Slashdot Mirror
Time Doesn't Exist
Meshula writes "An interesting article suggesting that time is an illusion of perception has appeared at
New Scientist.
"...quantum mechanics supports it. In 1929, the British physicist Nevill Mott and Werner Heisenberg from Germany explained how alpha particles, emitted by radioactive nuclei, form straight tracks in cloud chambers. Mott pointed out that, quantum mechanically, the emitted alpha particle is a spherical wave which slowly leaks out of the nucleus. It is difficult to picture how it is that an outgoing spherical wave can produce a straight line," he argued. We think intuitively that it should ionise atoms at random throughout space.
Mott noted that we think this way because we imagine that quantum processes take place in ordinary three-dimensional space. In fact, the possible configurations of the alpha particle and the particles in the detecting chamber must be regarded as the points of a hugely multidimensional configuration space, a miniature Platonia, with the position of the radioactive nucleus playing the role of Alpha. "
It's worth a read.
"
Oh YEAH! I already wrote a paper on this... and brought it up on slashdot a while back in a thread. And several people were calling me absurd. Oh well... Silly me.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so. - Ford Prefect : Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
Assuming time doesn't exist, why is it that I always get to work late? Is it that I'm already at work and exist at home simultaniously (and thus I really am not late)? If so, they're not paying me enough!!
--
Of particular note:
1) A person who says that he's seen microwaves go faster than the speed of light.
2) Wormhole theory (with lots of chats with Hawking)
3) If you've ever seen the light experiment where a light source goes through two slits in a wall, causing the light to split, you'll be curious to see what happens when they let only one photon at a time go to the wall. The result? Same as if you let all the photons through. Bars of light.
-Mark
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Why would a 4D creature be stretched out throughout all time? We are 3D creatures, but that doesn't mean that we're stretched out throughout all 3D space - we exist in only some of it. Why wouldn't a 4D creature exist in only some part of time (much as we do)?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
it maybe too way out, and depends on your definition of 'exists', but as for objective reality you will find things changing but you can't find a thing or process you can label 'time'. So lets differentiate between 'rates of change' and some subjective metaphysical framework of measuring that change and comparing it with other changes. Part of this confusion, which seems to be rampant here, is the use of 'distance' in physical space as an ANALOGY of change, which we call time, which includes Einsteins use of the "4th dimension", which has some very good uses, but also creates some problems, notably the perennial problem of 'time travel' - which is clearly confusing traveling thru space with something that, uh, doesn't exist! That also relates to the physics problem of the 'direction' of the arrow of time. I can move back and forth in space, but 'time' just inexorably chugs on like an unstoppable juggernaught. Why CAN'T I 'travel' in time? This is also such a fundamental conception (space as an analogy of rates of change) that I suspect it is wired into the brain to happen automatically w/o consciously thinking, maybe related to motor function as an animal moving or running must look ahead and plan for 'future' movements, as in a few movements I'll be over there and must act accordingly, perhaps to escape a predator. Those that couldn't see the near 'future' were eaten. Anyway, those of a more religious or metaphysical persuasion will understand (probably why it isn't flying here, heh) - there's been books with names like The Eternal Now etc. (it doesn't exist in print either :)
In sum, memories exist, the past doesn't; everything is changing, but tomorrow never comes.
Time exists in natural reality as much as centimeters, yen, or yardsticks do. If 'time' existed as an objective reality independant of the human (or animal for that matter) brain why would the bureau of standards have to erect expensive radio stations linked to extremely stable regularly changing events like cesium atoms to tell us what it is? Why would there be so many different calendars pegged to largely arbitrary events, like some dude's birthday or the founding of Rome or whatever.
BTW, be sure to get NIST's Internet Time Synchronizer and bug them to make a Linux version. I use it all the, ahem, time to keep these lousy PC clocks somewhere in the vicinty (isn't that a spacial term meaning close?) of a standard. And another thing: why do we keep having to add leap years and leap seconds to keep us earthlings synchronized with astronomical events like the transit of a particular star on a slowly slowing earth if the time we're so familiar with actually is an absolute?
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
AHA! So God DOES roll dice! heh
One obvious feature of a universe like this would be that time travel of any kind would be impossible. There would be an infinite number of states you could have come from or could go to.
So our parents were right when we asked why something was and they said "because it just is". Maybe they should have said "because anything else would be much less probable".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
(From Abian's paper)
. At the primeval stage, the Cosmic mass was violently sucked out from its primeval state (perhaps as a primeval fireball) and with a furious and tempestuous force was fulminated into the Space giving rise to the existing Cosmos. I call that stage "The Big Suck Stage" and the corresponding theory "The Big Suck Theory" (contrary to the currently held "The Big Bang Theory" which is nonconvincing to many).
Well, it certainly does suck.
I appologize for shamelessly nicking that from Wayne's World.
Oh no...question too deep...must...stop...pondering...or...brain...will ...implode...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Although I'm arguing that the above metioned article is or isn't valid science, I don't
/. editors can pass this #1 criteria... /. editors on this point)
think that being a physicist has any very much to do with the ability to judge "newsworthiness"
of scientific blurbs that occur in mainstream press articles that have no details provided,
unless, of course, if he/she is involved with that research.
A particularly astute visionary, Richard Feynman (who by the way was also a physicist) observed
that often what passes as scientific judgement is often a thinly diguised religion.
As evidence, he observed the written record of the discovery of a "new" particles in the literature.
Basically, looking back he discovered that early experimental results that could have indicated the
existance of such particles were routinely dismissed as experimental error. After more
"support" for the particle existed, the experimental error started to be tracked and
eventually a "new" paradigm emerged.
Feynman surmised that there would have been even more historical reasearch to support the "new"
paradigm earlier, but noted that some researcher often "threw-out" experiments that didn't verify
their theories or fit their agenda. So much for the integrity of scientific judgement.
That's not to say that scientists (or physicists) are alone in this type of behaviour, it's human.
It's only natural to have such a filter. Since there is only a finite amount of time in a day,
people often build up "BS" filters that help to keep them from wasting time in probablistically
non-productive pursuits.
On the other hand people with journalism training tend to recognize this type of bias and tend to be
better prepared to compensate for it. So IMNSHO, I think a person with a background in journalism
who also happens to know a bit about science is much more qualified to be a science editor.
(BTW, that's not me...)
I'm not saying that having a physics background isn't useful, but I seriously doubt that physics
background alone make anyone more qualified to be an editor than your typical techno-geek that
watches the discovery channel on a regular basis and is a sceptic and has good BS detector.
(and that's not me either...)
However, having said that, techno-geeks that watch the discovery channel aren't necessarily qualified
to be editors (or physicist) either, it's just that neither is a very good indicator of being a
good editor.
But people who can critically read and comment on things that they vehmenantly disagree with,
well, that's a good start... However, the ability to take criticism because you know that not
everyone will agree with your decision to run with an article, that's probably the #1 criteria...
From what I've seen so far most of the
(having edited a newspaper before, I can definitly sympathize with the
-slew
(oh yeah, I studied physics too, but not volunteering for any jobs...)
Meaning no disrespect to Hemos, CmdrTaco, etc., etc., Slashdot realy needs a "science editor." Someone with an appreciable knowledge of science. This article is quite a heap of crap, from a scientific methedology standpoint (to say nothing of the lousy "physics" involved).
Anyway, most of the time, the /. editors put decent ideas and stories up, but from time to time, things like this get through. This story is filled with misinterpretations and omissions of quantum and general relativisitc theory.
One does not have to know evrything there is to know about all fields of science to determine what is valid, but one needs a basic understanding of each fields underlying principles as well as the use of scientific reasoning. These skills and knowledge one can learn from a decent undergraduate eduaction in the "hard sciences" (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, etc.). An undergradute eduaction in these fields is not the ONLY to recieve this knowledge, either. They are just the ones classically recognized as providing a decent platform onto which one can learn about other types of science. The anaylitical skills learned from these fields allow one to anaylize other's scientific arguments based upon their scientific merit and reasoning.
I would like to propose that, in particular, Physics gives an excellent background on other sciences as well as the needed training in scientific reasoning. Hey a guy can have a small bias can't he? :-) Anyway, the concepts learned in an undergraduate physics program have applications in almost every scientific and engineering field (uh oh, I said the dreaded E-word :-) One learns about the scientific method, Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics and energy, Quantum Mechanics, Electricity and Magnatisim, Materials Physics, and Relativity. This stuff won't tell you everything there is to know about Biology, Chemical Engineering, Computer Science, or whatever, but it does get you quite a bit along the way.
I am sure other disciplines teach the analytical thought processes and most of the topics I mentioned. However, physics is the study of how everything works, so it is kind of broad :-)
Anyway, I'm sorry if I sound like a snot. I'm not trying to berate other sciences. I actually think that the skills any science teaches are essential in being able to discern what is valid and what is not, at least from a scientific viewpoint.
As you can probably tell, I am a physicist. I am at the Depatment of Physics at Case Western Reserve University. Email me if you want. It should be easy enough to figure out my real address. I'll get off my soapbox now :-).
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
First some background. It is clear to anyone who has studied Special Relativity and/or Quantum Physics that the "common" perception of time just doesn't work. Special Relativity shows that two events that are simultaneous according to one person are not simultaneous according to a person with different motion. Quantum Physics shows that, on a subatomic scale, time is non-linear, and can even be percieved to run in reverse.
It's clear that we need a new concept of time that incorporates what we currently know. Barbour offers us one. It's not earth shattering, since it offers no new verifiable predictions, but it's a viewpoint that might just help someone else come up with something earth shattering. Rather than standing on the shoulders of giants, he peeks over and takes a picture so the rest of us can see.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Which is exactly what I describe. The first case, you are not observing the photon directly, so the probability waves don't collapse. In the second case you are, so they do.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
His argument, concerning straight tracks, are this kind of error. He's looking for the integral of a probabalistic wave (as he's looking over a period of time), but he's getting the raw, collapsed wave instead. If you look in the wrong places, you are bound to not find what you expect.
When you receive a radio wave, you don't collapse that wave into a photonic particle (which is what the radio wave is, if it could be collapsed). For a QM probabalistic wave to collapse into a particle, you must do more than measure it's existance--you must measure it in such a way as to force a measurement of it as a particle.
And that's just it: if you simply look at the release of an alpha particle by itself, it should produce a uniform ionizing radiation "sphere" around the decaying atom. A cloud chamber does not inherently differentiate between a unform sphere of radiation (a wave) and a decay particle, so simply observing with a cloud chamber should not force the probability function to collapse.
What the article suggests is that it is the interaction between the alpha particle and the cloud chamber, rather than simply the observation done in the cloud chamber, which forces the probability function to collapse.
Overall, I have no problems with time, at least at a quantuum mechanical level, not existing except as a consequence of the configuration of the probability cloud. Just as I have no problems with the atoms of my body being nothing more than a consequence of the spacial collapse of a very large probability cloud. It all seems real, and it's the perception of reality around me that's important to my day to day life.
"Anyway, what happened to quantum causality. Doesn't that make an arrow."
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Time is God. or at least what most people think of it as. They are nearly interrchangable. "It is all done through X." "X is all-powerful. all-knowing, and everywhere."
They are both understood at about the same level "God does not Exist!!" (That's was the major philosophical break for thr ren.). The given of the equation.
That's my personal philosophy at least, it goes on, but not here. Gotta website comin' soon...
+&x
The concept that matter spacetime can be represented as "rotating" in four dimensions isn't all that farfetched--as an object devotes more of its being to change in spatial position, its internal processes appear to "slow", reflecting a rotation out of time.
Now, I'm bullshitting out of my ass here, but it's a convenient way to think about time dilation.
Anyway, my main argument against a timeless universe is that it makes some tremendous assumptions about the information storage content of the universe. If anything can travel "backwards" in time, all particle states would have to be remembered in one form or another. One would be able to store an infinite amount of data on a single floppy by merely constantly rewriting the disk and using timeseeks to access previous disk states.
However, there is no conceptual problem with particles, structures, or even objects moving forward in time but with all subatomic processes moving backwards--we can watch, in forward time, video playing back in reverse and yet not suffer a time paradox. Reactions are simply occuring backwards. There is evidence that reactions occur backwards, but saying that they're reactions from the future moving back to the past requires far too many presumptions about the structure of the universe.
Enough from me for now.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Think big bang. Think all of reality in a peapod. Time is still. Or is it. Boom, everything starting spreading, growing, like a little flower.
Now think about the sign we have for infinity. ya'know that twisty thingy. Now look at all the patterns of life in death in nature. Fron half-life to earthquakes (hehe). Now think of black holes. Sucking in everything, even other black holes. mmm, black holes. Now think of matter all compacting to one space, one time, one peapod. Rinse, repeat.
Throw in free will and chaos (quantum craziness) and you have a hell of a fun game.
Coming soon to your Playstation10^9
+&x
I said {NT}
+&x
Actually, it wouldn't diffuse :-)
But it is very easy to think that it would, from the typical undergraduate wave mechanics course -- I know I did!
The very first exercise everyone does is to show how a gaussian wavepacket inexorably spreads out; and then after that the only localised states you ever encounter are bound states, with the quantum object penned in by an ever growing potential -- which seems quite inappropriate for a macroscopic object, because the potential would have to be enormous.
However, in fact quantum mechanics doesn't predict that everyday objects should diffuse off to infinity; and the reason why is a purely wave thing -- it works just as well for sound and vibration. Finding this out probably gave me a bigger shock than any other misconception I suddenly realised in my undergraduate physics course, and I think it's something which is criminally under-emphasised in the teaching of wave mechanics: you don't need quantum measurement to explain why apparently free macroscopic objects are localised.
The revelation was a phenomenon discovered by Philip Anderson in 1958 in a paper he called "Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices". (They later gave him a Nobel prize for it.) Anderson's result was that the eigenstates of quantum objects actually are spatially localised, even for very small absolute differences in the potential function (much less than would be needed for a bound state), if the potential is not smooth but disordered.
In fact it is now known that in 1D and 2D any magnitude of disorder, however small (so long as it persists throughout the surface), will produce exponential localisation. And this is not some strange quantum phenomenon; it happens for any waves -- the same mechanism for example can cause vibration energy to get trapped in a small part of a large engineering structure. In 3D a rule of thumb is that the energy will be unable to diffuse away if the effective scattering length is less than one wavelength (the Ioffe-Regel criterion).
Now for a macroscopic object, the de Broglie wavelength is very very small. But I think the effective scattering length is even shorter. The key is the disorder of the object itself. Even if each of its constituent particles are experiencing quite small local potentials with a slow spatial variation, these all have to be added together to give the potential seen by the centre of mass. Even quite a gently changing potential has spectral power implicit in the higher modes of its fourier transform; but adding together all the different contributions effectively amplifies and phase randomises these frequencies. So the potential the centre of mass sees will have real high spatial frequency oscillations -- it won't be smooth at all!
That is why the effective scattering length for macroscopic objects in a typical environment is in fact even shorter than the de Broglie wavelength; and thus why the "good quantum states" for my monitor, my keyboard and my navel are all very strongly Anderson localised.
Why doesn't this work? Simple. This is simply a misunderstanding of Calculus. Mind you, as calculus hadn't been invented then, they can be forgiven for misunderstanding it. As dt approaches zero, dx/dt approaches the true rate of change at -that point-. It's an instantaneous rate of change, so you don't see the effect of it, for that instant, but it's still non-zero, so an effect will occur.
How does this apply here? Here, the reverse has happened. This guy is looking at the INTEGRAL of time, and confusing that with time itself. If you take a line, and integrate it, you will get an area. An area isn't a line, and does not visibly consist of lines, but a simple differentiation will show those lines must exist.
His argument, concerning straight tracks, are this kind of error. He's looking for the integral of a probabalistic wave (as he's looking over a period of time), but he's getting the raw, collapsed wave instead. If you look in the wrong places, you are bound to not find what you expect.
IMHO, this is very poor science. Any school-age kid who's done maths has done calculus, and knows this very simple pitfall. There is NO excuse for it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
A: all 1 million molecules randomly distributed throughout the piston
B: all 1 million gas molecules very close to the bottom of the piston
The chances of situation B occuring by chance are exceedingly small, and were probably caused by compression of the piston or so (and the piston was expanded and immediately after that the snapshot was taken). In any case, moving from situation A to B by chance alone can safely be ignored, so time B is before time A. That's all there is to it; all the other laws of nature appear to be time-invariant.
Now, *how* the universe could have started with such an incredibly low entropy (== high order) is anybody's guess; fact is that the total entropy keeps increasing, and that's what we observe.
Now, you can play word games using the anthropic (!= entropic !!) principle: if the universe did not start with such a low entropy, who would have been there to observe it and argue about it on slashdot :-) So perhaps that's where the beholder bit comes in. But I should read the original I suppose.
The fact that the author's book is published by Cambridge Univ. Press tells me that he is no hack.
There are a lot of interesting people like Paul Erdos at the bleeding edge.
My first year physics prof at Tufts U. shared a Nobel Prize for something he worked on in his basement during free time completed unrelated to his main research topics.
Since a lot of great physics is done in the early life of a physicist, it is not surprising that there is a lot of amatuer flavor to it. Many of Einstein's ideas leading to relativity were framed when he was 15 or 16 years old.
That article was highly interesting. Tell me though, as you read the discussion of how we perceive time and motion, was anyone else thinking what I was thinking? "Infinate Improbability Drive"! Movement by altering the probability mist of the Platonic landscape. Make the improbable more probable and suddenly your there. No 'movement' needed at all. Hmm... Ok, Mr. Douglas Adams, maybe that flying thing has some potential after all. ;)
This "time doesn't exist" thing really puts a damper on a very large and hilarious group of jokes. For example, "What time is it when an elephant sits on your watch? Time to get a new watch!" Will now have to be updated to "What time is it when an elephant sits on your watch? An interesting article suggesting that time is an illusion of perception has appeared at New Scientist...". I suggest that , as mature adults, we squelch this discovery for the good of all mankind, so our children and our children's children can enjoy this diverse category of jokes.
Cool! That means that I must have been imagining all that crappy journalism!
Makes me feel better about the world that Time never existed.
If time is real, when did time start?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
If I told you temperature does not exist, because heat is nothing more than a measure of the avarage kinetic energy of the particles that compose an object, which quantum mechanically should be described as a linear combination of an (almost) infinite number of wavelengths and can not be measured directly, would this be posted on slashdot as a great new scientific insight, or would I be advised to stick my head in an oven at various temperature settings, to see if I can spot some of those wavefunctions?
A singularity, where the Curvature of space is infinte and there exists something with a volume of zero and infinite density. Time and General Relativity Break down here.
Velocities at the Speed of light, time dialation becomes infinte and time stops for anything with a velocity of c.
From what i can understand from this article is Time does not exist on a Universal scale, it is kind of like the homogenity of the universe. 'The universe is symmetrical only on a universal scale'. In other words time exists when your reference frame is smaller than the whole universe.
However, If Time just dosent exist, i wasted allot of nothing on a paper on singularities which is compleatly misguided as of this new (wait it can't be new b/c there isn't time) research.
Argh i'll prolly have to fit something on this in my conclusion,
oblisk
P.S. Thank god for the slowness of radical ideas acceptance in science.
------------------------------------
Here's a brief explanation of the article:
Consider the set of all possible configurations of all particles in the universe. (He names this set Platonia.) Arrange the set so that configurations which are similar are close to each other. In other words, the configuration where I've just gotten out of my chair is close to the configuration where I'm about to get out of my chair, but they're both really far from the configuration where I'm on an airplane flying to Bombay.
He then defines the "arrows" of time as a straight "track" traced between different configurations. Each configuration contains data which has records of "the past"-- other configurations on the same track. Essentially he's changed the definition of the Universe. What we consider "the universe" is a single element of the set he names Platonia. But he names Platonia the universe-- the set of all possible particle configurations.
Let me use his arguments to prove that distance doesn't exist. "Consider what we think of as points on the real line. The point 1 and the point 4 have a distance of three. But there's really an infinite number of points, and they're all connected. I will define the real line R as a point. Distance has no meaning to the real line so distance must not exist! What we think of as distance is really just the separation between two different instantiations of our point R." Technically stated this is true. He's redefining terms in such a way that they're no longer meaningful.
On the bright side, if he could get from "Time doesn't exist" to "consider a set that contains the concept of time", he might be able to theorize something useful.
I'm going to comment on his credentials in a later post...
-Ted
Ok, what he seems to be saying is that every possible configuration of the universe has some probability, which is determinable by plugging that configuration into some equation (who knows what this thing looks like).
Now, in the set of all possible configurations, there are bound to exist configurations that LOOK as if they are a time evolved state of another confuration. In other words, state B is configured in such a way as it appears to contain information imparted by a previous state A.
But in 'reality' they are merely two status in the 'mist' which have some finite probability of 'existing'. String enough of these states together in a sequence and you get his 'time capsules'.
Ok, interesting mind candy, but it does not seem like there is much here to chew on for the real physicist. My understanding of physics is that is about the production of mathematical models which should predict the real, observed behavior of physical systems.
The progression of time is an observable. Just about every observation one could wish to make will involve time, whatever it is, even if it is an 'illusion'.
If you were to produce a theory that did not contain time you would have to demonstrate how time appears to come into being in some special cases (and demonstrate it a little bit better than with some speciously reasoned 'time capsule' argument), and demonstrate that your model not only describes all currently obsevable physical behavior properly, but in some way BETTER than other models.
-josh
When you look at something over a period of time, you are effectively performing an integration with respect to time. (In fact, this is true of all experimental science. There is no such thing as an instantaneous observation.)
However, the integral of time is, clearly, not going to be the same as time itself, the same way that the area under a curve is not the curve. The two are related, through the logic given by Calculus, but are otherwise completely distinct.
QM adds some further complications, here. The act of observing something affects the observed. As you are observing over time, rather than instantaneously, you are going to have an impact that is also over time, not simply instantaneous. This needs to be taken into consideration, when looking at behaviours, and I honestly didn't see that.
In quantum mechanics, you have a further complication. Quantum theory talks about numerous probability waves, all of which overlap. When you describe an object in QM, you describe ALL possible behaviours and outomes. However, when you perform an observation, only one of those is ever observed. One solution to this has been to say that the wave collapses in =this= universe, but that there are as many universes as possible states. The QM definition is thus the integral across all possible universes.
However, the same logic must apply. The integral is not the same as the original function. Here, the model is the integral, and what you observe is the original, which is the reverse of the situation above.
In summary, when you observe an object, you observe it as an integral over time, not instantaneously, and you observe it in one universe, not the integral over all possible worlds.
I believe the article confuses the instantaneous with the integral over time, and one universe with the integral over all possible universes. When handling data, it's very easy to slip up and compare data of the same type but the wrong order. It's not like oranges and apples, where you can see the difference.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The author's reasoning seems incomplete in some ways.
First of all you'd need 12 numbers, not 10 to describe the location of 3 points in Newton's universe. Maybe he assumes that all 3 points exist at the same time. But he should state these assumptions, especially in an article about time.
His rules for Triangle Land would sweep out a plane, not a pyramid. Maybe he's leaving some other assumptions out. It would be useful to see the diagram he refers to to find what defines the axis extending from his Alpha point.
I'd say he's still firmly in Euclidean space however uncool that may be these days.
His mention of a particle's spherical wave function misses the point that the function breaks down when observed. It then takes on a single value. The path taken by the Alpha particle sweeps out a sphere until you look. It then becomes a particular path. Schrodinger's Cat only exists as a wave function until you open the box. After that it's just an ordinary cat.
He seems to be stirring a lot of concepts together, but instead coming up with chocolate chip cookies he ends up with a gooey mess that we can't sink our teeth into.
I'd say the topic was time, but the substance was bogon.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
The protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, is unstuck in time; i.e., he jumps backwards and forwards in time.
The best part is the Trafalmadorians' description of human perception of time, something like strapped to a locomotive barreling forward with nowhere to look but ahead...
I've always felt that the mainstream Quantum Theory interpretations are way too conservative, and seem to be driven by a desire to make the percieved classical world real.
;-)
IMNSHO, Schroedringers equation describes the world - period. The collapse postulate is bunk, as only serves the purpose of supporting the classical view.
The correct "interpretation" of Quantum Theory is therefore that the world actually is an evolving "probabalistic" wave equation. As classically scaled creatures, our classical perceptive systems naturally see a "collaped" view (although if reality there is no collapse), and the path of time we experience is just the history of this percieved collapsed event history.
There again, I might be wrong!
This article has all the ear marks of a crack pot theoretical physicist whom no one listens to.
The author of this article, Julian Barbour is an independent theoretical physicist who lives near Oxford, UK.
First, notice how he's not actually working at any university, but cites that he "lives near Oxford" as if that makes him smarter. He also does NOT state what kind of degree he has and where it's from. (Not that degrees make one smart, but when the rest of the article is suspect, the degree is too.)
Consider this paragraph:
The notion of time as an invisible framework that contains and constrains the Universe is not unlike the crystal spheres invented centuries ago to carry the planets. After the spheres had been shattered by Tycho Brahe's observations, Kepler said: "We must philosophise about these things differently." Much of modern physics stems from this insight. We need a new notion of time.
He's basically saying, "You might think I'm crazy but I'm really as insightful as Kepler! Save yourself the embarassment and support my ideas now!" Of course, Kepler actually came up with real equations, and Kepler's Laws provided meaningful insight into planetary motion. This article's author has not provided anything useful.
Here is the best support he can muster from other physicists:
Americans Bryce DeWitt and John Wheeler combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity to produce an equation that describes the whole Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe, and out comes a probability for that configuration. There is no mention of time. Admittedly, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial and fraught with mathematical difficulties...
Wow, his best cite is contraversial and came up with a useless mathematical equation. He's really just using the idea that for any configuration of the universe, there is a probability that it exists. (But doesn't his article state that all configurations of the universe exist? We just experience them one at a time? Hmmm, sounds like a contradiction...)
The feeling I got from reading this article was that the author wasn't taken seriously by the academic community because his ideas are some subset of: {Trivial, Unprovable, Useless}. If this is an average article for Julian, then I agree with the academics.
-Ted
Number of Dimensions = (Number of Eyes + 1)
Human:
Evolved Human:Common Arachnid:
My plan is to use spiders to predict the future of the stock market, and grow rich off of as of yet unknown bio-medical research groups. The spider tells me that any company that engineers "crop-protecting superbugs," is a good bet.
But...perhaps I have said too much...
-AP
Please, people, do *not* confuse the probability wave of a particle with the particle itself. And second: Quantum mechanics itself is not very accurate, take quantum electro dynamics (QED) instead. For those who can read, but can't do math, there's a very fine book about QED written by Richard Feynman himself ("QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", for $27.65 at amazon.com; if you are interested in that matter, get it or lend if from your public library soon).
Basically, the "slow spherical wave" creeping out of a radioactive nucleus is the probability function - does it emit now or later? The actual process of emiting the particle is completely unknown to the observer, and he has no means to determine it in advance. The current theories, QED including, completely side-step this issue. They can tell you with high accuracy about the likelyhood of radioactive processes, and they also can tell you with high accuracy about the energy and the path such an emitted alpha particle has, but they can't tell you more in advance. All these theories even have problems with rapidely changing settings of the experiments, because they simply don't talk about that.
Time is no more an illusion than space, energy, or force.
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"