock that is radiating outward from the big bang, through the fourth dimension, relative to the big bang frame of reference. We shall denote the time observed by this clock as [math]\Delta t_{w}[/math]. The subscript [math]w[/math] denotes the spatial axis of time. The use of [math]w[/math] to label the time axis is to avoid confusion with the time variable [math]t[/math]. This frame of reference is called the time-normal frame as it defines a frame of reference that is only moving through the fourth dimension, time, away from the big bang. This is normally called the lab frame of reference. It is important to note that in all frames of reference, an observer will see their light clock no differently than the observer at the big bang frame of reference. The equations of relativity predict how one observer will view the other and vice-versa. This means that the observer in the big bang frame of reference will not see the path of the light from the light clock in motion relative to their position as a straight up and down path. The same is true for the observer in motion as they will see the light from the light clock positioned at the big bang frame of reference the same way. The path that is observed is that of a triangle instead of one that is straight up and down. Because Einstein proved the constancy of the speed of light, the difference in time measured as observed from each frame of reference is:

 

[math]\Delta t_{n} = \frac{2N}{c}[/math] where [math]N=\sqrt{(\frac{V_{w} \times \Delta t_{n}}{2})^{2}+L^{2}}[/math]

 

[math]V_{w}[/math] is the velocity through the fourth dimension and [math]L=|AB|[/math]

 

Finally, we shall place another identical light clock that is in relative motion with the clock in the time-normal frame of reference, except these two clocks share the same position, speed, and direction through the temporal dimension. Therefore, the only relative motion between them is through spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to their forward motion through time. This means that both clocks have a relative velocity of zero along the temporal dimension and a non-zero relative velocity along the [math]x, y[/math] and [math]z[/math] axis of space. We shall denote time in this frame of reference as [math]\Delta t_{r}[/math]. The subscript [math]r[/math] denotes the time-relative frame of reference. We shall derive the equation for time dilation for this frame of reference in respect to the big bang frame of reference. This allows us to derive the following relationship:

 

[math]\Delta t_{r} = \frac{2R}{c}[/math] where [math]R=\sqrt{(\frac{V_{w} \times \Delta t_{r}}{2})^{2}+(\frac{V_{r} \times \Delta t_{r}}{2})^{2}+L^{2}}[/math]

 

[math]V_{w}[/math] is the velocity through the fourth dimension, [math]V_{r}[/math] is the velocity through all other spatial dimensions, and [math]L=|AB|[/math]

 

Now that we have derived the equations for both frames of reference that are moving away from the big bang, we can relate them back to the big bang frame of reference according to the following:

 

Solving for [math]\Delta t_{n}[/math] in the time-normal frame of reference we get:

 

[math]\Delta t_{n} = \frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{b}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

 

Solving for [math]\Delta t_{r}[/math] in the time-relative frame of reference we get:

 

[math]\Delta t_{r} = \frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{b}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

 

We can see that from the above relationships that the time-normal frame of reference is related to the time-relative frame of reference as follows:

 

[math]\Delta t_{r} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\Delta t_{n} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}[/math]

 

This allows us to derive the following relationship between the time-normal frame of reference and the time-relative frame of reference:

 

[math]\Delta t_{r} =\Delta t_{n} \frac{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{n}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}-V_{w}^{2}}}} [/math]

 

This result makes sense because everything has a relative temporal velocity of zero:

 

[math]\Delta t_{r}=\frac{\Delta t_{n}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}-0^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{n}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

 

But, [math]V_{w}[/math] becomes apparent from the big bang frame of reference such that:

 

[math]V_{w}=\frac{\sqrt{c^{2}(\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2})+\Delta t_{r}^{2}\times V_{r}^{2}}}{\sqrt{\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2}}}=\sqrt{c^{2}+\frac{\Delta t_{r}^{2}\times V_{r}^{2}}{\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2}}}[/math]

 

Interpreting this result seems to reveal that we move at a velocity other than the speed of light through the dimension of time. This is due to the relative velocity [math]V_{r}[/math] through the other spatial dimensions. However, when we place ourselves in the big bang frame of reference, we realize that [math]V_{r}=0[/math]. This is because all observers will place themselves in the time-normal frame of reference with all other bodies being time-relative in respect to their position. Therefore, all observers have zero relative velocity.

 

[math]V_{w}=\sqrt{c^{2}+\frac{\Delta t_{r}^{2}\times 0^{2}}{\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2}}}=\sqrt{c^{2}}=c[/math]

 

So if we can deduce through mathematics that time is motion through the fourth dimension at the speed of light, shouldn't my notions about time travel be true in regards to the impossibility of traveling to a time that exists as a memory of the past or will exist as a memory in the future?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[Klaynos]

Not got much time currently. But a quick point. Modern atomic clocks use oscillations in energy levels. These do not involve motion.

[Daedalus]

Not got much time currently. But a quick point. Modern atomic clocks use oscillations in energy levels. These do not involve motion.

 

Any form of oscillation whether it's in energy levels or purely mechanical is still motion nonetheless. Something has to be in motion in order to induce a change in the energy levels. Nice comment though.

 

It's time for me to go to bed, I look forward to reading what others think about this idea. I'm really interested in a solid proof that can disprove this view of time. However, I'm not sure one can be provided. If you can challenge this view, then by all means let us know why.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[Klaynos]

No, not motion. They actually try and remove all motion from the system as it makes the clock less accurate.

[Daedalus]

No, not motion. They actually try and remove all motion from the system as it makes the clock less accurate.

 

I'm talking about the motion inside the atom itself in referring to your statement about oscillating energy levels. I understand that they don't physically move the clock and that they cool it off to near absolute zero. The fact that absolute zero cannot be obtained shows that motion in the atom still exists and it is this motion that they use to measure time in modern atomic clocks.

 

I was just making a statement that they would not have the same mass-energy located at our point moving through time. So they would appear to be completely unique universes with their own history unique from ours.

Not exactly. there are intersections.

 

 

I am aware that if an Einstein-Rosen Bridge, or wormhole, connected two temporally displaced views of the universe, then the mass-energy from both views, or "temporally parallel universes", might be able to directly interact due to these intersection points.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

I'm talking about the motion inside the atom itself in referring to your statement about oscillating energy levels. I understand that they don't physically move the clock and that they cool it off to near absolute zero. The fact that absolute zero cannot be obtained shows that motion in the atom still exists and it is this motion that they use to measure time in modern atomic clocks.

You can't say the electrons has a specific location at any point in the measurement, so how do you know there is motion? This is quantum mechanics we're talking about.

[Daedalus]

You can't say the electrons has a specific location at any point in the measurement, so how do you know there is motion? This is quantum mechanics we're talking about.

 

Good point. However, if the electrons did not move, they would have a specific location and be easily found. Since this is not the case, we can infer that they are in motion.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[Klaynos]

Good point. However, if the electrons did not move, they would have a specific location and be easily found. Since this is not the case, we can infer that they are in motion.

 

No, it doesn't work like that in qm I'm afraid.

[Daedalus]

No, it doesn't work like that in qm I'm afraid.

 

If you are referring to how a particle can seem to be in two places at once, then refer to the definition of motion as provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

 

Definition of Motion

 

Particularly that motion is an act, process, or instance of changing place. Nothing was mentioned about the final location(s) of the body in motion or that it must do so in respect to time. If this is not what you meant, then please be clear as to what you mean by your statement, "that is doesn't work like that". How else are we to debate the subject matter if we are to make vague statements without showing how the other is incorrect with a valid argument or proof. If you are suggesting that motion does not exist in QM, then I would have to refer you to:

 

Wikipedia - Motion

 

So my statement about the motion of the electron still stands. Because if the electron was not in motion at all, and even if it was expressed as a wave without a definite location, then we would still be able to easily find them. The fact that the motion of the electron is such that it is impossible to measure both location and momentum, shows that motion is at the heart of the internal workings of QM. This can be viewed from the point that if electrons were not in motion, then I would be able to infer their location and momentum based on the process I used to measure the motion of the electron. However, since electrons are in motion, I am unable to make this determination because the process I use to measure such motion will affect both, the location and momentum of the electron. Therefore making it impossible to simultaneously know both the location and momentum of the particle.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

The dictionary is not a technical resource. QM tells us (via deBroglie and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that the electron is a wave and there is a limit to how well you could determine its location. If you knew it was at rest, its position uncertainty becomes infinite — it exists at all points. The opposite of what you contend.

 

At the subatomic level the notions of motion are not classical. To say that the state change is motion lacks foundation; in the most widely-used kinds of atomic clocks, the state change is a spin flip, not even a change in an orbital. During the oscillation, it's in a superposition of the two spin states, but that's only because we chose a particular basis for the description of the system — you could easily choose that state as a stationary state of the system. Further, these are S-states, with no angular momentum. There is no implied classical orbital motion (which is one example of the failure of classical physics at this level)

 

Short answer is that inferring motion is a naive interpretation of the physics.

[Daedalus]

The dictionary is not a technical resource. QM tells us (via deBroglie and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that the electron is a wave and there is a limit to how well you could determine its location. If you knew it was at rest, its position uncertainty becomes infinite — it exists at all points. The opposite of what you contend.

 

At the subatomic level the notions of motion are not classical. To say that the state change is motion lacks foundation; in the most widely-used kinds of atomic clocks, the state change is a spin flip, not even a change in an orbital. During the oscillation, it's in a superposition of the two spin states, but that's only because we chose a particular basis for the description of the system — you could easily choose that state as a stationary state of the system. Further, these are S-states, with no angular momentum. There is no implied classical orbital motion (which is one example of the failure of classical physics at this level)

 

Short answer is that inferring motion is a naive interpretation of the physics.

 

Nicely done swansont. However, I still stand by my statements for motion. Even if inferring motion is a naive interpretation of physics, we still cannot deny that it is motion that drives these processes. One clue to this is that you state, "During the oscillation, it is in a superposition of the two spin states". You are refering to oscillation which is nonetheless motion. How would the state of such QM systems progress if motion did not exist? If there were no spin, orbits, oscillations, or motion of any kind. To say that motion can be dismissed would seem to lack foundation as well. I am aware of timeless physics. But even here we have motion being described on how we perceive the snapshots of time that we progress through.

 

Which goes back to my clarification:

 

So my statement about the motion of the electron still stands. Because if the electron was not in motion at all, and even if it was expressed as a wave without a definite location, then we would still be able to easily find them. The fact that the motion of the electron is such that it is impossible to measure both location and momentum, shows that motion is at the heart of the internal workings of QM. This can be viewed from the point that if electrons were not in motion, then I would be able to infer their location and momentum based on the process I used to measure the motion of the electron. However, since electrons are in motion, I am unable to make this determination because the process I use to measure such motion will affect both, the location and momentum of the electron. Therefore making it impossible to simultaneously know both the location and momentum of the particle.

 

It is because of the reasons stated above that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true. Otherwise, we would be able to measure such things both accurately and precisely.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

Nicely done swansont. However, I still stand by my statements for motion. Even if inferring motion is a naive interpretation of physics, we still cannot deny that it is motion that drives these processes.

 

Sure we can. In fact, I have already done so. So has Klaynos. So not only can we deny it, it's trivially easy to do so. But whether one can claim or deny it is not the point. What's important is if one can back it up with any physics, and you simply can't. What you have done is declare it to be so and in doing so, ignored quantum mechanics.

 

Example: you have a standing wave, with a wavelength of 1m, located between 0 and 1 in some coordinate system. Is the wave moving? Where is it located?

[Daedalus]

Sure we can. In fact, I have already done so. So has Klaynos. So not only can we deny it, it's trivially easy to do so. But whether one can claim or deny it is not the point. What's important is if one can back it up with any physics, and you simply can't. What you have done is declare it to be so and in doing so, ignored quantum mechanics.

 

Then please by all means, explain how processes in QM can be driven such that motion is not part of these processes. I do not claim to understand all of QM. So I would be more than happy to learn how QM handles physics without motion of any kind. If you claim that state changes are what drives this system, then wouldn't the changes in such states be considered motion of state vectors? Otherwise, if this motion of changing state also did not exist, then how could QM describe its processes?

 

Example: you have a standing wave, with a wavelength of 1m, located between 0 and 1 in some coordinate system. Is the wave moving? Where is it located?

 

You are referring to a wave right? How could such wave even exist if motion was not inherent in the process. You might as well try to convince me that waves do not exist. It's not as though I stated that these electrons could be found easily and must be particles. I was just making a point towards why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true. A standing wave is one that oscillates in place, no different than that of the head of a drum. Try convincing a drummer that a wave has no motion to it and he'll ask you if you can feel the beat from his double-bass drums.

 

What's important is if one can back it up with any physics, and you simply can't. What you have done is declare it to be so and in doing so, ignored quantum mechanics.

 

This is not true. Read the entirety of this thread. I provide mathematics that supports my theory. Plus, it is simple to deduce four dimensional velocity as AJB was so nicely able to demonstrate for me in conjunction to my own method:

 

The magnitude of the four-velocity of a massive particle is c. Let us for simplicity just consider special relativity.

 

So [math] U^{\mu}= \frac{dx^{\mu} }{d\tau}[/math] where [math]\tau[/math] is the proper time. As such we are discussing physical massive particles. You can write this as

 

[math]U = \gamma (c , \underline{u})[/math]

 

where [math]u^{i} = \frac{dx^{i}}{dt}[/math], "classical 3-velocity".

 

 

The magnitude is given by

 

[math]U^{\nu}U^{\mu}\eta_{\mu \nu} = \pm c^{2}[/math] depending on your conventions. Either way, the magnitude is given by c.

 

Then passing to the rest frame of the particle we see that

 

[math]U = (c,0,0,0)[/math] (in the rest frame)

 

I also mean no disrespect to your views on QM. You may very well be completely correct in your argument. If so, I only ask for proof so that I may align my way of thinking towards the facts. Otherwise, it will be quite difficult to convince me that motion does not exist or that it is not inherent in time. I will also require time to take in whatever mathematics that you have in support of this. Once I can pose an educated response to your theories and that of QM, we can take the debate further.

 

After a little thought, I managed to come up with a way to show that motion is in integral part of any mathematical space.

 

For any function that takes at least one variable as its input, infers motion through the space for which such function is defined:

 

[math]f(x)=c[/math]

[math]f'(x)=0[/math]

 

or

 

[math]f(x)=x^{2}[/math]

[math]f'(x)=2x[/math]

 

This is because any such space that the function operates within, must allow the function the ability to at least change position with respect to the either the input or the output. Thus a change in space versus a change in time, [math]\frac{dx}{dt}[/math], is no different than a change in space versus a change in fourth dimensional space, [math]\frac{dx}{dw}[/math]. And even if you claim to only operate in one dimensional space, I can still infer motion through [math]\Delta x[/math].

 

Since you cannot derive mathematics for QM that uses no inputs and has no mathematical space, I say that you must concede or provide an explanation of how QM can operate without any form of mathematical space and does not make use of deltas [math]\Delta[/math]'s, derivatives, or any other form of function from which we can infer motion.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

Then please by all means, explain how processes in QM can be driven such that motion is not part of these processes. I do not claim to understand all of QM. So I would be more than happy to learn how QM handles physics without motion of any kind. If you claim that state changes are what drives this system, then wouldn't the changes in such states be considered motion of state vectors? Otherwise, if this motion of changing state also did not exist, then how could QM describe its processes?

The description does not include motion of state vectors, because the concept does not apply.

 

 

You are referring to a wave right? How could such wave even exist if motion was not inherent in the process. You might as well try to convince me that waves do not exist. It's not as though I stated that these electrons could be found easily and must be particles. I was just making a point towards why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true. A standing wave is one that oscillates in place, no different than that of the head of a drum. Try convincing a drummer that a wave has no motion to it and he'll ask you if you can feel the beat from his double-bass drums.

 

1. Electrons are not particles — they do not behave like little marbles. They are localized when they interact in certain ways, but they aren't interacting in those ways while an atom or ion is oscillating in a clock.

2. I didn't ask if the air (the medium) was moving, even of the drum was producing a standing wave. I asked if the wave was moving.

[Daedalus]

The description does not include motion of state vectors, because the concept does not apply.

 

1. Electrons are not particles — they do not behave like little marbles. They are localized when they interact in certain ways, but they aren't interacting in those ways while an atom or ion is oscillating in a clock.

2. I didn't ask if the air (the medium) was moving, even of the drum was producing a standing wave. I asked if the wave was moving.

 

As long as you can define the wave function mathematically, then yes it is in motion. Refer to the explanation below as explained from the previous post.

 

After a little thought, I managed to come up with a way to show that motion is in integral part of any mathematical space.

 

For any function that takes at least one variable as its input, infers motion through the space for which such function is defined:

 

 

or

 

 

This is because any such space that the function operates within, must allow the function the ability to at least change position with respect to the either the input or the output. Thus a change in space versus a change in time, , is no different than a change in space versus a change in fourth dimensional space, . And even if you claim to only operate in one dimensional space, I can still infer motion through .

 

Since you cannot derive mathematics for QM that uses no inputs and has no mathematical space, I say that you must concede or provide an explanation of how QM can operate without any form of mathematical space and does not make use of deltas 's, derivatives, or any other form of function from which we can infer motion.

 

1. Electrons are not particles — they do not behave like little marbles. They are localized when they interact in certain ways, but they aren't interacting in those ways while an atom or ion is oscillating in a clock.

 

If you read through my posts carefully you would realize that I never stated that electrons are particles and the fact that you refer to oscillation infers motion. Remove said motion from your system and I guarentee you that your system will collapse into meaningless results.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

You say it's not a particle, but then you go and treat it like a particle. Go find some experiments where the electron's motion can be measured in these transitions.

[Daedalus]

You say it's not a particle, but then you go and treat it like a particle. Go find some experiments where the electron's motion can be measured in these transitions.

 

This time I will sit back and see if you can respond to my previous post. I have provided more than a fair share of math to support my theory when you have not even provided any that supports your claims. Plus you seem to be ignoring any factual statement I've made about motion. So I'm still waiting for you to explain QM to me without using a mathematical space or any function from which we could infer motion. Good luck! You know that you cannot, which is devastating to any counter argument you may present. Otherwise, you would have posted a reply regarding such notion dealing with mathematical spaces.

 

Since you cannot derive mathematics for QM that uses no inputs and has no mathematical space, I say that you must concede or provide an explanation of how QM can operate without any form of mathematical space and does not make use of deltas 's, derivatives, or any other form of function from which we can infer motion.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus

[A Tripolation]

So I'm still waiting for you to explain QM to me

 

How is that his job? YOU'RE the one proposing a new "theory". You go look at the math and read it all for yourself.

[Daedalus]

How is that his job? YOU'RE the one proposing a new "theory". You go look at the math and read it all for yourself.

 

It is his repsonsibility to uphold his end of the debate. I showed mathematically how we can infer motion when he insists that motion is not inherent. I have upheld my responsibility to defend my statements. Now he must also defend his statements. I am not repsonsible for proving him right. Or are we to just take one persons word, without evidence, as scientific fact? It may be that you do not fully realize the scope of my statements concerning mathematical spaces or you would have posted a counter argument showing how I would be incorrect. Since you responded in such manner as to infer that I do not understand mathematics or have not defended my statements, then I suggest that you read the entirety of this thread.

 

Let me present my argument in regards to motion being inherent in mathematical spaces, as following:

 

If there was no motion inherent in mathematical spaces, then you would not be able to derive functions which traverse the mathematical spaces for which they are defined. This is because you would not be able to define a function in terms of [math]f(x), f'(x), f''(x)[/math], etc... The input [math]x[/math] implies motion along the [math]x[/math] axis. Therefore it is impossible for any physical system which is constructed of functions within mathematical spaces to ignore motion. To state that motion is not inherent in the system, is to deny the mathematical spaces and functions for which any physical system can be constructed. We might as well take a creationists standpoint to physics and deny the very basis for which we define and construct physical processes. You may argue that a function exists from negative infinity to positive infinity. To this I would reply; It is not that the function exists, but that it defines a relationship between two or more related quantities. This relationship is what defines the "motion" that relates these quantites to one another. Or more accurately, describes the rate of change along the axes of the specified mathematical space. Since all of the universe exists in physical space, and that this space can be drescribed mathematically, then you must concede and realize that motionless QM is false. This is because it must operate using functions that describe the mechanics of such system in the specified mathematical space that decribes our universe. If you remove all forms of motion from the physical system, you are left with functions that have no inputs or outputs, [math]f()[/math], and therefore would not even be able to describe such physical system in the first place. I have no doubts that QM can imply "perceived" motionless oscillation. It's just that QM would not exist if motion was not inherent in the mathematical space in the first place. Therefore your arguments about motion being absent from the phenomena of time is false and you cannot use QM, or any other physical system, to prove that motion is not inherent in time or that we cannot infer its existence.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus