Question about time....

[fallen_6666]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I was reading several books on the topic of time and was wondering what are your thoughts on the question: "does time move" Do you think its just SciFi or fantasy or do you think this is an actual occurence. Also what is your thoughts on multiple universes.

[JaKiri]

Without defining 'move', it's a fairly useless question.

[Jordan14]

I think that time is a dimension if that is the type of thing that you mean, an yes I do beleive in a multiverse.

[Pete]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I was reading several books on the topic of time and was wondering what are your thoughts on the question: "does time move" Do you think its just SciFi or fantasy or do you think this is an actual occurence. Also what is your thoughts on multiple universes.

No. The term cannot apply in this manner according to the current concepts of space and time and the meaning of "move".

 

Pmb

[The Rebel]

How can it be possible to have multiple universes???

 

Imagine throwing a simple pack of cards into the air, the amount of different spins and flips each of the 52 cards could encounter and how they could fall to the ground. With what can be formed with a single deck like this, think of all the events that happen across one country, one world and our universe.

 

Even infinity itself could not substantiate the number of universes that would exist, and with the energies existing in one universe, it would be so volatile.

 

This is part and parcle of why I severly object to the other sci-fi idea of time travel. With the amount of chaos caused from one moment in time such as a pack of cards. How could any phenomenom reverse such a complexity to its previous state. Not to mention to the forces required to the break the bonds of fused molecules that happened in that time frame, e.g. radiation phenoma, or baking a cake.

[Martin]

How can it be possible to have multiple universes???

 

...

 

I think I probably agree with you' date=' Rebel.

all the multiverse chatter strikes me as theoretically useless

and idle speculation

it does give comfort to string theorists however----a major failure of

string surfaces in Jan 2003 with the publication of a paper by kachru et al indicating that string has a "Landscape" of on the order of 10[sup']100[/sup]

different vacuums with different physics parameter no way has been found to choose the real needle from the stack of phony Landscape hay.

 

there is no evidence that the huge haystack of other universes exist, but

some people find it comforting to imagine that they do, and then string theory seems less ridiculous

 

but that is their problem.

 

for people doing traditional theoretical physics, with a real hope of testing their conjectures at the LHC (and this may include some more reality-based string theorists with the others!)...for those people there is no use to postulating multiple universes AFAIK.

[5614]

apparently there is some kind of mathematical proof for the multiverse theory although have never seen it.... if there really is NO proof i doubt it'd be such a big theory among scientists, i mean, kids will always think its possibly due to movies and books, but when scientists talk about it too - who knows?

 

also doesnt a universe mean ONE verse, so you'd have a multiverse not a lot of universes.

[Ophiolite]

also doesnt a universe mean ONE verse, so you'd have a multiverse not a lot of universes.

If the English language permits monokini it should permit multiple universes!!!

[1veedo]

apparently there is some kind of mathematical proof for the multiverse theory although have never seen it.... if there really is NO proof i doubt it'd be such a big theory among scientists, i mean, kids will always think its possibly due to movies and books, but when scientists talk about it too - who knows?

The multiuniverse is just another interpretation of quantum theory. I kindof like Copenhagen better because it makes manyworlds seem superfluous. I did see one theory that completely did out with time by having multiple universes. It was a completely static multiuniverse and actually made alot of sense, did away with schondiers cat (that's definitely misspelled), and had an explanation for existence arising from absolutely nothing...

 

Though I forget the name and my bookmarks didn't come over before I installed Fedora If I come across it again I'll post a link.

[Peels]

I will take the position of views from Sorli.

 

Physical time exists only as a stream of change that runs through cosmic space. But, why is it that irreversible physical time is experienced as past, present and future? The answer is that the eyes perceive a stream of irreversible change. Once elaborated by the mind, the stream of change is experienced chronologically through psychological time that is a part of the human mind. By observing the continuous stream of irreversible physical change hamans have developed psychological time through which we experience the universe. Psychological time is reversible. One can go back into past. This creates an idea that physical time also has a past, but this is no so.

[ecoli]

I think that time travel to the past is impossible. I agree with the Rebel on that one. However, time travel into the future is a completely different matter. In the future, the deck of cards has already fallen, so you can not affect the present.

[ydoaPs]

I think that time travel to the past is impossible. I agree with the Rebel on that one. However, time travel into the future is a completely different matter. In the future, the deck of cards has already fallen, so you can not affect the present.

 

time travel to the past is completely possible. (ex. move one end of a wormhole at speeds close to c, then go through the wormhole. this time machine can only take you back to when you started to move the wormhole. if someone from the other side jumped in, they would travel hundreds, thousands, or millions of years into the future, depending on how fast and how long you moved the wormhole.)

however, it is impossible to CHANGE the past. you may say that going back in time is changing the past, but it isn't. basically, if time travel occurred, then our present is built on that time travel. the fact that you are alive proves that if you went back in time to kill your parents, that you failed to kill them.

[MadScientist]

How can it be possible to have multiple universes???

 

Imagine throwing a simple pack of cards into the air' date=' the amount of different spins and flips each of the 52 cards could encounter and how they could fall to the ground. With what can be formed with a single deck like this, think of all the events that happen across one country, one world and our universe.

 

Even infinity itself could not substantiate the number of universes that would exist, and with the energies existing in one universe, it would be so volatile.

[/quote']

 

There are many kinds of multiverses though. Parallel ones where for every possible outcome a new universe is created is something I can't accept either.

 

Multiple big bangs in the void/nothingness could have happened, creating seperate universes. This is brane theory, where each universe exists on its own membrane, in its own dimensional pocket of the void/nothingness.

 

Some believe matter and energy entering a black hole spews out into another universe as large as the matter and energy it's devoured.

They could just as easily act like energy storage devices though, maybe having a miniverse in them is just a by product. Maybe our universe is inside a black hole right now..

 

There are other theories but I've never bothered looking into them, too much to comprehend about this one for now.

[Cadmus]

what are your thoughts on the question: "does time move"

Time is always in motion, forward.

[Macroscopic]

Origanally posted by fallen_6666

what are your thoughts on the question: "does time move"

 

I don't think time moves. Time is a dimension. I don't see how a dimension could move. It's more likely that we move through time.

[Cadmus]

I don't think time moves. Time is a dimension. I don't see how a dimension could move. It's more likely that we move through time.

I will not call you wrong. However, I would like to challenge what you call a dimension. I think that you are perhaps considering that "we" move through space, and in the same way that we move through time. I disagree with this. I think that it is not that objects that are not space move through space which is distinct from them, but rather that objects are space. All objects in space must exist in time, and therefore to say that objects move through space is also incomplete.

 

I would suggest that objects exist in space-time, and that objects in space-time move through space-time.

 

Objects exist in space-time. Time is in motion, forward. Space is also in motion, over time. Objects that exist in space-time cannot help but be in motion through space and in motion through time. Objects in space-time must always be in motion through space-time. Objects in space-time are space-time, and are not distinct from space or time.

 

When you suggest that time "is" a dimension, I really have no idea what you might mean by that. Can you elaborate?

[[Tycho?]]

time travel to the past is completely possible. (ex. move one end of a wormhole at speeds close to c' date=' then go through the wormhole. this time machine can only take you back to when you started to move the wormhole. if someone from the other side jumped in, they would travel hundreds, thousands, or millions of years into the future, depending on how fast and how long you moved the wormhole.)

however, it is impossible to CHANGE the past. you may say that going back in time is changing the past, but it isn't. basically, if time travel occurred, then our present is built on that time travel. the fact that you are alive proves that if you went back in time to kill your parents, that you failed to kill them.[/quote']

 

It is completely probably theoretically possible to travel back in time, as nobody knows if its possible for worm holes to actually exist.

 

Also, since when has the causality question been answered? If you go back in time, can you change it, or is it fixed. If you can change it, causes paradoxes. If you can't, then you have a specific destiny which you cannot change. These are big questions which have been around for a long while, I dont recall hearing about a definitive answer. Or in fact, any answer aside from "I dont know" from any physics publication.

[Cadmus]

'']It is completely probably theoretically possible to travel back in time

I think that the only thing that is possible is to discuss what you might possibly mean by "traveling back in time". If you were to travel back in time, such travel would take place in your future. Therefore, you would be traveling into the future. If you were to travel into the past, you would be there. However, you were not there the previous time. Therefore, this would not be the past that was. Lastly, the entire universe has moved through time since the past. To travel into the past would require the entire universe to roll back to a previous stage, which I consider impossible under any circumstances, but certainly given that part of the entire universe, namely you, would not roll back to the past but would roll forward to the past, a contradiction in terms.

[Macroscopic]

When you suggest that time "is" a dimension, I really have no idea what you might mean by that. Can you elaborate?

Sure. I mean that time is a dimension like the dimensions of space.

I would suggest that objects exist in space-time, and that objects in space-time move through space-time.

That second part is what I said if you drop the space part. How can an object move through space-time, but not space or time indivually. Could you explain?

[Cadmus]

That second part is what I said if you drop the space part. How can an object move through space-time, but not space or time indivually. Could you explain?

I do not think that it is optimal to discuss space outside of its context of time. There is only space-time. To separate space from time is to introduce incompleteness.

 

More specfically to answer your question, when you suggest that objects move through space or through time, I get the impression that you are considering the objects to be distinct from the space and the time through which they are moving. I disagree with this. Any object that you can speak of is part of the matrix of space-time. Objects are composed of space that are in motion through time, they are objects in space-time. All objects in space-time are in motion. Everything is in motion through the matrix of space-time that composes the universe that we are recognize now.

 

You ask how an object can not move through space or time alone. Any object that moves through space requires time for that motion. Therefore, all motion through space requires time. All motion through time requires motion through space because nothing in the universe can ever be static with respect to the entire universe. Therefore, all motion through time requires space. Everything is always in motion through space-time. Nothing can ever really be in motion through space yet not time or through time yet not space in the context of the entire universe.

[swansont]

I will not call you wrong. However' date=' I would like to challenge what you call a dimension. I think that you are perhaps considering that "we" move through space, and in the same way that we move through time. I disagree with this. I think that it is not that objects that are not space move through space which is distinct from them, but rather that objects are space. All objects in space must exist in time, and therefore to say that objects move through space is also incomplete.

 

I would suggest that objects exist in space-time, and that objects in space-time move through space-time.

[/quote']

 

And "ct" is one of the dimensions of the spacetime 4-vector. As such, time is a dimension.

[Dhawal]

TIME is always in motion !

Positive Motion

[Mart]

Objects are composed of space that are in motion through time, they are objects in space-time.

Might be a small change but should that be "they are objects of space-time"?

You used of when you said "Objects are composed of space"

My point is that although prepositions are small words they have big effects on how we think about stuff.

 

So to put your statement another way "they are space-time objects". That way we get the idea that objects are inseperable from space-time because they are some aspect of space-time.

[Cadmus]

Might be a small change but should that be "they are objects of space-time"?

You used of when you said "Objects are composed of space"

Sure. They are objects n space-time, and they are composed of space-time.

[Mart]

Sure. They are objects n space-time, and they are composed of space-time.

 

So would you say that objects and space-time are not separate? Like say frequency is not separate from wavelength when we think about waves?