Get Out Of This Paradox

[Twighlight]

There actually is research ongoing, especially by Julian Barbour, along the exact lines that you're looking at. It's based on Mach’s Principle.

The problem with Mach's Principle is that ( like time ) things aren't quite as they seem.

We tend to imagine that what we see through telescopes is a whole universe 'out there'. But that is an illusion.....similar to the way in which the act of 'seeing' is presented to us as an active reaching out rather than a passive receiving of photons.

So it is with telescopes. The light from some far distant galaxy may have originated 10 billion light years away.....but the actual photon is here and now. We are not seeing 'the galaxy'...we are seeing photons from the galaxy. The moment we call 'now' is actually composed of bilions of different interactions that all had their origins at different times in the past......yet they come together in an illusory perception that we call 'the current moment'.

There is fundamentally no difference between a photon ( or graviton, which also travels at the speed of light ) from the far edge of the universe, and one from the star system next door, and those from nearby would have far greater energy that would outweigh Mach's notion of a collective force from all the distant objects. Nearby massive objects like the center of our galaxy would surely add to any such force and distort it......with the result being that inertial mass would be different in different directions, which is at variance with observation.

I would have thought that the very fact that inertial mass is not directional would indicate that it is not the result of some external force. Even the microwave background radiation has tiny variations that would indicate that Mach's distant force should vary..yet it doesn't.

 

[Darby]

The problem with Mach's Principle is that ( like time ) things aren't quite as they seem.

Your post says it all. Mach's view of the universe and Einstein's application of Mach's POV (and coining the term Mach's Principle) has been debated and subject to research for well over a century - and it's still not resolved. The reality is certainly not quite as easy as a simple statement of Mach's Principle. What's missing is experimental verification. Over the next five years we will have some experimental data coming from CERN.

 

[jameswade]

your in the past and I am in the future but we both started out with our watches set to the same time

If you started out at the same time(same space) and traveled in opposite directions at the same rate of speed for a while, then you both did 180's and traveled back to the original starting at the same rate of speed, would the watches return to Synchronization when you both arrive back at the starting point?

 

[RainmanTime]

TimeCrime,

Im going to ignore the reply to my last post because I did not see anything worth replying to and that is being nice.

What Twilight was pointing out was that you provided no substantiation for some of the things in your post that you ostensibly presented as facts. And that is being nice. Because you have done the same thing in this follow-up post.

Since time and space are not absolute by that I mean if I set my watch to the same time you have and I am half way across the universe my watch and your watch would not keep the same time.

Really? Upon what facts do you base that? It almost sounds like you are saying the laws of physics vary with your position in the universe. You are not saying that, are you?

One of us would be in the future and the other would be in the past.

Relative to.....? This statement seems to imply a preferred frame of reference. You are not saying that, right?

And you would still exist it is just time is different for every part of space.

Can you explain what you mean by this, and substantiate it?

Time flows differently for every part of space.

It sounds like you are sure of this. If so, could you address the concept of what time actually is, viz-a-viz the paper Darby posted?

Some parts of space are in the future and other parts of space are in the past.

Again, fill in the blank if you would please: Relative to _________.

We are moving thru both space and time at the same time.

Tautology. There is no such thing as simultaneity.

If you dont believe me just read about what Einstien said about space and time not being absolute.

Can you provide a citation, and then tie it into what you are trying to describe above? Thanks.
RMT

 

[eyecare74]

RMT:

Not going to quote your whole post cause it's long..lol, but I think what TimeCrime was talking about was how time moves at different paces depending on your location. How the experiments show clocks tick ever so slightly slower say at the top of the sears tower versus standing on the ground. I know there have been various experiments to show this especially dealing with astronauts and such. So if we were both standing on the ground beside each other sync up our watches and I go to the moon and you stay right on that spot, our watches will keep different times. So I think it was an attempt by him to apply an elementary concept to a very complex question.

Not defending his position by any means, I just think that's what he was talking about.

As to what I personally think about time, I think I use it to make sure I'm not late for work, and to remind me when my favorite shows come on...lol. Aside from that I look at the word "time" as nothing more than a man made concept to track events and pin point moments when something occurred.

I do not feel "time" in and of itself actually exists.

Definitely not my realm, just thought I'd chime in /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi eyecare,

Not going to quote your whole post cause it's long..lol, but I think what TimeCrime was talking about was how time moves at different paces depending on your location. How the experiments show clocks tick ever so slightly slower say at the top of the sears tower versus standing on the ground. I know there have been various experiments to show this especially dealing with astronauts and such. So if we were both standing on the ground beside each other sync up our watches and I go to the moon and you stay right on that spot, our watches will keep different times. So I think it was an attempt by him to apply an elementary concept to a very complex question.

Not defending his position by any means, I just think that's what he was talking about.

Understood, but this reinforces my basic point about being careful with language in describing scientific facts. For even in your explanation you fell into the same trap that TimeCrime did. Namely, what you describe has nothing whatsoever to do with position in space. Rather, what it has to do with is relative velocity between the two clocks.

Call me a stickler for accuracy and I won't deny it! :D
RMT

 

[Twighlight]

What Twilight was pointing out was that you provided no substantiation for some of the things in your post that you ostensibly presented as facts. And that is being nice. Because you have done the same thing in this follow-up post.

Indeed. The entire 'many worlds' scenario is like taking out a million dollar loan to pay off a one dollar debt. It does not make any sense at all. It is counter-intuitive......and frankly downright unscientific too. God knows why so many scientists follow it.

Well...in fact I can tell you why most scientists follow it. It is because the alternative Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics allows 'the observer effect'.....the notion that ONLY an observer can 'collapse the wave function'.

Clearly, a lot of scientists have been uncomfortable with the idea that the observer may play a crucial part in determining reality. That is precisely why the 'many worlds' theorem came along. No need for 'the observer'.............all those other probabilities DO materialise, in other realities.

Well, that gets one out of any anthropic paradox.......but look at the cost !! Entire new universes have to be created every time the tiniest quantum change occurs ! Given that the limit of definition of 'an event' that might constitute a change is defined by the Plank limit, that means that even for a single atom there might be billions of new universes created every second ( to exactly define the electron orbit ). This strikes me as a CRAZY solution.......especially when you consider that every one of the billions of new universes created by a single atom....then goes on to iteself generate billions of new universes. Scale this up to the universe as a whole.....and the number of new universes being created every second is a number SO large that even Graham's number ( a number so large as to be incomprehensible.....it makes a Googleplex seem tiny....it is SO large that there would not be enough space in a billion universes to write it down ) would seem absolutely minute by comparison.

As a 'get out' from the observer effect this is just plain nuts. It is a LOT easier to simply believe that the observer DOES influence reality.

 

[eyecare74]

For even in your explanation you fell into the same trap that TimeCrime did. Namely, what you describe has nothing whatsoever to do with position in space. Rather, what it has to do with is relative velocity between the two clocks.

Oh, no...I knew exactly what I was writing. I was just trying to interpret what TimeCrime was saying from my point of view, and relay said interpretation. Thus, why I stated it was not a defense of his position. I understand why the clocks keep different time in those experiments. It was just an example of what I thought he was attempting to explain, which is why I also wrote he was applying a very simple concept and answer (relative velocity between the two clocks), to a very complex question (space time).

 

[RainmanTime]

It was just an example of what I thought he was attempting to explain, which is why I also wrote he was applying a very simple concept and answer (relative velocity between the two clocks), to a very complex question (space time).

Understand, and I am not chastising you. But sometimes when people think they are making some explanation "simple", they are, in fact, making it incorrect and misleading, if not confusing. Every item of TimeCrime's that I quoted has issues associated with it that could lead someone to the wrong conclusion. Which is why I say:

Call me a stickler for accuracy and I won't deny it!

Sorry. The teacher in me dislikes the probability of incorrect understanding.

RMT