Are string theorists already trying to hijack the OPERA neutrino experiment?

[Myuncle]

That's my worry after watching the BBC program last night called "Faster than the speed of light?". It was disgusting to watch, do they think viewers are so easy to brainwash? (yes unfortunately...). Media hype means money of course. Is there anything genuine left in theoretical Physics? The presenter made an awful program. I know there is a lot of money involved, but since these pretty strings and extra dimensions have never been proven, why even mention them?? I think making a tv program is just trying to sell more books with a nice cover (night sky with bright stars) and useless long equations trying to impress someone. The presenter quoted Einstein saying that "time is not a constant, instead it changes depending on how fast you are moving, the faster you travel the slower time passes"...I am tired of listening to this. Time doesn't exist, it's not a dimension at all, only movement exists in reality. We are so addicted to our clock that we end up believing that time really exists. But if every single atom and subatomic particle had to stop moving, would we have time? No. Time is just a human idea (very useful idea) to keep track of these atoms moving. Then the presenter gave credit to Einstein for the GPS system (do we still need to give Einstein credit for everything? Just because a clock on a satellite run faster than a clock on earth, that doesn't mean that time is slowing down for the satellite!). But the most pathetic moment was when he gave so much attention to String theory as a possible candidate to explain the neutrino experiment and become the theory of everything...

[questionposter]

You seem a little too cocky, and I usually see this in science when stuff sounds so strange that it can't be true, even though it is. The "Faster than light thing" could easily be miscalculations and like every single scientist in the world knows that, and that extra-dimensional stuff and relativity, in order to understand it, you just need to expand how you view things more. A lot of the complex ideas are from very simple phenomena. Whether or not time actually exists as an actual thing can't be answered, but the math as if it were real as we are describing it fits.

 

Let's say I have 3 people in a straight line like this

 

 

0.....................................0..................................0

 

The two on the ends are moving away from each other, and the middle one is moving towards 1, so

 

 

<---- 0.........................<---0...............................0 --->

 

And let's say they are all moving at the same speed.

 

To the 0 on the left, the middle 0 is moving at around the same speed in the same direction, but to the one on the right, the middle 0 is moving away from it at a great speed. That's what relativity is. The the mathematical formulas to describe multiple views of the same situation.

 

And if you want to understand extra-dimensional stuff better, I suggest you watch "flatland". You can probably just youtube it.

 

And time, time is regarded as being relative, like this, so when you move faster, then to other people, your time slows down, since time also flows at the speed of c. So if the flow time is 186,000 miles per second (although not exactly as a physical motion), and you travel at 1 mile per second, that's a pretty big difference, so time, compared to you, will flow a lot faster. But, if you move at 100,000 miles per second, then your almost moving at the speed which time flows and the difference between your speed and time's is less, so compared to you, 186,000 miles per second minus 100,000 miles per second, so then time only flows 86,000mi/s faster than you rather than 185,000mi/s faster than you from your frame of reference. This is just something you have to accept no matter how strange it is, because there are already experiments with clocks demonstrating this effect.

http://hyperphysics....tiv/airtim.html

If you move faster than something, than compared to you, the rate at which other things happen is slower.

It's not actually that big of a deal. If you travel at the speed of C which is the speed of light, then your still going to travel 186,000 miles of distance in one second, but you wouldn't age at all. It's exactly the same as if two cars were driving on a highway at the same speed. To the cars, one wouldn't be moving faster than the other, only the environment would appear to be moving.

Edited October 25, 2011 by questionposter

[Myuncle]

A lot of the complex ideas are from very simple phenomena. Whether or not time actually exists as an actual thing can't be answered, but the math as if it were real as we are describing it fits.

 

This is just something you have to accept no matter how strange it is, because there are already experiments with clocks demonstrating this effect.

It's not actually that big of a deal.

 

Exactly, it's not that big of a deal. I don't want to seem too cocky of course, but the fact that time doesn't exist it's actually very important. And if certain things are difficult to explain or to understand that doesn't make them existant. No matter how math is good at descrbing theory if this theory doesn't exist in reality. You are still ignoring the fact that just because a clock on a satellite run faster than a clock on earth, that doesn't mean that time is slowing down for the satellite.

[questionposter]

Exactly, it's not that big of a deal. I don't want to seem too cocky of course, but the fact that time doesn't exist it's actually very important. And if certain things are difficult to explain or to understand that doesn't make them existant. No matter how math is good at descrbing theory if this theory doesn't exist in reality. You are still ignoring the fact that just because a clock on a satellite run faster than a clock on earth, that doesn't mean that time is slowing down for the satellite.

 

But saying time doesn't exist is like saying black holes don't exist. Maybe we can't see black holes directly, but what we can see is when a star gets ripped apart around a point of nothingness, so the only thing we can really infer is that black holes must exist. It's the same with time. Relativity works so well to describe things that time has like a 99% chance of existing. Also, with the clock on the satellite, the reason that happens is again because of time. It's because gravity distorts the fabric of space-time, and because the satellite is experiencing less distortion of the fabric of space since its further from Earth where gravity is weaker, the clock runs faster. I guess you can think of it as that it takes less effort for the same events to happen in less gravity than in higher gravity, therefore the same amount of effort will cause more events.

Edited October 25, 2011 by questionposter

[imatfaal]

Myuncle - you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

 

Science exists to explain and model experimental conclusions and predict new results. One such theory - which is remarkably long lasting under severe pressure - is einstein's general and special relativity. it explains all the results that we have - no experiments have managed to disprove it yet. many things (that were unknown at the time of the theory) were predicted by the models generated. the theory predicts that a clock moving with respect to another will tick slower than the local clock, they also predict that clocks at a lower gravitational potential will tick slower. these predictions are born out to an amazing degree of accuracy in the gps satellites. the model utilises a notion of time that was newish at the time and is now widely accepted; this is why it is common and correct to mention einstein when talking about the gps system

 

what relativity does not do - and what you are doing - is to dogmatically assert a fact about time and then make a model around that preordained fact. the postulates of special relativity were remarkable simple; everything is the same and independent of position in space or frame of reference, and that the speed of light is a constant that does not depend on the motion of the emitting or observing body.

 

you are starting with a unsupported statement and claiming that the experiment results and theoretical physics must comply - it is and must be the other way around - you start with the experimental fact and build the theory from there.

[Myuncle]

But saying time doesn't exist is like saying black holes don't exist. Maybe we can't see black holes directly, but what we can see is when a star gets ripped apart around a point of nothingness, so the only thing we can really infer is that black holes must exist. It's the same with time. Relativity works so well to describe things that time has like a 99% chance of existing. Also, with the clock on the satellite, the reason that happens is again because of time. It's because gravity distorts the fabric of space-time, and because the satellite is experiencing less distortion of the fabric of space since its further from Earth where gravity is weaker, the clock runs faster. I guess you can think of it as that it takes less effort for the same events to happen in less gravity than in higher gravity, therefore the same amount of effort will cause more events.

 

 

You can't compare a possible black hole with the existance of time, it's apples and oranges in my opinion. When I say time doesn't exist, I mean only as a dimension, I have no doubt that time exists as human idea, it's a very useful one, just like all math is based on the idea that something can be identical to something, but in reality we have never found two things identical to each other. Both the idea of time and math are very useful for us humans, by agreeing on these concepts we make our lives much more comfortable. Time exists only in our mind but not in reality. "Time" it's just another convenient practical idea and convenient agreement (exactly like the concept that in math every "unity" is identical to another unity), but this is just in our mind, not in reality. Time is a measurement of movement and chemical change, is nothing more than a tool created by men to keep track of movements/changes, to describe the passing of events. Time is essentially nothing. You cannot add, subtract, slow, or speed up time. That's why I see no substance in Relativity theory. Of course I have the maximum respect for Einstein, initially he made a brilliant discovery by proving the light bending effect during the eclipse. After this amazing discovery all the media hype for Einstein began, and the Relativity is a result of that media hype, we are still clapping our hands for a theory without substance.

Regarding the clock on the satellite, the reason that happens is again not because of time but because gravity distorts the fabric of space. You would be right absolutely if you just mention gravity and keep the fabric of time away. If we see the stars in the sky 100 light years away from us, does it mean that time is running slower for these stars only because we can see only their 100 years old light? No.

And, again, imatfaal, I am not putting the cart in front of the horse, I just want to be shown some substance from the theoretical physics.

[swansont]

Time is just a human idea (very useful idea) to keep track of these atoms moving. Then the presenter gave credit to Einstein for the GPS system (do we still need to give Einstein credit for everything? Just because a clock on a satellite run faster than a clock on earth, that doesn't mean that time is slowing down for the satellite!).

 

It's been tested and, within the context of physics models, time does indeed slow down when you move faster and/or deeper in a gravitational potential. Feel free to come up with an alternative that works, i.e. it explains all that the current theory explains, and can be tested. Until then, relativity is the best scientific explanation that we have.

 

You can't compare a possible black hole with the existance of time, it's apples and oranges in my opinion. When I say time doesn't exist, I mean only as a dimension, I have no doubt that time exists as human idea, it's a very useful one, just like all math is based on the idea that something can be identical to something, but in reality we have never found two things identical to each other. Both the idea of time and math are very useful for us humans, by agreeing on these concepts we make our lives much more comfortable. Time exists only in our mind but not in reality. "Time" it's just another convenient practical idea and convenient agreement (exactly like the concept that in math every "unity" is identical to another unity), but this is just in our mind, not in reality.

 

Length is a concept, too, but for some reason nobody has a problem with length being "real". Similarly for a lot of physics. The concepts are useful. Isn't that enough?

[John Cuthber]

I love this idea.

"these pretty strings and extra dimensions have never been proven, why even mention them??"

 

None of the suggestions put forward to explain the results has been proven.

It's going to be a rather short and disappointing program if you get to edit it.

 

And this one is even better.

"The presenter quoted Einstein saying that "time is not a constant, instead it changes depending on how fast you are moving, the faster you travel the slower time passes"...I am tired of listening to this. Time doesn't exist, "

 

OK, so what stops you telling me next week's lottery numbers?

In my understanding it's because the draw hasn't happened yet, but that only makes sense if time is real.

You don't believe that so...

[pantheory]

Myuncle,

 

....but the fact that time doesn't exist it's actually very important.

I'm not sure if I am following your meaning here. From a particular perspective one could say that time does not exist in that we invented it to measure changes and explain rates of relative motion mathematically. From a similar perspective we could also say that the 3 Cartesian dimensions also do not exist separate from our minds in that they are just our convenient invention to explain relative positions in space mathematically, and verbally as length, width, and height. Upon re-reading your posting it appears this is the reason why you suggest that time does not exist separate from our ideas of it?

 

I generally agree with your OP in that in my opinion the standard 9 or 11 dimensional string theories have no basis for their consideration but they were trying to make sense of reality as a whole (a many dimensional string theory of Everything ). The problem I believe is that we now have invented many theories in physics that are not mutually compatible. This implies that some or most of them are wrong, in my opinion. I am confident that when they generally figure it all out there will be fewer complicated things to talk about in physics except for the ponderous details. I think we made many wrong theoretical turns in the 20th century that will be corrected in the 21st century.

//

Edited October 25, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Regarding the clock on the satellite, the reason that happens is again not because of time but because gravity distorts the fabric of space.

 

You seem to agree that gravity exists.

You also stated that gravity is related to time.

I guess you understand that gravity is related to distance too.

And that distance is related to time , because a distance cannot be traveled by anything in no time.

 

IMHO the fact that we don't understand the nature of time is not a sufficient reason to negate its existence completely. Something that does not exist cannot be an element of comprehension of gravity and distance.

[Myuncle]

It's been tested and, within the context of physics models, time does indeed slow down when you move faster and/or deeper in a gravitational potential. Feel free to come up with an alternative that works, i.e. it explains all that the current theory explains, and can be tested. Until then, relativity is the best scientific explanation that we have.

 

 

 

Length is a concept, too, but for some reason nobody has a problem with length being "real". Similarly for a lot of physics. The concepts are useful. Isn't that enough?

 

Nobody has a problem with length being real because it happens in the only three dimension that we know so far, without the urge to add a new non-existent fourth dimension like time. Mine it's not a speculation, it's just the most simple evidence, it's just that Einstein speculation is accepted by the mainstream science.

I appreciate your courage Swansont when you say "time does indeed slow down when you move faster", at least you admit it. Unfortunately it's science fiction still accepted by mainstream science. I can't do anything about it, I have to live with it, the only thing I can do is invite you to wake up, the world is much more simple than we think.

[swansont]

Nobody has a problem with length being real because it happens in the only three dimension that we know so far, without the urge to add a new non-existent fourth dimension like time. Mine it's not a speculation, it's just the most simple evidence, it's just that Einstein speculation is accepted by the mainstream science.

I appreciate your courage Swansont when you say "time does indeed slow down when you move faster", at least you admit it. Unfortunately it's science fiction still accepted by mainstream science. I can't do anything about it, I have to live with it, the only thing I can do is invite you to wake up, the world is much more simple than we think.

 

A fast-moving truck can be at the same coordinates as you. I worry that a truck and I will be at the same coordinates simultaneously, which makes time a very real concern for me. How do you distinguish the situations without a fourth orthonormal coordinate?

[pantheory]

Myuncle,

 

.....the world is much more simple than we think.

In this, I totally agree with you.

//

Edited October 25, 2011 by pantheory

[questionposter]

Nobody has a problem with length being real because it happens in the only three dimension that we know so far, without the urge to add a new non-existent fourth dimension like time. Mine it's not a speculation, it's just the most simple evidence, it's just that Einstein speculation is accepted by the mainstream science.

I appreciate your courage Swansont when you say "time does indeed slow down when you move faster", at least you admit it. Unfortunately it's science fiction still accepted by mainstream science. I can't do anything about it, I have to live with it, the only thing I can do is invite you to wake up, the world is much more simple than we think.

 

If time doesn't exist, how do events happen? There's tons and tons of evidence for relativity to the point where its taught in high schools and colleges. Swan is right. Unless there's a better theory, time and relativity is the best one.

Edited October 25, 2011 by questionposter

[Myuncle]

A fast-moving truck can be at the same coordinates as you. I worry that a truck and I will be at the same coordinates simultaneously, which makes time a very real concern for me. How do you distinguish the situations without a fourth orthonormal coordinate?

 

The useful fourth coordinate that we call "time" is possible only thanks to atoms movement, and not vice versa.

[swansont]

The useful fourth coordinate that we call "time" is possible only thanks to atoms movement, and not vice versa.

Even if we provisionally accept that as true, so what? The fourth coordinate actually exists and is useful.

[Myuncle]

Even if we provisionally accept that as true, so what? The fourth coordinate actually exists and is useful.

 

 

So what? Are you kidding? Everything is going to change if you make clear that there is no slowing down of time and you dismiss time as a fourth dimension, it simply means that big part of what Einstein said has got to be thrown in the bin, and only small part of what he discoverd (like the bending of light) is going to survive.

[swansont]

So what? Are you kidding? Everything is going to change if you make clear that there is no slowing down of time and you dismiss time as a fourth dimension, it simply means that big part of what Einstein said has got to be thrown in the bin, and only small part of what he discoverd (like the bending of light) is going to survive.

 

Your conclusion does not follow You didn't show that time doesn't exist, you conceded the opposite — it exists because there is motion, i.e. if there is energy there is motion, so under your premise, time exists. How it behaves is subject to relativity.

[John Cuthber]

I still want to know next week's lottery numbers.

Failing that I want to know why you can't tell me them.

you can tell me last week's. If the only difference is time, and time doesn't exist then you should be able to help me out here.

[Moontanman]

Not only do i disagree with you on times existence I'll go one step farther and say time is so basic that nothing else can exist with out time. Most people, when they think of dimensions, start out with one, then two, and then three, and only then do they consider time. I think time is the "first" dimension and without it no other dimensions could exist...

[zerotwoone]

I would like to add my 2 cents, but considering monetary inflation (reported), it's probably only worth 1.2 cents. I don't think of time as a dimension, if a dimension is a reference point in space, but instead it's a property within a dimension, that's why space and time is so tightly woven together. If time is a property of a dimension, then in the first dimension, it doesn't manifest, or it's nonsensical, but in the second dimension, time manifests, two points in relation to each other.

 

 

[pantheory]

Not only do i disagree with you on times existence I'll go one step farther and say time is so basic that nothing else can exist with out time. Most people, when they think of dimensions, start out with one, then two, and then three, and only then do they consider time. I think time is the "first" dimension and without it no other dimensions could exist...

I like your perspective but what do you think about these perspectives?

 

I will equate time with change or relative motion. First there must be something to start with that could change, in the beginning. Time devoid of everything else seemingly would be meaningless. A single dimensional entity to start reality could have length but could be expanding in length (becoming relatively longer), hence changing. This accordingly would put the first dimension as being primary and then time as being the second possible dimension. But if time must require relative motion then there must be at least two entities to start with to consider relative motion. In this case time could be the third dimension If the only possible reality requires a Cartesion configuration then time could be considered the fourth dimension. If you like to play with semantics then one could say that before anything else space must pre-exist everything else and be the first required dimension. Space like time can also be considered a required dimension of matter and field (an occupied volume), or as a combined dimension it could be called spacetime. If time and space are considered separately then time could be the 5th required dimension

//

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[owl]

Myuncle:

The presenter quoted Einstein saying that "time is not a constant, instead it changes depending on how fast you are moving, the faster you travel the slower time passes"...I am tired of listening to this. Time doesn't exist, it's not a dimension at all, only movement exists in reality.

 

Me too... tired of the reification of time. Thanks. I understand time as event duration of physical processes. Clocks’ rates of "ticking” (physical process) slow down in various conditions. Time is not “something” that slows down (“dilates.”) I suspect that the rate of human aging also slows down at high velocities, so high speed space voyagers would probably age more slowly than their Earth bound counterparts. But this is NOT an argument for "time travel."

 

No matter how math is good at descrbing theory if this theory doesn't exist in reality.

 

(If the theory's referents don't exist in reality.) Again, kudos to you. So I have constantly maintained* in my ongoing debate with relativity theorists in this forum.

*(Frequently citing Kelley Ross’ paper on “The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.”)

 

Nobody has a problem with length being real because it happens in the only three dimension that we know so far, without the urge to add a new non-existent fourth dimension like time.

 

Yup. And how about combining "time" with space (the volume in which all things exist) to "fabricate" the "fabric of spacetime," one of my favorite subjects to criticize.

Again, thank you.

[Myuncle]

Myuncle:

 

 

Me too... tired of the reification of time. Thanks. I understand time as event duration of physical processes. Clocks’ rates of "ticking” (physical process) slow down in various conditions. Time is not “something” that slows down (“dilates.”) I suspect that the rate of human aging also slows down at high velocities, so high speed space voyagers would probably age more slowly than their Earth bound counterparts. But this is NOT an argument for "time travel."

 

 

 

(If the theory's referents don't exist in reality.) Again, kudos to you. So I have constantly maintained* in my ongoing debate with relativity theorists in this forum.

*(Frequently citing Kelley Ross’ paper on “The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.”)

 

 

 

Yup. And how about combining "time" with space (the volume in which all things exist) to "fabricate" the "fabric of spacetime," one of my favorite subjects to criticize.

Again, thank you.

 

thanks, you made my day

 

Your conclusion does not follow You didn't show that time doesn't exist, you conceded the opposite — it exists because there is motion, i.e. if there is energy there is motion, so under your premise, time exists. How it behaves is subject to relativity.

 

 

I said clearly that time doesn't exist in reality and it's not a dimension at all, but it's just a useful human idea, you can draw the coordinate only because of the reality of motion. If you ask me any proof, then you should ask me to prove that "love" "God" "justice" are not a dimension. You can draw the coordinate of love if you want, does it make it real as a dimension?

[swansont]

I said clearly that time doesn't exist in reality and it's not a dimension at all, but it's just a useful human idea, you can draw the coordinate only because of the reality of motion.

This seems contradictory. "You can draw the coordinate" implies that the dimension exists. You state without proof or evidence that the length dimensions are "real", but that time is not, and have yet to address the points I brought up. All we have so far is assertions.

 

 

If you ask me any proof, then you should ask me to prove that "love" "God" "justice" are not a dimension. You can draw the coordinate of love if you want, does it make it real as a dimension?

 

I don't know. Do you have formulas which quantify it? Can you show the orthonormality of love to some other dimension? Does it have a commutation relation?