Do we really travel through time with the speed of light?(backreaction.blogspot.com)
backreaction.blogspot.com
Do we really travel through time with the speed of light?
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/do-we-really-travel-through-time-with.html
203 comments
> the really weird thing about this particular four-vector is that it always has a magnitude of exactly the speed of light
This isn't weird. The magnitude of any four-vector is frame invariant in relativity. Lorentz transformations in relativity are the analogue of rotations in ordinary Euclidean space, and have the same property of preserving the magnitudes of vectors.
> All you do by going faster is just mix some of the time component of your four-velocity into the spatial components.
I think this is a misleading way of putting it. In a frame in which you are moving, the time component of your four-velocity is larger than it is in your rest frame, not smaller. So it's not the case that some of the time component in your rest frame got "moved" to a space component.
This isn't weird. The magnitude of any four-vector is frame invariant in relativity. Lorentz transformations in relativity are the analogue of rotations in ordinary Euclidean space, and have the same property of preserving the magnitudes of vectors.
> All you do by going faster is just mix some of the time component of your four-velocity into the spatial components.
I think this is a misleading way of putting it. In a frame in which you are moving, the time component of your four-velocity is larger than it is in your rest frame, not smaller. So it's not the case that some of the time component in your rest frame got "moved" to a space component.
> This isn't weird. The magnitude of any four-vector is frame invariant in relativity. Lorentz transformations in relativity are the analogue of rotations in ordinary Euclidean space, and have the same property of preserving the magnitudes of vectors.
The weird part isn't that two observers agree on the vector magnitude. The weird part is that one observer calculates the same value for any two objects. Frame-invariance isn't the relevant property.
The weird part isn't that two observers agree on the vector magnitude. The weird part is that one observer calculates the same value for any two objects. Frame-invariance isn't the relevant property.
> The weird part is that one observer calculates the same value for any two objects.
That's not weird either, because the value being calculated has all object-specific information removed. See my response to andi999 downthread regarding rest mass.
That's not weird either, because the value being calculated has all object-specific information removed. See my response to andi999 downthread regarding rest mass.
That's the part that's "weird" in the sense of being very different from the similarly-named concept in classical mechanics of velocity vector magnitude.
But moreover, the rest mass isn't the issue here. Momentum in classical mechanics also takes mass into account but doesn't have the "weird" property that two objects of the same rest mass always have the same momentum magnitude.
But moreover, the rest mass isn't the issue here. Momentum in classical mechanics also takes mass into account but doesn't have the "weird" property that two objects of the same rest mass always have the same momentum magnitude.
It should be stated somewhere here that relativity operates in Minkowski space and not Euclidian 4D space.
What this means is that the length of a relativistic four-vector [ct, x, y, z] is sqrt((ct)^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)).
It is not the same as the Euclidian magnitude, i.e. NOT sqrt((ct)^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
The article does mention this, although with slightly confusing wording, but it should be emphasized that Lorentz invariant quantities need to be computed with the Minkowski metric.
What this means is that the length of a relativistic four-vector [ct, x, y, z] is sqrt((ct)^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)).
It is not the same as the Euclidian magnitude, i.e. NOT sqrt((ct)^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
The article does mention this, although with slightly confusing wording, but it should be emphasized that Lorentz invariant quantities need to be computed with the Minkowski metric.
It’s possible to formulate SR/GR in Euclidean geometry as well:
https://www.euclideanrelativity.com/
https://www.euclideanrelativity.com/
Just an aside: exploring the implications of relativity in a Euclidean space is the basis of Greg Egan's "Orthogonal" book series.
The early versions of Minkowski space used imaginary numbers which you prefer is mostly just notation.
At first it seems suprising that this invariant is always the same for different objects and setups (that it is the same after Lorentz transformation is the meaning of invariant as you pointed out). So why is it for all objects equal to c.
If you think for stationary examples it just means that the eigenzeit has a different pace, so two clocks next to each other going at a different pace. But this is ruled out by another definition, such that clocks are references by light clocks. And now it is also clear why this invariance is c.
If you think for stationary examples it just means that the eigenzeit has a different pace, so two clocks next to each other going at a different pace. But this is ruled out by another definition, such that clocks are references by light clocks. And now it is also clear why this invariance is c.
It's not equal to C, as such.
It's a unit vector, and physicists working with relativity habitually set C=1 to make the equations simpler. That being said, it isn't really a vector -- it's just a direction. The "equal to C" bit is a mathematical artifact of both vectors being normalized.
It's a unit vector, and physicists working with relativity habitually set C=1 to make the equations simpler. That being said, it isn't really a vector -- it's just a direction. The "equal to C" bit is a mathematical artifact of both vectors being normalized.
Well, c is the conversion factor between our length and time measurement. For me, I am ok not to measure time in meter, so c can stay.
> why is it for all objects equal to c
Because this 4-vector removes the factor of rest mass, which distinguishes objects. Putting back the rest mass converts 4-velocity to 4-momentum, which does not have the same magnitude for all objects--the magnitude is the rest mass.
Because this 4-vector removes the factor of rest mass, which distinguishes objects. Putting back the rest mass converts 4-velocity to 4-momentum, which does not have the same magnitude for all objects--the magnitude is the rest mass.
It's very weird to someone who has never been exposed to this before, who has only ever worked with vectors in a context where they certainly can be of varying magnitudes, like velocity normally is in Newtonian mechanics.
That's because the four velocity is not really a velocity. The path of a particle through spacetime can be described by a function p(r) = (x(r),y(r),z(r),t(r)) that gives the position (x,y,z,t) as a function of a parameter r. This way the point p(r) traces out some path in spacetime.
Now, the same path is described by many different parameterizations. For example, if we pick q(r) = p(2r) that's the same path. The point varies twice as fast with r, but that has no physical meaning. The total path that is traced out in spacetime is still the same path. That is, the set {p(r) | r in [-∞,∞]} is the same as the set {q(r) | r in [-∞,∞]}, and it is only this set that has physical meaning.
In fact, we can also pick q(r) = p(r^3 + r) or some other parameter transformation.
We might look at the vector p'(r) tangent to the path. The length of this vector depends on the parameterization, but its direction doesn't. So p'(r)/|p'(r)| is a true physical property of the path, but the length |p'(r)| is just an artefact of the parameterization that we chose to describe the path.
In order to make the parameterization somewhat more canonical, we usually pick a parameterization where |p'(r)| = c. As it happens, the four velocity is defined to be p'(r) given this choice of parameterization.
So the length of the four velocity is c simply by definition. This statement has no physical meaning. The statement "we travel through time with the speed of light" is uninteresting. It tells you nothing about physics. It only tells you something about the conventions we use when we describe paths through spacetime. We could very well have picked the convention |p'(r)| = c/2, and then we'd have the statement "we travel through time with half the speed of light", or even |p'(r)| = 2c, and then we'd "travel through time with double the speed of light".
Given any path through spacetime whatsoever, we can pick a parameterization such that it travels through spacetime at the speed of light. So the condition that something travels through spacetime with the speed of light places no constraints on the path that it takes. The statement "we travel through spacetime with the speed of light" makes it sound like there are paths that do travel through spacetime with the speed of light, and there are paths that do not travel through spacetime with the speed of light, and physical particles go along paths of the first kind. This is wrong. There are no paths that do not travel through spacetime at the speed of light, because whether or not it does is a property of the parameterization that we choose to describe the path, not a property of the path itself.
Now, the same path is described by many different parameterizations. For example, if we pick q(r) = p(2r) that's the same path. The point varies twice as fast with r, but that has no physical meaning. The total path that is traced out in spacetime is still the same path. That is, the set {p(r) | r in [-∞,∞]} is the same as the set {q(r) | r in [-∞,∞]}, and it is only this set that has physical meaning.
In fact, we can also pick q(r) = p(r^3 + r) or some other parameter transformation.
We might look at the vector p'(r) tangent to the path. The length of this vector depends on the parameterization, but its direction doesn't. So p'(r)/|p'(r)| is a true physical property of the path, but the length |p'(r)| is just an artefact of the parameterization that we chose to describe the path.
In order to make the parameterization somewhat more canonical, we usually pick a parameterization where |p'(r)| = c. As it happens, the four velocity is defined to be p'(r) given this choice of parameterization.
So the length of the four velocity is c simply by definition. This statement has no physical meaning. The statement "we travel through time with the speed of light" is uninteresting. It tells you nothing about physics. It only tells you something about the conventions we use when we describe paths through spacetime. We could very well have picked the convention |p'(r)| = c/2, and then we'd have the statement "we travel through time with half the speed of light", or even |p'(r)| = 2c, and then we'd "travel through time with double the speed of light".
Given any path through spacetime whatsoever, we can pick a parameterization such that it travels through spacetime at the speed of light. So the condition that something travels through spacetime with the speed of light places no constraints on the path that it takes. The statement "we travel through spacetime with the speed of light" makes it sound like there are paths that do travel through spacetime with the speed of light, and there are paths that do not travel through spacetime with the speed of light, and physical particles go along paths of the first kind. This is wrong. There are no paths that do not travel through spacetime at the speed of light, because whether or not it does is a property of the parameterization that we choose to describe the path, not a property of the path itself.
This isn't wrong, but also somewhat misses the point.
Four-velocity is change of spatio-temporal position (Δx,Δt) in an inertial frame per unit of time Δτ measured by the object in motion. For a concrete example, think a race track with distance markers accompanied by (synchronized) stationary clocks, and a vehicle carrying its own clock. Three-velocity will be given by Δx/Δt (the distance along the track divided by the time on the stationary clock), whereas the spatial component of four-velocity will be given by Δx/Δτ (the distance along the track divided by the time on the vehicle's clock). The temporal component of four-velocity will be c·Δt/Δτ, ie proportional to the clock ratio.
Turns out no matter the speed of the vehicle, it will always hold that
However, once we've baked this relation into the geometry of spacetime, we can of course take the more abstract perspective described above and think about reparametrization-invariant dynamics, with choice of eigentime as parameter an insignificant way to fix an arbitrary gauge.
Four-velocity is change of spatio-temporal position (Δx,Δt) in an inertial frame per unit of time Δτ measured by the object in motion. For a concrete example, think a race track with distance markers accompanied by (synchronized) stationary clocks, and a vehicle carrying its own clock. Three-velocity will be given by Δx/Δt (the distance along the track divided by the time on the stationary clock), whereas the spatial component of four-velocity will be given by Δx/Δτ (the distance along the track divided by the time on the vehicle's clock). The temporal component of four-velocity will be c·Δt/Δτ, ie proportional to the clock ratio.
Turns out no matter the speed of the vehicle, it will always hold that
(c·Δt/Δτ)² - (Δx/Δτ)² = c²
However, once we've baked this relation into the geometry of spacetime, we can of course take the more abstract perspective described above and think about reparametrization-invariant dynamics, with choice of eigentime as parameter an insignificant way to fix an arbitrary gauge.
I see. Good point, it depends on how you define four velocity and how exactly you interpret "moving through time with the speed of light". I personally think that "we move through time at the speed of light" is a very confusing way to explain that physical fact about how clocks tick. I'd explain the same fact as follows:
If you have a clock moving through spacetime along some path p(r), put tickmarks at regular intervals [1] of its arc length ∫|p'(r)|dr. Those tickmarks indicate when the clock ticks.
[1] e.g. choosing the length of an interval by matching it to a one second tick of a stationary reference clock.
If you have a clock moving through spacetime along some path p(r), put tickmarks at regular intervals [1] of its arc length ∫|p'(r)|dr. Those tickmarks indicate when the clock ticks.
[1] e.g. choosing the length of an interval by matching it to a one second tick of a stationary reference clock.
I spent quite some time being confused about this.
In differential geometry, we traditionally parametrize curves by a parameter "t" and think of it as "time", so the parametrization allows us to "walk along" a curve. This is very intuitive geometrically of course.
But in relativity, we also have a "time" coordinate (or at least a timelike unit-length tangent vectors), which then completely oposes this geometric intuition about curves.
Of course now physicists decide to rename well-established concepts and start calling "arc length parametrization" by "proper time parametrization", which makes it sound like it is something special, while it, as far as I can tell, has no actual physical meaning.
In differential geometry, we traditionally parametrize curves by a parameter "t" and think of it as "time", so the parametrization allows us to "walk along" a curve. This is very intuitive geometrically of course.
But in relativity, we also have a "time" coordinate (or at least a timelike unit-length tangent vectors), which then completely oposes this geometric intuition about curves.
Of course now physicists decide to rename well-established concepts and start calling "arc length parametrization" by "proper time parametrization", which makes it sound like it is something special, while it, as far as I can tell, has no actual physical meaning.
Or put another way, it's not a vector. It's just a direction.
> vectors in a context where they certainly can be of varying magnitudes
Some vectors can vary in magnitude with time, yes. But rotating your coordinate system does not change the magnitude of any vector in Euclidean space. A Lorentz transformation is the spacetime analogue of rotating your coordinate system, and similarly does not change the magnitude of any vector.
Some vectors can vary in magnitude with time, yes. But rotating your coordinate system does not change the magnitude of any vector in Euclidean space. A Lorentz transformation is the spacetime analogue of rotating your coordinate system, and similarly does not change the magnitude of any vector.
During a salvia trip I once saw the universe like this. I had been sitting on this conveyor-belt-like structure my entire life, which was the 4th component(time) in that 4-Vector. The conveyor belt moved me along perpindicular to space, which I have been observing my entire life from the constant speed of time. Only on this trip was I able to look "down" and realize that I was riding on time.
The interesting thing was that I had this feeling that the other elements of the vectors were all also conveyor belts, moving in a single direction. X, Y, Z(and an infinite of other more subtle scalars) were each their own belts, with entities of a very different hyperdimensional sort riding along them. Essentially, they were each moving at a constant non-changing rate along a single dimension(X, Y, or Z) and because of this, they used time as we do a spatial dimension.
Think about it like this.
Imagine that a trillion years ago you were stationary, and time didn't exist. SUDDENLY you and all the stuff nearby you got pushed in space along the X axis at a speed of 100000000000 km/hr.
You kept moving along the X axis at a relatively constant rate with the stuff around you, such that the X-axis became a constant for you, while the other spatial dimensions were your degrees of freedom.
In this scenario, time is the X axis for you.
I noticed that there were entities moving perpendicular to our concept of time, treating our X-axis as their conveyor belt moving them along at a constant rate.
All a drug trip of course, and I don't know much about physics, however, this experience has shaped how I concieve of time and space.
The interesting thing was that I had this feeling that the other elements of the vectors were all also conveyor belts, moving in a single direction. X, Y, Z(and an infinite of other more subtle scalars) were each their own belts, with entities of a very different hyperdimensional sort riding along them. Essentially, they were each moving at a constant non-changing rate along a single dimension(X, Y, or Z) and because of this, they used time as we do a spatial dimension.
Think about it like this.
Imagine that a trillion years ago you were stationary, and time didn't exist. SUDDENLY you and all the stuff nearby you got pushed in space along the X axis at a speed of 100000000000 km/hr.
You kept moving along the X axis at a relatively constant rate with the stuff around you, such that the X-axis became a constant for you, while the other spatial dimensions were your degrees of freedom.
In this scenario, time is the X axis for you.
I noticed that there were entities moving perpendicular to our concept of time, treating our X-axis as their conveyor belt moving them along at a constant rate.
All a drug trip of course, and I don't know much about physics, however, this experience has shaped how I concieve of time and space.
> I noticed that there were entities moving perpendicular to our concept of time, treating our X-axis as their conveyor belt moving them along at a constant rate.
Those entities exist: We call them photons (and a few other things). Photons move through space at a constant rate, c, and their clocks never move. If a photon were conscious it might ask "What is this time you speak of?"
It gets weirder: Because photons don't experience time they can't "remember" being in Place A "before" they were in Place B, so they might also ask "What is this space you speak of?" Photons are always everywhere they need to be, from their point of view.
Those entities exist: We call them photons (and a few other things). Photons move through space at a constant rate, c, and their clocks never move. If a photon were conscious it might ask "What is this time you speak of?"
It gets weirder: Because photons don't experience time they can't "remember" being in Place A "before" they were in Place B, so they might also ask "What is this space you speak of?" Photons are always everywhere they need to be, from their point of view.
Vsauce has a great video on this concept. https://youtu.be/ACUuFg9Y9dY (Would Headlights Work at Light Speed?)
I recommend watching it!
I recommend watching it!
In that respect the Time Minders from the computer game Anachronox are like photons. If you've never played the game, Time Minders were creatures that experienced all time simultaneously. As such, they were found scattered around the levels and could be used by the player to "freeze" a moment in time. In other words, they were the mechanism by which the player could save her game. If I recall correctly, playing with an easier difficulty setting allowed the player to save the game at any time via the menu.
[deleted]
"Essentially, they were each moving at a constant non-changing rate along a single dimension(X, Y, or Z) and because of this, they used time as we do a spatial dimension."
For what it's worth, time is distinguished in physics. It isn't just "another dimension" that "happens" to be used as time, but if you could just twist correctly it would become a spatial dimension. It is truly a "time dimension". The simplest way of looking at it is in the Minkowski metric, where distance is SqRt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2), note the minus sign on the "t" which distinguishes it.
If you're really up for a solid math-based mind-screw, Greg Egan worked out the shape of physics in a universe that works on essentially Einsteinian relativity, but with two spatial dimensions and two temporal dimensions: https://www.gregegan.net/DICHRONAUTS/DICHRONAUTS.html It turns out that A: sensible things can be said about this and B: it looks nothing like what I expected two temporal dimensions to look.
(And if that's not enough, he's also got a universe of four spatial dimensions: https://www.gregegan.net/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html)
For what it's worth, time is distinguished in physics. It isn't just "another dimension" that "happens" to be used as time, but if you could just twist correctly it would become a spatial dimension. It is truly a "time dimension". The simplest way of looking at it is in the Minkowski metric, where distance is SqRt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2), note the minus sign on the "t" which distinguishes it.
If you're really up for a solid math-based mind-screw, Greg Egan worked out the shape of physics in a universe that works on essentially Einsteinian relativity, but with two spatial dimensions and two temporal dimensions: https://www.gregegan.net/DICHRONAUTS/DICHRONAUTS.html It turns out that A: sensible things can be said about this and B: it looks nothing like what I expected two temporal dimensions to look.
(And if that's not enough, he's also got a universe of four spatial dimensions: https://www.gregegan.net/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html)
> Greg Egan worked out the shape of physics in a universe with two spatial dimensions and two temporal dimensions:
I am looking forward to this next Christopher Nolan movie.
I am looking forward to this next Christopher Nolan movie.
I'm thinking of the old Pacman arcade game but with two joystcks, one for spatial movements and the other for temporal movements. I have no idea what the second joystick would do.
That is, I can imagine time as a single axis so that you could go back and forth. (Ooops, about to be eaten by a ghost, let's rewind.) But I can't imagine what it means to go northwest in time.
That is, I can imagine time as a single axis so that you could go back and forth. (Ooops, about to be eaten by a ghost, let's rewind.) But I can't imagine what it means to go northwest in time.
I could imagine that if for example the x axis is our normal time, the y axis would be timelines. That is, you would move to an entirely different configuration of the world for the given space coordinates and the same value of time on the x axis. Now if you ask me about a third dimension of time..
Disclaimer: my ideas come before having done my homework on the link above, so I need to read Greg Egan's stuff really. He's such a wonderful person and I need to dedicate more brainpower to his work.
Disclaimer: my ideas come before having done my homework on the link above, so I need to read Greg Egan's stuff really. He's such a wonderful person and I need to dedicate more brainpower to his work.
Interesting. When I mediated about it a little further that's where I sorta arrived too. The x-axis would be future/past. The y-axis would be different timelines. So if I go from present (0,0) to (2,2), I'd be going 2 clicks into the future and 2 timelines up (whatever that means!).
In Pacman terms, I guess you could program it so that going up or down with the second joystick changes the terms of the game slightly. Maybe the maze configuration changes or in one timeline the ghosts bounce off you when you run into them but the walls themselves zap you.
In a more nuanced conception of the timeline axis, I suppose y-points would have to be branched or braided off x-points. Maybe that's where the third dimension comes in.
I'm sure Egan has worked it out with more rigor. I checked out the link for one of his books above but I admit I blanched when I got to the synopsis:
Seth is a surveyor, along with his friend Theo, a leech-like creature running through his skull who tells Seth what lies to his left and right.
I've got enough on my plate at the moment with the dissolution of civil society. I'm not sure I'm ready to entertain leech-like symbionts confronting the disintegration of time itself.
In Pacman terms, I guess you could program it so that going up or down with the second joystick changes the terms of the game slightly. Maybe the maze configuration changes or in one timeline the ghosts bounce off you when you run into them but the walls themselves zap you.
In a more nuanced conception of the timeline axis, I suppose y-points would have to be branched or braided off x-points. Maybe that's where the third dimension comes in.
I'm sure Egan has worked it out with more rigor. I checked out the link for one of his books above but I admit I blanched when I got to the synopsis:
Seth is a surveyor, along with his friend Theo, a leech-like creature running through his skull who tells Seth what lies to his left and right.
I've got enough on my plate at the moment with the dissolution of civil society. I'm not sure I'm ready to entertain leech-like symbionts confronting the disintegration of time itself.
SUPER-HOT mixed with Braid
My question -- and I am not being glib -- is there something to the idea that we can "raise our vibration" and would doing so decrease our speed through time?
You just need to accelerate and move around in space, which is equivalent to rotating your spacetime velocity vector slightly towards the spatial axes.
Or be under gravity.
Or be under gravity.
Source(s):
Saw this in a salvia trip once
Edit: Why the downvotes? This was clearly supposed to be a joke.
Saw this in a salvia trip once
Edit: Why the downvotes? This was clearly supposed to be a joke.
Just something to inspire thought. Take it or leave it.
What kind of "entities"? Beings?
Thank you for a clear explanation.
I'm a total layman here, so forgive my questions if they don't make sense:
> One of the deep insights of special relativity is that these scalar and vector quantities are actually unified into a single, new entity called a "four-vector"
On which basis was this pairing between position and time "decided"?
> But the really weird thing about this particular four-vector is that it always has a magnitude of exactly the speed of light
Why is that? Is it by definition?
> it's actually the change in coordinate time per change in proper time
How does this translate to what we call "time" in our daily lives?
> One of the deep insights of special relativity is that these scalar and vector quantities are actually unified into a single, new entity called a "four-vector"
On which basis was this pairing between position and time "decided"?
> But the really weird thing about this particular four-vector is that it always has a magnitude of exactly the speed of light
Why is that? Is it by definition?
> it's actually the change in coordinate time per change in proper time
How does this translate to what we call "time" in our daily lives?
It's a tautology. You cannot observe time slowing down, because anything that would affect the "speed of time" affects your brain also in the same proportion.
Hollywood movies are not how physics works. The plucky protagonist can never look down at their hand and see a stopwatch run slower or faster! There is no such thing. If some sort of science-fiction field existed that would affect a clock, it would affect the protagonist also.
If the clock runs at half speed, your brain runs at half speed, so you see it ticking forward at twice the rate, and 2.0 * 0.5 = 1.
Now, of course, I tell a small lie: There can be differences in the tick rate over some distance. But these differences are necessarily small. Big differences in the rate of temporal flow create gravity, as per Einstein's General Relativity. To get an observable difference in time flow over the space of, say, a meter would require a fantastically huge gravitational field that would instantly crush the poor scientists into a pancake.
Conversely, in the gentle field of Earth's gravitational field, if you hold an atomic clock in your hand a meter from you head, and an atomic clock in line with your head, then yes, you can see a tiny difference in the tick rates, on the order of nanoseconds per century or somesuch (I'm too lazy to work it out).
However, as the distance decreases between the clock and the observer, the difference gets smaller. Extrapolating down to atoms and the like the conclusion is inevitable: time locally always ticks forward at one second per second.
Hollywood movies are not how physics works. The plucky protagonist can never look down at their hand and see a stopwatch run slower or faster! There is no such thing. If some sort of science-fiction field existed that would affect a clock, it would affect the protagonist also.
If the clock runs at half speed, your brain runs at half speed, so you see it ticking forward at twice the rate, and 2.0 * 0.5 = 1.
Now, of course, I tell a small lie: There can be differences in the tick rate over some distance. But these differences are necessarily small. Big differences in the rate of temporal flow create gravity, as per Einstein's General Relativity. To get an observable difference in time flow over the space of, say, a meter would require a fantastically huge gravitational field that would instantly crush the poor scientists into a pancake.
Conversely, in the gentle field of Earth's gravitational field, if you hold an atomic clock in your hand a meter from you head, and an atomic clock in line with your head, then yes, you can see a tiny difference in the tick rates, on the order of nanoseconds per century or somesuch (I'm too lazy to work it out).
However, as the distance decreases between the clock and the observer, the difference gets smaller. Extrapolating down to atoms and the like the conclusion is inevitable: time locally always ticks forward at one second per second.
> Conversely, in the gentle field of Earth's gravitational field, if you hold an atomic clock in your hand a meter from you head, and an atomic clock in line with your head, then yes, you can see a tiny difference in the tick rates, on the order of nanoseconds per century or somesuch (I'm too lazy to work it out).
This is why GPS satellites need time correction. GPS satellites contain atomic clocks, and they are further from the center of the Earth than you are. Therefore they experience slightly less gravity than you do. Therefore their clocks run slightly faster than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. That's the General Relativity correction.
But GPS satellites also move a lot faster than you do, because they are in orbit. That makes their clocks run slower than clocks on the ground. That's the Special Relativity correction.
Both corrections have different signs but they do not cancel each other out.
This is why GPS satellites need time correction. GPS satellites contain atomic clocks, and they are further from the center of the Earth than you are. Therefore they experience slightly less gravity than you do. Therefore their clocks run slightly faster than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. That's the General Relativity correction.
But GPS satellites also move a lot faster than you do, because they are in orbit. That makes their clocks run slower than clocks on the ground. That's the Special Relativity correction.
Both corrections have different signs but they do not cancel each other out.
>If the clock runs at half speed, your brain runs at half speed, so you see it ticking forward at twice the rate, and 2.0 * 0.5 = 1.0
Consider changes in gravity affect cognition.
Likewise, if the brain has any quantum mechanisms, then that 1.0 might not be exactly 1.0.
Consider changes in gravity affect cognition.
Likewise, if the brain has any quantum mechanisms, then that 1.0 might not be exactly 1.0.
> Consider changes in gravity affect cognition.
That is literally what it does. It slows down cognition. In the exact same way that it slows down clocks. The "clock in your brain" and the "watch in your hand" are all operating on the same physical and chemical principles. It's all just atoms and electromagnetic interactions at the lowest levels.
> Likewise, if the brain has any quantum mechanisms
Again, this is a pop-science misunderstanding of all of physics, not just Quantum Mechanics (QM).
The rules of QM either apply to everything or nothing. The laws of the universe do not begin or end at the edge of the laboratory bench top. Similarly, there are no special rules that apply to just the human brain.
The rules that govern galaxies, particle beams, atomic clocks, mechanical watches, and human observers are the same. They all tick along at the same rate. One second per second, locally at least.
That is literally what it does. It slows down cognition. In the exact same way that it slows down clocks. The "clock in your brain" and the "watch in your hand" are all operating on the same physical and chemical principles. It's all just atoms and electromagnetic interactions at the lowest levels.
> Likewise, if the brain has any quantum mechanisms
Again, this is a pop-science misunderstanding of all of physics, not just Quantum Mechanics (QM).
The rules of QM either apply to everything or nothing. The laws of the universe do not begin or end at the edge of the laboratory bench top. Similarly, there are no special rules that apply to just the human brain.
The rules that govern galaxies, particle beams, atomic clocks, mechanical watches, and human observers are the same. They all tick along at the same rate. One second per second, locally at least.
> The rules of QM either apply to everything or nothing. The laws of the universe do not begin or end at the edge of the laboratory bench top. Similarly, there are no special rules that apply to just the human brain.
Well, for now we don't really know how the rules of QM apply to macroscopic objects. The exact physical interpretation of wave-function collapse (if any) is still a matter of speculation, with all options still being on the table - maybe there is no collapse (e.g. many worlds theory), maybe there exists a collapse when interacting with large enough systems (measurement - the Copenhagen interpretation), maybe collapse is a physical process that happens at precise scales (Roger Penrose seems to believe something like this), maybe the wave function is a physical wave (pilot wave theory) and there is no collapse in another way.
Well, for now we don't really know how the rules of QM apply to macroscopic objects. The exact physical interpretation of wave-function collapse (if any) is still a matter of speculation, with all options still being on the table - maybe there is no collapse (e.g. many worlds theory), maybe there exists a collapse when interacting with large enough systems (measurement - the Copenhagen interpretation), maybe collapse is a physical process that happens at precise scales (Roger Penrose seems to believe something like this), maybe the wave function is a physical wave (pilot wave theory) and there is no collapse in another way.
> Well, for now we don't really know how the rules of QM apply to macroscopic objects
Sure we do, "we" just refuse to acknowledge this, keeping a 100 year old debate alive for no good reason.
Macroscopic objects follow microscopic rules. That's that. There's no further debate. There can be none.
I can't even begin to describe how absurd it is to argue anything else. It's like... saying with a straight face that software doesn't "really" follow the rules of boolean algebra if it has enough lines of code. That somehow once a program gets "big enough", it can transcend truth tables and somehow go analog or something.
It's like a mathematician saying that really big equations, the kind that span several pages stop following the rules of algebra.
Get it? It's just... insane. The rules of the universe are the rules for all things in it. They apply to everything, at all scales, at all times.
If they don't, they're not the rules!
Sure we do, "we" just refuse to acknowledge this, keeping a 100 year old debate alive for no good reason.
Macroscopic objects follow microscopic rules. That's that. There's no further debate. There can be none.
I can't even begin to describe how absurd it is to argue anything else. It's like... saying with a straight face that software doesn't "really" follow the rules of boolean algebra if it has enough lines of code. That somehow once a program gets "big enough", it can transcend truth tables and somehow go analog or something.
It's like a mathematician saying that really big equations, the kind that span several pages stop following the rules of algebra.
Get it? It's just... insane. The rules of the universe are the rules for all things in it. They apply to everything, at all scales, at all times.
If they don't, they're not the rules!
That's the point. They are not the rules.
QM and GR are approximations. The real rules are unknown to us. It just happens that "in the small", QM seems to be a good approximation that is consistent with experimental results. And "in the large" the same holds for GR. Neither of them works for everything though.
That just means we need to find a better approximation. That's not insane.
Bits are not an approximation of software "in the small". They are the real building block. We know that because we made them. First made them, then observed how they behave. But QM is a theory created by first observing. Physics is a natural science trying to understand what we observe. Math and CS are not. The objects they care about are conceived by us and observed second.
QM and GR are approximations. The real rules are unknown to us. It just happens that "in the small", QM seems to be a good approximation that is consistent with experimental results. And "in the large" the same holds for GR. Neither of them works for everything though.
That just means we need to find a better approximation. That's not insane.
Bits are not an approximation of software "in the small". They are the real building block. We know that because we made them. First made them, then observed how they behave. But QM is a theory created by first observing. Physics is a natural science trying to understand what we observe. Math and CS are not. The objects they care about are conceived by us and observed second.
> Get it? It's just... insane. The rules of the universe are the rules for all things in it. They apply to everything, at all scales, at all times.
This is nowhere near as certain as you make it out to be. Take Conway's Life. With 4 simple "rules of the universe", you can create a series which to the best of our knowledge cannot be predicted from those rules. Clearly this series is a "thing" within the simulated universe, and clearly it emerges from the universal rules, but the rules don't give us any insight about it! The only known way to "predict" it is to let it run: in other words, it's irreducibly complex.
Causality can look different at different scales. It's well established that simple low-level rules can generate extreme if not irreducible complexity. This doesn't mean the bottom-level rules don't apply everywhere; it just means their descriptive/predictive utility is not necessarily preserved when you zoom out. Is a prime-finding algorithm best described by the mechanism of the computational substrate? Any number of substrates could suffice. We can best predict its output by thinking at a higher level of abstraction.
This is nowhere near as certain as you make it out to be. Take Conway's Life. With 4 simple "rules of the universe", you can create a series which to the best of our knowledge cannot be predicted from those rules. Clearly this series is a "thing" within the simulated universe, and clearly it emerges from the universal rules, but the rules don't give us any insight about it! The only known way to "predict" it is to let it run: in other words, it's irreducibly complex.
Causality can look different at different scales. It's well established that simple low-level rules can generate extreme if not irreducible complexity. This doesn't mean the bottom-level rules don't apply everywhere; it just means their descriptive/predictive utility is not necessarily preserved when you zoom out. Is a prime-finding algorithm best described by the mechanism of the computational substrate? Any number of substrates could suffice. We can best predict its output by thinking at a higher level of abstraction.
> you can create a series which to the best of our knowledge cannot be predicted from those rules
You can absolutely reversibly compute conways game of life state, and you can compute it forward as well (after all, it is a game). That's prediction.
> It's well established that simple low-level rules can generate [...] irreducible complexity.
Simple rules can create a very complex emergent system, but that doesn't mean it cannot still be reduced to it's component rules. That's what makes them rules and not just guidelines.
You can absolutely reversibly compute conways game of life state, and you can compute it forward as well (after all, it is a game). That's prediction.
> It's well established that simple low-level rules can generate [...] irreducible complexity.
Simple rules can create a very complex emergent system, but that doesn't mean it cannot still be reduced to it's component rules. That's what makes them rules and not just guidelines.
> You can absolutely reversibly compute conways game of life state, and you can compute it forward as well (after all, it is a game). That's prediction.
Notice I said irreducible, not irreversible. Yes, you can reverse the computation; but there's no known way to "shortcut" the forward process to predict the outcome of the series I mentioned any faster than simply letting it run. Letting it run is not prediction in the sense I mean here. By "predict" I mean foretell in advance what the system will do without needing to let it run.
> Simple rules can create a very complex emergent system, but that doesn't mean it cannot still be reduced to it's component rules. That's what makes them rules and not just guidelines.
I agree, with a minor caveat about language: you can describe a system which may display complex emergent behavior in terms of its underlying rules, but doing so is not guaranteed to give you useful information about (i.e., allow you to "predict", in the sense described above) the emergent behaviors. In contexts like these, to "reduce" typically means to describe in terms of a lower-level formalism while preserving predictive ability, AFAIK. In other words, the low-level formalism provides full information about the behavior of the entire system, such that you don't need to observe the system to know what it will do. In the Life example this is not the case.
Notice I said irreducible, not irreversible. Yes, you can reverse the computation; but there's no known way to "shortcut" the forward process to predict the outcome of the series I mentioned any faster than simply letting it run. Letting it run is not prediction in the sense I mean here. By "predict" I mean foretell in advance what the system will do without needing to let it run.
> Simple rules can create a very complex emergent system, but that doesn't mean it cannot still be reduced to it's component rules. That's what makes them rules and not just guidelines.
I agree, with a minor caveat about language: you can describe a system which may display complex emergent behavior in terms of its underlying rules, but doing so is not guaranteed to give you useful information about (i.e., allow you to "predict", in the sense described above) the emergent behaviors. In contexts like these, to "reduce" typically means to describe in terms of a lower-level formalism while preserving predictive ability, AFAIK. In other words, the low-level formalism provides full information about the behavior of the entire system, such that you don't need to observe the system to know what it will do. In the Life example this is not the case.
When people do prediction, they also simulate system states given known priors and behavioral characteristics. The distinction you're making is in my opinion not valuable (or at least, you've not demonstrated it's value here).
Sure, and the point of simulation in the first place is often to understand how the system in question will behave, in advance. The distinction I meant to make is precisely that some processes may not be computable in this way; that they cannot be simulated any faster than the real thing, in other words. That is what is meant by computational irreducibility, AFAIK. Determining which systems this is true of is very valuable, imo
> It's like a mathematician saying that really big equations, the kind that span several pages stop following the rules of algebra.
Incidentally, Greg Egan wrote 2 short stories on basically that premise: Luminous and Dark Integers.
Incidentally, Greg Egan wrote 2 short stories on basically that premise: Luminous and Dark Integers.
Of course he did! 8)
Have you ever observed an interference pattern for tennis balls? Have you ever been unable to place a stationary object in space because you knew it's velocity?
Furthermore, leaving behind direct observations which could perhaps be waved away with discussions of probabilities, we have one big problem: there is no gravity in QM and we have no idea how to account for it or curved spacetime in QM.
So for now, we have one working model for the macroscopic world (general relativity) and one for the microscopic world (QM), but the two are mathematically incompatible, they can't be simultaneously true, and we have not yet found an experiment which contradicts either of them.
Furthermore, leaving behind direct observations which could perhaps be waved away with discussions of probabilities, we have one big problem: there is no gravity in QM and we have no idea how to account for it or curved spacetime in QM.
So for now, we have one working model for the macroscopic world (general relativity) and one for the microscopic world (QM), but the two are mathematically incompatible, they can't be simultaneously true, and we have not yet found an experiment which contradicts either of them.
Interference patterns have been observed for buckyballs, and superposition has been observed for MEMS springs consisting of many thousands of atoms. Electromagnetic interference effects can occur with radiation that has kilometer-long wavelengths. Similarly, quantum encryption and key exchange have been performed over many kilometers.
> there is no gravity in QM
The weakness(es) of any one particular theory doesn't in an way disprove that macroscopic objects follow the same rules that microscopic objects do.
Just because MySQL is bad doesn't mean that the relational model is false, or that databases are pointless.
Just because the current theories of GR and QM aren't easily extended to all regimes doesn't meant that there is some sort of hard boundary where the rules change. Our theories of the world don't affect how it works. The boundaries of our theories are not boundaries of the world.
You can't fall of the edge of the world because the maps only go so far...
> there is no gravity in QM
The weakness(es) of any one particular theory doesn't in an way disprove that macroscopic objects follow the same rules that microscopic objects do.
Just because MySQL is bad doesn't mean that the relational model is false, or that databases are pointless.
Just because the current theories of GR and QM aren't easily extended to all regimes doesn't meant that there is some sort of hard boundary where the rules change. Our theories of the world don't affect how it works. The boundaries of our theories are not boundaries of the world.
You can't fall of the edge of the world because the maps only go so far...
> Just because the current theories of GR and QM aren't easily extended to all regimes doesn't meant that there is some sort of hard boundary where the rules change. Our theories of the world don't affect how it works. The boundaries of our theories are not boundaries of the world.
Yes, absolutely agreed. My point was simply that we don't know how QM extends to macroscopic objects, not that there must be some hard boundary (though we can't exclude the possibility that there exists some hard boundary at some level of energy, just as we know that the Standard Model doesn't describe matter at certain high energies).
Until we have some unification of GR and QM, we can't say for sure that QM describes the macroscopic world, just as we can't say that GR describes the behaviors of particles. Most likely we will at some point find such a model, and find out exactly how QM applies to large systems - perhaps with some limits to uncertainty, similarly to how c acts as a limit to speeds.
Yes, absolutely agreed. My point was simply that we don't know how QM extends to macroscopic objects, not that there must be some hard boundary (though we can't exclude the possibility that there exists some hard boundary at some level of energy, just as we know that the Standard Model doesn't describe matter at certain high energies).
Until we have some unification of GR and QM, we can't say for sure that QM describes the macroscopic world, just as we can't say that GR describes the behaviors of particles. Most likely we will at some point find such a model, and find out exactly how QM applies to large systems - perhaps with some limits to uncertainty, similarly to how c acts as a limit to speeds.
> just as we can't say that GR describes the behaviors of particles
Sure it does - gravitational lensing, etc.
Sure it does - gravitational lensing, etc.
I guess more precisely, GR can't predict the interactions between particles, only the interaction of particles with gravitational fields. But GR can't predict the behavior of two colliding electrons - it will make similar predictions to classical physics, not the Schroedinger equation.
> It's like... saying with a straight face that software doesn't "really" follow the rules of boolean algebra if it has enough lines of code.
As a programmer, I wholly endorse this notion.
As a programmer, I wholly endorse this notion.
>I can't even begin to describe how absurd it is to argue anything else. It's like... saying with a straight face that software doesn't "really" follow the rules of boolean algebra if it has enough lines of code. That somehow once a program gets "big enough", it can transcend truth tables and somehow go analog or something.
It literally does sometimes, just ask anyone that's programmed software designed to be resistant to bit flips caused by cosmic radiation.
It literally does sometimes, just ask anyone that's programmed software designed to be resistant to bit flips caused by cosmic radiation.
If large programs are vulnerable to cosmic radiation-induced bit flips, so are small programs, all the way down to individual machine instructions. The point is that the rules of the system are consistent across scales.
> The rules that govern galaxies, particle beams, atomic clocks, mechanical watches, and human observers are the same.
And we do not know what those rules are. We have 2 widely accepted guesses: quantum physics and general relativity that have each been incredibly succesful in their predictive power.
The problem is, we do not know how to make these theories consistent with each other. Either relativity is wrong on quantum scales, or QM is wrong on relatavistic scales. Probably both.
And we do not know what those rules are. We have 2 widely accepted guesses: quantum physics and general relativity that have each been incredibly succesful in their predictive power.
The problem is, we do not know how to make these theories consistent with each other. Either relativity is wrong on quantum scales, or QM is wrong on relatavistic scales. Probably both.
>That is literally what it does. It slows down cognition.
Yes, but I'm talking actual changes in the cognitive output. Look at all the physiological changes astronauts undergo. Those changes extend to their cognition, even if the effect of general relativity is small.
>Again, this is a pop-science misunderstanding of all of physics, not just Quantum Mechanics (QM).
There's an entire field called quantum biology. I'm not advocating the brain has quantum magic (in fact last I checked the theory was pretty much completely discounted). Rather, on the off-chance that it does, your example breaks down via way of the elements that comprise the brain's computation not being necessarily subject to the same relativistic effects due to potentially vast distances between some of those elements.
Or, without QM at all, consider that there's an extremely minute difference in relativistic effects even across the few inches that span your skull. By that alone, 1.0 is not 1.0.
Not trying to be pedantic here, merely food for thought.
Yes, but I'm talking actual changes in the cognitive output. Look at all the physiological changes astronauts undergo. Those changes extend to their cognition, even if the effect of general relativity is small.
>Again, this is a pop-science misunderstanding of all of physics, not just Quantum Mechanics (QM).
There's an entire field called quantum biology. I'm not advocating the brain has quantum magic (in fact last I checked the theory was pretty much completely discounted). Rather, on the off-chance that it does, your example breaks down via way of the elements that comprise the brain's computation not being necessarily subject to the same relativistic effects due to potentially vast distances between some of those elements.
Or, without QM at all, consider that there's an extremely minute difference in relativistic effects even across the few inches that span your skull. By that alone, 1.0 is not 1.0.
Not trying to be pedantic here, merely food for thought.
I'm saying that GR and QM apply to all things, not that the brain "isn't quantum". It follows QM rules in the ordinary sense that electrons orbit atoms in the brain the same way as they do in other well established contexts. Similarly, the many-world interpretation is that the non-locality experiments make perfect sense if you include the human brain in the experiment and stop excluding it. That's simply a statement that we are not "gods", somehow standing apart from the Universe and observing it from the outside. We're in it, and interacting with it, the same as everything else.
The only really interesting QM "stuff" that seems to be going on is that some enzymes have incredibly high efficiencies, even when bathed in dilute reactants. There are hints that this may be some sort of inherently quantum mechanical process that cannot be understood classically. But this is a tenuous hypothesis at best, there's no hard evidence yet, let alone a good theory.
The only really interesting QM "stuff" that seems to be going on is that some enzymes have incredibly high efficiencies, even when bathed in dilute reactants. There are hints that this may be some sort of inherently quantum mechanical process that cannot be understood classically. But this is a tenuous hypothesis at best, there's no hard evidence yet, let alone a good theory.
This is opening up all new avenues of thought in my head! So theoretically if we tested an astronaut on a simple mental recall test on Earth and timed then, then had them repeat the test on a trip to the Moon but timed them on the Earth the astronaut outside of Earth's gravity well should be observed completing the test faster (from Earth), but if they measured the test on the space craft, the results would be the same as when they completed the test on Earth.
Correct, but the effect would be too small to measure like that (human performance at tests is noisy).
If you made the difference in gravity more extreme the difference in measurement would be trivial to notice, but we don't have a way to achieve that in practice.
If you made the difference in gravity more extreme the difference in measurement would be trivial to notice, but we don't have a way to achieve that in practice.
> On which basis was this pairing between position and time "decided"?
Three partially correct answers of the same question:
1) Nobody decided it. It is just how the universe is.
2) You have the formulas where the space-something appear, and you randomly try propose to replace something with things you know, like mass, time, color, ... It is actually more easy, because using the units you know that something must be measured in seconds, so it discards a lot of possibilities.
3) You have the "classic" formulas where space appears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation that were actually discovered almost 20 years before the work of Einstein. And you rewrite them in the equivalent of the "vectorial" notation. In the usual space it is like replacing (x,y,z) with a big X and never looking inside X. If you try it, the only way you can success is if you group (ct,x,y,z).
The trick is to look carefully at the calculation and try to think what you can arrange it to be able to rewrite the calculation in the correct form.
For example with momentum, you look carefully and realize you must add energy as the fourth component.
If you choose to group space and time, and you choose to group momentum and energy, then you must use the same choose in all the formulas. You can not choose a different grouping for each formula.
But sometimes it is not so easy. With speed you realize that it is too bad to be fixed, and you must define another speed-like-thing and then give another formula that transform the "real speed that you measure in a lab" and the "abstract speed-like-thing that you use in the calculation".
With the electric field, ... well you can't put it in a 4-vector, you must use something more weird that is a 4x4-matrix.
Three partially correct answers of the same question:
1) Nobody decided it. It is just how the universe is.
2) You have the formulas where the space-something appear, and you randomly try propose to replace something with things you know, like mass, time, color, ... It is actually more easy, because using the units you know that something must be measured in seconds, so it discards a lot of possibilities.
3) You have the "classic" formulas where space appears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation that were actually discovered almost 20 years before the work of Einstein. And you rewrite them in the equivalent of the "vectorial" notation. In the usual space it is like replacing (x,y,z) with a big X and never looking inside X. If you try it, the only way you can success is if you group (ct,x,y,z).
The trick is to look carefully at the calculation and try to think what you can arrange it to be able to rewrite the calculation in the correct form.
For example with momentum, you look carefully and realize you must add energy as the fourth component.
If you choose to group space and time, and you choose to group momentum and energy, then you must use the same choose in all the formulas. You can not choose a different grouping for each formula.
But sometimes it is not so easy. With speed you realize that it is too bad to be fixed, and you must define another speed-like-thing and then give another formula that transform the "real speed that you measure in a lab" and the "abstract speed-like-thing that you use in the calculation".
With the electric field, ... well you can't put it in a 4-vector, you must use something more weird that is a 4x4-matrix.
The reason for creating these pairings is that they make calculations easier. Maxwells laws of electromagnetism in particular become very beautiful when defined in terms of these 4-vectors.
I find using the speed of light confusing as it has little to do with light other than that light happens to travel at that speed [1], but rather the speed of propagation of cause and effect. If you stay absolutely still, cause and effect still propagate at the same speed and so time ticks forward at this speed. If you physically move (have velocity), cause and effect still ticks forward at the same speed, but some of it appears to tick into moving you physically. You can still only propagate at the speed of propagation, but some of that propagation is happening on the physical position axis, so less happens on the time axis.
[1] because light is massless, so in a vacuum there is nothing slowing it down
[1] because light is massless, so in a vacuum there is nothing slowing it down
Yeah, I'm not a physicist but hearing a good explanation of the time-space four-vector being constant as an explanation for time dilation (among other things) was a real light bulb moment for me.
It's also why I'm basically convinced that any sort of FTL (including wormholes and compressing space), time travel or cheating causality is essentially impossible, no matter what results you contrive by putting things like negative mass and/or energy into various equations.
How this all gets reconciled with quantum mechanics is another matter. Part of me wonders if the problem isn't just that space and time are ultimately discrete (at the Planck unit level) and our equations describing it are continuous. But again, I'm no physicist.
It's also why I'm basically convinced that any sort of FTL (including wormholes and compressing space), time travel or cheating causality is essentially impossible, no matter what results you contrive by putting things like negative mass and/or energy into various equations.
How this all gets reconciled with quantum mechanics is another matter. Part of me wonders if the problem isn't just that space and time are ultimately discrete (at the Planck unit level) and our equations describing it are continuous. But again, I'm no physicist.
This is great, thanks! This is the first time I hear it explained like this and it just somehow clicked immediately.
I now have this (probably wildly incorrect, total layman here) vision of the time dimension of velocity being "a normal" simultaneously to all the spatial dimensions and acceleration as rotation of the four-vector away from the time axis...
sorry for any terminology errors.
I now have this (probably wildly incorrect, total layman here) vision of the time dimension of velocity being "a normal" simultaneously to all the spatial dimensions and acceleration as rotation of the four-vector away from the time axis...
sorry for any terminology errors.
That's exactly it - it's not wildly incorrect at all.
> One of the deep insights of special relativity is that these scalar and vector quantities are actually unified into a single, new entity called a "four-vector".
> But the really weird thing about this particular four-vector is that it always has a magnitude of exactly the speed of light. No matter how fast you go, the magnitude of your four-velocity does not actually get larger. All you do by going faster is just mix some of the time component of your four-velocity into the spatial components.
This seems strongly to be confusing the map and the territory. The maths is a model, the description of vectors has not link to reality but happens to model reality in some useful way (reality and the model correspond to some useful approximation), but it isn't reality.
so
> at rest your four-velocity points directly in the future with a magnitude equal to the speed of light
may just be an artefact of the maths. IDK though. (and no offence intended, just my POV)
> But the really weird thing about this particular four-vector is that it always has a magnitude of exactly the speed of light. No matter how fast you go, the magnitude of your four-velocity does not actually get larger. All you do by going faster is just mix some of the time component of your four-velocity into the spatial components.
This seems strongly to be confusing the map and the territory. The maths is a model, the description of vectors has not link to reality but happens to model reality in some useful way (reality and the model correspond to some useful approximation), but it isn't reality.
so
> at rest your four-velocity points directly in the future with a magnitude equal to the speed of light
may just be an artefact of the maths. IDK though. (and no offence intended, just my POV)
What matters is your path through spacetime. The four velocity is just a tangent vector of this path. The magnitude of the tangent vector has no physical meaning, only its direction does.
Thank you for clear explanation. I wonder how changes in 4-vector velocity relate to "energy & momentum" 4-vector? Does that vector also have fixed magnitude?
Does that vector also have fixed magnitude?
It's magnitude is called 'mass' (or 'rest mass'/'invariant mass' if you want to differentiate it from the concept of 'relativistic mass', which probably should be retired).
This means we have
It's magnitude is called 'mass' (or 'rest mass'/'invariant mass' if you want to differentiate it from the concept of 'relativistic mass', which probably should be retired).
This means we have
four-momentum = mass * four-velocity
three-momentum = gamma * mass * three-velocityNot sure if you will find this comment, but I'd be very curious to hear what the magnitudes of "four-force" and "four-potential" are as well!
My layman's research suggest these are, respectively, "electric charge" and "current"?
My layman's research suggest these are, respectively, "electric charge" and "current"?
That doesn't sound right to me. Note that four-force is a generic concept not limited to electromagnetism. Current is the source term of Maxwell's equations, which connect it to the potential via the d'Alembert operator.
There is indeed also a relation between momentum and (rest) energy describing the conservation of energy,
In the rest frame this relation reduces to the famous E=mc^2.
So Feynman diagrams describe rotations?
What is so special about the speed of light? As a thought experiment, if everyone on the planet was blind, would c have been replaced by the speed of sound?
The first very special thing that was observed about the speed of light is that it is NOT relative. That is, if I fire Alice light beam at you from a moving train, while Bob fires a beam at you from a platform, both beams will reach you at the same time. Sound does not behave the same way, light was the first thing that we observed like this.
This was a gigantic problem, an experiment contradicting one of the most fundamental laws of nature as we knew them at the time - Galileo Galilei's principle of relativity.
Note that this observation has nothing to do with our eyes's ability to perceive light. The same observation will not happen with sound waves; and it will hold even for frequencies of light that we can't directly observe with our bodies, such as radio waves.
As others note, it was later discovered that this is not a special property of light itself. It is in fact a special property of the universe, and it applies to any particle without mass; the photon happens to be the only massless particle that we can directly observe, so it was the one which gave the name to the physical quantity.
This was a gigantic problem, an experiment contradicting one of the most fundamental laws of nature as we knew them at the time - Galileo Galilei's principle of relativity.
Note that this observation has nothing to do with our eyes's ability to perceive light. The same observation will not happen with sound waves; and it will hold even for frequencies of light that we can't directly observe with our bodies, such as radio waves.
As others note, it was later discovered that this is not a special property of light itself. It is in fact a special property of the universe, and it applies to any particle without mass; the photon happens to be the only massless particle that we can directly observe, so it was the one which gave the name to the physical quantity.
> That is, if I fire Alice light beam at you from a moving train, while Bob fires a beam at you from a platform, both beams will reach you at the same time.
That's wrong. Simultaneity is ill-defined in relativity.
The correct example is, "if Alice fires a light beam at you from a moving train and Bob fires a light beam from you from the platform, you will measure the Alice photons as going equally fast as the Bob photons.
That's wrong. Simultaneity is ill-defined in relativity.
The correct example is, "if Alice fires a light beam at you from a moving train and Bob fires a light beam from you from the platform, you will measure the Alice photons as going equally fast as the Bob photons.
Absolute simultaneity is ill-defined, but simultaneity in my frame of reference does exist.
However, you're right, your formulation is more precise, and actually possible to measure.
However, you're right, your formulation is more precise, and actually possible to measure.
I recently learned this and it blew my mind because it had never occurred to me.
Another way to put it is that when you’re in a moving bus and you throw a ball towards the front of the bus, the ball is moving the speed you threw it plus the speed of the bus, but, when you shine a light, the photons from the light are moving the same speed as someone off the bus! That seems super weird.
Another way to put it is that when you’re in a moving bus and you throw a ball towards the front of the bus, the ball is moving the speed you threw it plus the speed of the bus, but, when you shine a light, the photons from the light are moving the same speed as someone off the bus! That seems super weird.
Exactly. Now build a clock by bouncing the light between two mirrors, and think about how the clock looks like in the bus, and outside of the bus. -> special relativity.
It is the speed of cause and effect.
If something changes at location X, that cannot cause anything to change at location Y faster than the distance between X and Y divided by the speed of light.
Light (in a vacuum) goes as fast as the speed of cause and effect. And it just so happens that the speed of light is pretty easy to measure (as compared to other possible things).
So if we were all blind, we would still be affected by this speed.
Light (in a vacuum) goes as fast as the speed of cause and effect. And it just so happens that the speed of light is pretty easy to measure (as compared to other possible things).
So if we were all blind, we would still be affected by this speed.
The speed of light is just the speed of any particle without matter. We just use "speed of light" since its simpler to understand and talk about rather than saying "speed of matter-less particles".
The speed of sound is the speed of air-molecules bouncing into each other (~300m/s). Since air-molecules have matter, they dont travel at the speed of light.
The speed of sound is the speed of air-molecules bouncing into each other (~300m/s). Since air-molecules have matter, they dont travel at the speed of light.
To be pedantic, a particle without mass. Matter also includes things without substance like physical fields. So a photon is matter.
At least this is what I was taught in school many years ago...
At least this is what I was taught in school many years ago...
To be pedantic, a particle without rest-mass...
Yes, that was a typo on my part.
As chilinot said, it’s the speed of any massless particle in a vacuum. A massless particle has nothing slowing it down, so it moves at the maximum possible speed. It’s actually the propagation speed of cause and effect, or put another way, how long it takes for a quantum event to affect whatever is in the adjacent point one Planck length away. It’s simply how quickly these things ripple forward when there is nothing slowing these ripples down.
Every other massless particle moves at the same speed. “Sound” is not a massless particle, it’s propagation of the compression of matter, so therefore moves much, much slower and would not replace c. It has nothing to do with what we can observe and rather to do with its properties. Personally, I find referring it to as “the speed of light” is confusing since it rarely has anything to do with light/photons other than that light happens to move at that speed.
Every other massless particle moves at the same speed. “Sound” is not a massless particle, it’s propagation of the compression of matter, so therefore moves much, much slower and would not replace c. It has nothing to do with what we can observe and rather to do with its properties. Personally, I find referring it to as “the speed of light” is confusing since it rarely has anything to do with light/photons other than that light happens to move at that speed.
> or put another way, how long it takes for a quantum event to affect whatever is in the adjacent point one Planck length away.
Said like that, it reeeeeaaallly makes you think "we live in a simulation", doesn't it ^^ ?
Said like that, it reeeeeaaallly makes you think "we live in a simulation", doesn't it ^^ ?
I watched this recently[1] and the whole relativity thing made me think that its kinda like how in games often physics is processed as local clusters (for parallelism) and it made me think that reality appears to be simulated in this local clusters too. Relativity exists because that way each local cluster is independent and can be simulated in parallel, sharded across the servers! :)
Hell, why not take it a step further and say that the simulation is relative to an observer (which can be an inanimate thing, of course) as an optimisation because why bother simulating what isn’t seen or interacted with by an observer?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRqibyNMpw
Hell, why not take it a step further and say that the simulation is relative to an observer (which can be an inanimate thing, of course) as an optimisation because why bother simulating what isn’t seen or interacted with by an observer?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRqibyNMpw
The difference between sound and light is that sound needs a medium. This medium breaks the symmetry: There is a special system, the one in which the bulk of the medium doesn't move.
For light, you don't have that. All reference systems are equal, independent of the speed they move with respect to each other. Light appears at the same speed in all of them. That's not possible with Newtonian velocity addition.
The experimental "proof" of the frame-independence comes from the michelson morley experiment. (Scare-quotes, because you can't prove things in physics, only disprove)
The experimental "proof" of the frame-independence comes from the michelson morley experiment. (Scare-quotes, because you can't prove things in physics, only disprove)
The funny thing about this theory and it’s speed of light proposition is that fails to explain why things are observed to travel faster than light.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/faster-tha...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/faster-tha...
Faster than light in a medium. The last part matters. There is currently no reason to doubt relativity.
That is a great explanation. I remember you, or somebody else here on HN, provided a similar explanation when this general topic came up within the last year or so... and I thought the same thing then -- finally this makes some sense to me. But then I'd lost the post and recently couldn't find it when a colleague could have benefited from it. Thank you.
Thanks antognini, it made so much more sense now.
Sounds like the time cube is relevant once more.
To be pedantic, it's time-space tesseract, but yes.
> exactly the speed of light
*causality
The speed of light is variable, the speed of causality isn't.
The speed of light is variable, the speed of causality isn't.
THat's probably the best fucking explanation in a HN comment I have ever read. Mind expanded. I actually feel like I get this stuff, which I didn't study at college, a little bit. I took chem... physics always seemed impossibly strange.
If you like hard sci-fi, Greg Egan has a written a few books that cover what life would be like if there were 2 dimensions of time (http://www.gregegan.net/DICHRONAUTS/DICHRONAUTS.html) or if the dimension of time was sumed instead of subtracted when measuring distance (http://www.gregegan.net/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html)
It's amazing to think how the universe is ruled by such minute details.
It's amazing to think how the universe is ruled by such minute details.
> minute details
Pun unintended?
Pun unintended?
Thanks! Are there more Greg Egan books about relativity? And does he spell out the mathematical details somewhere?
One of my favorites is (spoiler alert) Incandescence, which presents the utterly novel concept of an alien civilization whose faculties, environment, and thought processes are totally un-human. The characters in this story very gradually discover the principles of relativity from scratch.
For me reading this book, the process of understanding what it is that they are understanding ends up conveying very little useful information of how humans understand physics -- a bizarre and thought-provoking experience.
For me reading this book, the process of understanding what it is that they are understanding ends up conveying very little useful information of how humans understand physics -- a bizarre and thought-provoking experience.
Greg Egan books expand the brain in weird ways. They can be a bit of a chore till you hit a point where the narrative has grabbed you, but once that happens, it an amazing ride.
Reading his books make me feel stupid and clever at the same time.
Reading his books make me feel stupid and clever at the same time.
Today I want to answer a question that was sent to me by Ed Catmull who writes:
"Twice, I have read books on relativity by PhDs who said that we travel through time at the speed of light, but I can’t find those books, and I haven’t seen it written anywhere else. Can you let me know if this is right or if this is utter nonsense."
I wonder, was this question asked by the Ed Catmull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Catmull)?
----
Edit: to make this comment less useless, I'd like to point any laypeople like myself who are interested in the nature of the universe to the PBS Space Time show/YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
I'm pretty sure they have videos related to this question.
"Twice, I have read books on relativity by PhDs who said that we travel through time at the speed of light, but I can’t find those books, and I haven’t seen it written anywhere else. Can you let me know if this is right or if this is utter nonsense."
I wonder, was this question asked by the Ed Catmull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Catmull)?
----
Edit: to make this comment less useless, I'd like to point any laypeople like myself who are interested in the nature of the universe to the PBS Space Time show/YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
I'm pretty sure they have videos related to this question.
The moment I saw that name I wondered the same thing. It would be cool to be running in the same internet circles as Ed Catmull.
I'm in awe of his contributions to both computer graphics and Pixar, and I really liked his management book, even if he definitely did some sketchy stuff with wage fixing.
I'm in awe of his contributions to both computer graphics and Pixar, and I really liked his management book, even if he definitely did some sketchy stuff with wage fixing.
> A distance in space-time is now the square-root of minus the squares of the distances in each of the dimensions of space, plus c square times the squared distance in time.
In case anyone was having trouble parsing this, that's:
√(-(∆x² + ∆y² + ∆z²) + c²∆t²)
Or:
√(c²∆t² - ∆x² - ∆y² - ∆z²)
In case anyone was having trouble parsing this, that's:
√(-(∆x² + ∆y² + ∆z²) + c²∆t²)
Or:
√(c²∆t² - ∆x² - ∆y² - ∆z²)
I think if we first understand what 'time' and 'space' really are than rest becomes easy to understand.
To me time is the rate at which things change or its just a measure of change. Everything is changing state, electrons are moving, bodies are moving from one point to another and also the clock moves the same way.
The diagrams that explain gravity show 'space' as a 2d plane with planets weighing it down making other small objects come toward it. That's a misleading representation I think in a sense that it depends on weight/gravity. I understand space as a sponge. Heavy objects with huge mass are like a squeezed lump in that sponge effecting space around it. Larger the mass, more it squeezes, more it effects what's around it.
When an object moves through space, it effects time as well i.e. rate at which change happens within that object. At very fast speeds, speed of light, it's already moving through space changing space, change within that object is reduced to nothing making time move slow for it.
That all I think it is.
To me time is the rate at which things change or its just a measure of change. Everything is changing state, electrons are moving, bodies are moving from one point to another and also the clock moves the same way.
The diagrams that explain gravity show 'space' as a 2d plane with planets weighing it down making other small objects come toward it. That's a misleading representation I think in a sense that it depends on weight/gravity. I understand space as a sponge. Heavy objects with huge mass are like a squeezed lump in that sponge effecting space around it. Larger the mass, more it squeezes, more it effects what's around it.
When an object moves through space, it effects time as well i.e. rate at which change happens within that object. At very fast speeds, speed of light, it's already moving through space changing space, change within that object is reduced to nothing making time move slow for it.
That all I think it is.
I like the squeezed sponge visual.
The cloth sheet example with heavy object in the center making other objects come towards it never made sense to me.
This example would never work in zero gravity.
Someone gave this sponge visual on stackexchange I think and since then it made so much sense. Also, this makes time travel totally senseless.
You can not travel back in time without reversing all input you ever received from external factors. Only thing we can probably do is stop or slow down time for something.
This example would never work in zero gravity.
Someone gave this sponge visual on stackexchange I think and since then it made so much sense. Also, this makes time travel totally senseless.
You can not travel back in time without reversing all input you ever received from external factors. Only thing we can probably do is stop or slow down time for something.
Serious question: Is there a reason to preface this post with "This transcript will not make much sense without the equations that I show in the video," rather than include the equations in the post directly?
I ask because I cannot view the video for some reason. The embedded video errors, and so does the direct YouTube video. Which means this post cannot function as standalone content, by the author's own admission.
Cynical me things this is a ploy to drive traffic to a YouTube channel. Non-cynical me hopes the equations in the video include snazzy graphics and animations a la 3b1b. Either way it left me frustrated.
I ask because I cannot view the video for some reason. The embedded video errors, and so does the direct YouTube video. Which means this post cannot function as standalone content, by the author's own admission.
Cynical me things this is a ploy to drive traffic to a YouTube channel. Non-cynical me hopes the equations in the video include snazzy graphics and animations a la 3b1b. Either way it left me frustrated.
I believe it's because the video is sponsored. Cynicism aside, this makes sense because having a blog isn't as lucrative as having a successful YouTube channel. This content (both the video and blogpost) is incredibly well-done, so I tend to be okay with these type of things.
Thanks. I was asking because I couldn't view the video and really wanted to read the post. Looks like it's available now.
What really cemented this for me was actually looking at spacetime diagrams. Light moves at 45 degree angles on a spacetime diagram, but EVERYTHING moves at the same speed on these diagrams. I have seen several good YouTube animations demonstrating the Lorentz transformation, here's one that might help clarify what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73psdcmzEY
What I’m still confused about is if you travel through time at a certain speed and time is like any other dimension doesn’t there have to be a underlying concept of “this the real damn time” underneath it?
There is, the damn spacetime, under all it's completely tangled together, you can't separate them, because relativity. It's a very useful "illusion" for everyday life, to think of time as something completely distinct and always present... but it seems, our best experiments and thus models suggest otherwise. Similarly with quantum stuff, there doesn't seem to be hidden variables, it's truly a probability distribution.
Thanks in this case I am trying to understand what is meant by “moving through spacetime”
> what is meant by “moving through spacetime”
AIUI the equations describe a path through spacetime. There is no "speed" or "movement" along this path, or at least none with an actual physical interpretation. The path simply has a certain shape. The equations define the path as a parametric function, and you could in principle calculate the change in 4D spacetime coordinates with respect to the change in that parameter, but it would have no physical meaning. To keep things simple, in a canonical representation of the path this ratio (the "speed" through spacetime with respect to the arbitrary scalar parameter—though "speed" is not really the right term since the parameter does not represent time) is held constant and defined as the speed of light.
To put things in more familiar (or at least less spacetime-y) terms, these very different parametric equations both describe a 2D unit circle with respect to an arbitrary parameter r with range (-∞, ∞):
AIUI the equations describe a path through spacetime. There is no "speed" or "movement" along this path, or at least none with an actual physical interpretation. The path simply has a certain shape. The equations define the path as a parametric function, and you could in principle calculate the change in 4D spacetime coordinates with respect to the change in that parameter, but it would have no physical meaning. To keep things simple, in a canonical representation of the path this ratio (the "speed" through spacetime with respect to the arbitrary scalar parameter—though "speed" is not really the right term since the parameter does not represent time) is held constant and defined as the speed of light.
To put things in more familiar (or at least less spacetime-y) terms, these very different parametric equations both describe a 2D unit circle with respect to an arbitrary parameter r with range (-∞, ∞):
p(r) = [cos(r), sin(r)]
q(r) = [abs(2 - t) - 1, ((2 - t) / abs(2 - t)) * sqrt(1 - (abs(2 - t) - 1)**2)]
Sitting at home, orbiting a star, falling into a blackhole, or being a photon, an electron, or a GPS sat. All are moving through spacetime, of course on different trajectories.
Especially when looking at them with the lens of General Relativity.
Especially when looking at them with the lens of General Relativity.
There is, it's called the "spacetime interval". It's relative to the observer, because everything in spacetime is, but it's the "true" measure of separation in spacetime.
Nice find on that YouTube link. Thanks.
Ther was an experiment where scientists built two ultra precise clocks. One of them stayed on earth while the other was sent to space orbiting the earth at much higher speed than the one left behind. Once the clock from space was returned scientist observed that time on the clock in space progressed slower relative to the on the one from earth.
Which proves Einstein's predictions based on General Theory Of Relativity.
This is being considered when e.g. sending probes to Mars.
Which proves Einstein's predictions based on General Theory Of Relativity.
This is being considered when e.g. sending probes to Mars.
Atomic clocks are so sensitive now that it's possible to desync them while they're in the same room [0]
[0]: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-alum...
[0]: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-alum...
It was also done with planes flying around the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
> The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
——
Also, GPS wouldn’t work without understanding relativity because the clocks in the satellites move faster (I think?) than the ones here on Earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
> The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
——
Also, GPS wouldn’t work without understanding relativity because the clocks in the satellites move faster (I think?) than the ones here on Earth.
And even locating a clock to a higher elevation, because gravitational curvature has the same effect as relative motion.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.07381.pdf
Can't find the reference now but even moving the clock a few meters is a measurable drift.
Can't find the reference now but even moving the clock a few meters is a measurable drift.
It's also considered with the GPS :)
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....
Non-physicist here, so excuse the layman rambling, but to me this was always something I just assumed when asking myself how fast is time? I just figured it was a constant because it is, it doesn't slow down or speed up - well, except for when you're doing really tedious work of course!). So, I just always assumed that if it's a constant, then it must be equal to the fastest or slowest constants we know.
That always leads me to this (probably) crazy rabbit hole I can never quite articulate or resolve that no doubt countless others have wondered about - what if it's not moving at all? What if time is 'solid'?
I guess the best way to explain what I mean here is like a flip book. On each page there is a drawing, if you look at one page you just see a static drawing. If you look at the book, it's just a static book. But if you flip through the pages, it animates and appears to be moving.
What if our experience of time is just like this 'flip book' experience, where in actuality, our experience of time is that we are moving through it, but time is not moving at all?
I'd love to know if there have been any other studies or discussions about this? Because if time is a constant, it could also be 0, no?
That always leads me to this (probably) crazy rabbit hole I can never quite articulate or resolve that no doubt countless others have wondered about - what if it's not moving at all? What if time is 'solid'?
I guess the best way to explain what I mean here is like a flip book. On each page there is a drawing, if you look at one page you just see a static drawing. If you look at the book, it's just a static book. But if you flip through the pages, it animates and appears to be moving.
What if our experience of time is just like this 'flip book' experience, where in actuality, our experience of time is that we are moving through it, but time is not moving at all?
I'd love to know if there have been any other studies or discussions about this? Because if time is a constant, it could also be 0, no?
Non-physicist answer:
If you switch to viewing the universe as purely a mathematical construct, all these questions will fall away. :) The notion of ontologically privileged time or even space is based on us elevating our model of the universe into objective fact for no reason. Anything that the brain would notice even in a timeless, purely mathematical universe is thus an unneeded addition purely on Occam grounds.
For instance, we may ask the question: "would my brain, if you computed its output given its inputs, output data like 'I exist, I am conscious, I notice the flow of time passing, the present moment is ontologically privileged to me'? It seems obvious that it would; that is, the mathematical answer to the question of "what does my brain output" is that sentence. But a mathematical question cannot be ontologically privileged. We see thus that these notions of ours are necessarily vacuous; any conception of 'time', 'now' and 'me' must be relative, depending purely on the surrounding mathematical/causal structure, or else not exist at all - since even if they did exist, our noticing them is not dependent on their existence, and thus Occam bids us to discard them.
If you switch to viewing the universe as purely a mathematical construct, all these questions will fall away. :) The notion of ontologically privileged time or even space is based on us elevating our model of the universe into objective fact for no reason. Anything that the brain would notice even in a timeless, purely mathematical universe is thus an unneeded addition purely on Occam grounds.
For instance, we may ask the question: "would my brain, if you computed its output given its inputs, output data like 'I exist, I am conscious, I notice the flow of time passing, the present moment is ontologically privileged to me'? It seems obvious that it would; that is, the mathematical answer to the question of "what does my brain output" is that sentence. But a mathematical question cannot be ontologically privileged. We see thus that these notions of ours are necessarily vacuous; any conception of 'time', 'now' and 'me' must be relative, depending purely on the surrounding mathematical/causal structure, or else not exist at all - since even if they did exist, our noticing them is not dependent on their existence, and thus Occam bids us to discard them.
This is in the same vein as the thought-experiment about the One-Electron Universe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe].
The idea is, maybe everything in the universe is just 1 electron looping through 4D space over and over, interacting with itself at various points of the loop. Comes about from the observation that antimatter can be described perfectly as just regular matter moving backwards in time.
The idea is, maybe everything in the universe is just 1 electron looping through 4D space over and over, interacting with itself at various points of the loop. Comes about from the observation that antimatter can be described perfectly as just regular matter moving backwards in time.
Thanks for linking that, I had not heard of it before - very cool. The theory from Yoichiro Nambu about production and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs really struck me as interesting! That said, I'm a real novice with all of this so I need to do some further reading.
You might find this explanation interesting https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rrW7yf42vQYDf8AcH/timeless-p...
Bravo. I get why this guy has a following now.
BTW, I think Vonnegut had this right in 1969:
"I am a Tralfamadorian, seeing all time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains. All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is. Take it moment by moment, and you will find that we are all, as I’ve said before, bugs in amber."
BTW, I think Vonnegut had this right in 1969:
"I am a Tralfamadorian, seeing all time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains. All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is. Take it moment by moment, and you will find that we are all, as I’ve said before, bugs in amber."
Thank you for sharing.
> What if time is 'solid'?
You can adopt a perspective where time is solid. But then the question is, why are particles arranged in this solid time exacly as if they were moving in a real time.
As a metaphor, imagine that you are a god, and you are trying to create a 4D universe with solid time, where the same laws of physics (rephrased in the solid-time language) apply. How would you do it? Ultimately, you would have to create the earlier parts of the solid time first, then the following parts of the solid time, etc, until the end of the universe. It wouldn't work any other way, essentially because of chaos theory; the state at T+1 depends on the details of state at T, so you would have to create the T slice of solid time first, and the T+1 slice later, depending on it.
If you remove the time from the universe naively, you are sweeping it under the rug... into the process that created the universe. But isn't this just adding an extra complexity? If the "process that created the universe" can have real time, why not the universe itself? Isn't this just an extra epicycle?
The only way out is if you used your godlike powers to create all possible states of universe simultaneously -- not just our universe, but literally every possible combination of particles -- and then connect them causally in a way that respects the laws of physics. You don't have to create time T first and time T+1 later, if you create all possible realities first, and then just draw an arrow from each T into the corresponding T+1.
So, instead of the frozen version of our universe (where time = linear movement from the beginning of the movie towards its end), you get a frozen version of everything possible (where time = tracing a path across the everything, following the local currents of causality).
The advantage of the latter model is that you get the parallel universe for free; it just means that local causality is not a single arrow pointing from the current place, but rather a collection of arrows.
But you still need to think (in both models) how to make them compatible with known quantum physics. How to model quantum interference, entanglement, etc.
You can adopt a perspective where time is solid. But then the question is, why are particles arranged in this solid time exacly as if they were moving in a real time.
As a metaphor, imagine that you are a god, and you are trying to create a 4D universe with solid time, where the same laws of physics (rephrased in the solid-time language) apply. How would you do it? Ultimately, you would have to create the earlier parts of the solid time first, then the following parts of the solid time, etc, until the end of the universe. It wouldn't work any other way, essentially because of chaos theory; the state at T+1 depends on the details of state at T, so you would have to create the T slice of solid time first, and the T+1 slice later, depending on it.
If you remove the time from the universe naively, you are sweeping it under the rug... into the process that created the universe. But isn't this just adding an extra complexity? If the "process that created the universe" can have real time, why not the universe itself? Isn't this just an extra epicycle?
The only way out is if you used your godlike powers to create all possible states of universe simultaneously -- not just our universe, but literally every possible combination of particles -- and then connect them causally in a way that respects the laws of physics. You don't have to create time T first and time T+1 later, if you create all possible realities first, and then just draw an arrow from each T into the corresponding T+1.
So, instead of the frozen version of our universe (where time = linear movement from the beginning of the movie towards its end), you get a frozen version of everything possible (where time = tracing a path across the everything, following the local currents of causality).
The advantage of the latter model is that you get the parallel universe for free; it just means that local causality is not a single arrow pointing from the current place, but rather a collection of arrows.
But you still need to think (in both models) how to make them compatible with known quantum physics. How to model quantum interference, entanglement, etc.
I think you're adding an assumption that isn't justified, that this god would have had to start at what we call t=0, i.e. big bang.
Part of timless physics is that there is no privileged moment in time.
The laws of physics allow god to start at any point in the configuration space of the universe and evolve toward any direction.
This isn't prevented by chaos theory. Chaos theory happens regardless of where you start your t=0. The laws of physics are 100% symmetric (CPT symmetry).
This does not mean we will necessarily recurr either. The laws of physics are symmetric, but due to the Past Hypothesis (prior condition of the universe was very low entropy), we experience an emmergent direction in time, and if the universe is infinite and unbounded it seems like it wont recurr.
Part of timless physics is that there is no privileged moment in time.
The laws of physics allow god to start at any point in the configuration space of the universe and evolve toward any direction.
This isn't prevented by chaos theory. Chaos theory happens regardless of where you start your t=0. The laws of physics are 100% symmetric (CPT symmetry).
This does not mean we will necessarily recurr either. The laws of physics are symmetric, but due to the Past Hypothesis (prior condition of the universe was very low entropy), we experience an emmergent direction in time, and if the universe is infinite and unbounded it seems like it wont recurr.
I don’t see the obstacle of making that compatible with QM. Just have the state space which you described (which would be the Hilbert space), and then the Schrödinger equation specifies which curves through the state space are “progression through time”.
How fast can something orbit the earth?
My standard model of “Thing going really fast” has been some nuclear powered craft that just shoots out into the abyss, but after a bit of googling apparently our fastest craft is/will be Juno, which is staying within the solar system. This will apparently go 250,000km/hr or 0.000232c partially based on Jupiter’s gravity.
It is interesting to think about just “living fast”, where our lives are still only ~80 years, but the time elapsed on earth is on the order of many multiples of that. We would exist in a way that we orbit the earth at a much larger fraction of light speed, while still allowing us to interact with the earth’s resources on normal time scales. Imagine taking a vacation back to earth for a year, but popping back to the space station where it has only been a few hours.
Maybe I’ll write a novel on that or find one already written, there seems to be a lot of depth in exploring that.
[0] https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/earth-flyby/story/how-fast-...
My standard model of “Thing going really fast” has been some nuclear powered craft that just shoots out into the abyss, but after a bit of googling apparently our fastest craft is/will be Juno, which is staying within the solar system. This will apparently go 250,000km/hr or 0.000232c partially based on Jupiter’s gravity.
It is interesting to think about just “living fast”, where our lives are still only ~80 years, but the time elapsed on earth is on the order of many multiples of that. We would exist in a way that we orbit the earth at a much larger fraction of light speed, while still allowing us to interact with the earth’s resources on normal time scales. Imagine taking a vacation back to earth for a year, but popping back to the space station where it has only been a few hours.
Maybe I’ll write a novel on that or find one already written, there seems to be a lot of depth in exploring that.
[0] https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/earth-flyby/story/how-fast-...
> Imagine taking a vacation back to earth for a year, but popping back to the space station where it has only been a few hours.
Hmm, this hasn't really fully clicked with me yet (so take what I am saying with a grain of salt, I'd be glad if anyone could clarify/prove me wrong), but speed is relative.
If your station moves fast from the perspective of earth, earth moves fast from the perspective of the station. So, from the perspective of earth, time moves slower on the station, and from the perspective of the station, time moves slower on earth.
If you were to travel back and forth, that would even out (something about having to accelerate in one direction, then another). There is no absolute time reference in the universe.
That can work, however, if you spend some time inside a strong gravity field.
Hmm, this hasn't really fully clicked with me yet (so take what I am saying with a grain of salt, I'd be glad if anyone could clarify/prove me wrong), but speed is relative.
If your station moves fast from the perspective of earth, earth moves fast from the perspective of the station. So, from the perspective of earth, time moves slower on the station, and from the perspective of the station, time moves slower on earth.
If you were to travel back and forth, that would even out (something about having to accelerate in one direction, then another). There is no absolute time reference in the universe.
That can work, however, if you spend some time inside a strong gravity field.
The general idea was that we can orbit a fixed reference (In this case the earth) at a high relative speed. At high earth orbit (35km), orbiting the circumference (Simplifying assuming a perfect circle) would mean one orbit done per second would be 2/3c.
The time delta math (Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) puts us at 3 earth days per two space days.
The vacationing was more cheeky, in that in this case a 2 week vacation would appear 3 weeks on earth. If there would be some way to quickly switch between modes than 1 week, you would spend more self-referential time doing something than your home clock would count.
The time delta math (Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) puts us at 3 earth days per two space days.
The vacationing was more cheeky, in that in this case a 2 week vacation would appear 3 weeks on earth. If there would be some way to quickly switch between modes than 1 week, you would spend more self-referential time doing something than your home clock would count.
I saw a really moving animated short that used this as part of its plot, but I forget the name (japanese) and haven't been able to google it since.
A couple of high school sweethearts promise they'll love each other forever, but there's a war on and the boy quickly gets recruited to fight at the edge of the solar system (I remember a scene where they stand at some railroad tracks and watch a monumental silver space craft fly overhead, one of the battle cruisers), but before he gets there the boy and girl continue their relationship as pen pals, at first sending messages back and forth from mars base (45 minute delay, but not aging any faster), but as the boy travels closer to the front of the war, his velocity increases and he ages less than the girl waiting for him back on earth, and of course more time passes by between messages.
Eventually it's the boys 20something birthday and he still has love for the girl, while the girl has already grown up and moved on with her life.
A couple of high school sweethearts promise they'll love each other forever, but there's a war on and the boy quickly gets recruited to fight at the edge of the solar system (I remember a scene where they stand at some railroad tracks and watch a monumental silver space craft fly overhead, one of the battle cruisers), but before he gets there the boy and girl continue their relationship as pen pals, at first sending messages back and forth from mars base (45 minute delay, but not aging any faster), but as the boy travels closer to the front of the war, his velocity increases and he ages less than the girl waiting for him back on earth, and of course more time passes by between messages.
Eventually it's the boys 20something birthday and he still has love for the girl, while the girl has already grown up and moved on with her life.
You have solved my puzzle, and I am thankful for it.
Edit: hah, figures my bias would mix the genders up, the girl went off to fight the war.
Edit: hah, figures my bias would mix the genders up, the girl went off to fight the war.
It's probably the Makoto Shinkai film the other guy posted but another book that uses time dilation is The Forever War. And there's the classic Childhood's End.
in shorter version Brian Mays song '39 has similar plot
>* How fast can something orbit the earth?*
If you mean the actual Earth and a free-fall orbit, the orbital speed of something in low earth orbit, like the ISS, about 8 km/sec, is as fast as anything can orbit the earth.
To get really fast orbital speeds (as in, speeds that are any significant fraction of the speed of light), you need objects much, much more compact than the Earth, objects whose actual size is not that much larger than the size of a black hole with the same mass. The only non-black hole objects we know of that are anywhere close to that compact are neutron stars.
If you mean the actual Earth and a free-fall orbit, the orbital speed of something in low earth orbit, like the ISS, about 8 km/sec, is as fast as anything can orbit the earth.
To get really fast orbital speeds (as in, speeds that are any significant fraction of the speed of light), you need objects much, much more compact than the Earth, objects whose actual size is not that much larger than the size of a black hole with the same mass. The only non-black hole objects we know of that are anywhere close to that compact are neutron stars.
I wonder if black holes or neutron stars in a solar system are necessary for a civilization to start exploring the universe outside of their own solar system. It could be quite a boon to have something like that in the outer solar system for gravity assists.
Parker Solar Probe is supposed to get up to 690,000 km/hr on a close flyby of the sun!
The movie Interstellar explores these concepts quite well. it's not 100% accurate but Kipp Thorne was consulted for the visuals on the black holes in the film at least.
I hope someone knowledgeable is still reading comments this late:
I was thinking about this last night. How does this fit into GR? I understand how it fits into SR, but in GR space is just curved. Unlike velocity time dilation, under Einstein space isn't moving. In GR it's the curve that's "equal" to gamma, the dilation factor in SR.
This is evident where escape velocity (root((2GM)/r)) replaces the (v^2) term in the Lorentz factor to give gravitational time dilation in the Schwarzschild solution (t' = t(root(1-(2GM)/(rc^2))).
Mind you, I've always thought everything is moving at c through spacetime, but I understood that from SR. I just don't see how it fits with GR.
I was thinking about this last night. How does this fit into GR? I understand how it fits into SR, but in GR space is just curved. Unlike velocity time dilation, under Einstein space isn't moving. In GR it's the curve that's "equal" to gamma, the dilation factor in SR.
This is evident where escape velocity (root((2GM)/r)) replaces the (v^2) term in the Lorentz factor to give gravitational time dilation in the Schwarzschild solution (t' = t(root(1-(2GM)/(rc^2))).
Mind you, I've always thought everything is moving at c through spacetime, but I understood that from SR. I just don't see how it fits with GR.
> Now, of course there is a difference between time and space, so that can’t be all there is to space-time. You can move around in space either which way, but you cannot move around in time as you please.
Not really. The instant you move in space, you also move in time, and since everything is moving and there is no fixed frame of reference, technically you can never move back to the same spot where you started.
So even though it might appear to us, at our perception scale, that we can move back and forth in space, in reality whenever we move, space changes and so it's just like moving in time, there is no going back.
Not really. The instant you move in space, you also move in time, and since everything is moving and there is no fixed frame of reference, technically you can never move back to the same spot where you started.
So even though it might appear to us, at our perception scale, that we can move back and forth in space, in reality whenever we move, space changes and so it's just like moving in time, there is no going back.
The thing that annoys me a bit about these explanations is that one can do a classical spacetime too, where every timeslice is just that, a slice through the space.
I would rather spend a bit of time formalizing that classical spacetime, and then get into how special relativity is different. Much more apples to apples.
I would rather spend a bit of time formalizing that classical spacetime, and then get into how special relativity is different. Much more apples to apples.
Imagine still thinking ‘You’ travel anywhere - as opposed to the distance between objects and the matter there within expanding and contracting to infinitismally small and large (real-time/life-size) proportions... hmmm lol begs the question do you move through life or does life pass you by?
Little misleading title: each particle moves with exactly speed of light through spacetime; the time is just the direction in which it moves through it (relativity says time is individual for each particle).
Try this: 1 dim relativity https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL04B3CE7DCE67CA5D
Which is the reference point for speed? Is it the centerpoint of the universe mass? Is it relative and calculated with acceleration and deceleration? Something else?
There is no reference point for speed. It's all relative. Hence the theory of "relativity".
I still don't get it. Let's say you jump on an airplane with an atomic clock, and fly around the earth. According to the theory, your time will go slower. So the clock on the plane will be behind the clock on earth.
But what if you fly against the turning of the earth. That way the clock on the earth goes slower, and so when arriving back, the clock on earth is behind?
Every time I look this up, I never seem to be able to wrap my head around that.
EDIT: Found the answer to my question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Reciprocity . Basically when you accelerate and decelerate, your time gets influenced, and so the person experiencing the most acceleration will have the slower time.
But what if you fly against the turning of the earth. That way the clock on the earth goes slower, and so when arriving back, the clock on earth is behind?
Every time I look this up, I never seem to be able to wrap my head around that.
EDIT: Found the answer to my question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Reciprocity . Basically when you accelerate and decelerate, your time gets influenced, and so the person experiencing the most acceleration will have the slower time.
> If you want to calculate a distance in space, you use Euclid’s formula. A distance, in three dimension, is the square-root of the of the sum of the squared distances in each direction of space. Here the Δx is a difference between two points in direction x, and Δy and Δz are likewise differences between two points in directions y and z.
I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality.
Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?
I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality.
Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?
What would that even mean? The model is a description of reality. When you talk about the model, you are referencing a mathematical description of reality.
In a similar way, the ratio π is the mathematical description (or model, if you like) of a circle's circumference relative to its diameter. I'm not sure how to describe this relationship without invoking the mathematical description of said relationship.
In a similar way, the ratio π is the mathematical description (or model, if you like) of a circle's circumference relative to its diameter. I'm not sure how to describe this relationship without invoking the mathematical description of said relationship.
> The model is a description of reality
No, not neccessarily. It's purpose is to make predictions. It need not be an accurate description of reality. We know this from our own internal model of reality and from classical mechanics, neither of which seem to be accurate descriptions of reality but both of which are very good models for predicting outcomes.
No, not neccessarily. It's purpose is to make predictions. It need not be an accurate description of reality. We know this from our own internal model of reality and from classical mechanics, neither of which seem to be accurate descriptions of reality but both of which are very good models for predicting outcomes.
As expressed by ta1234567890, that's a misunderstanding of what models are, and what "the map is not the territorry" means...
Are you responding to the wrong comment? ta1234567890 and I don't seem to contradict eachother, at least in the part of the thread I'm responding to. Your comment is too vague for me to respond to and doesn't contain a clear position or an argument for it: what did you mean to say?
You seemed to disagree with your parent, which corrected ta1234567890.
I happen to disagree with ta1234567890 too, and think the parent is correct, and ta1234567890's comment is non-sensical.
He says:
"I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality. Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?"
My point is, you cannot talk about reality without using a model, except in some obscure philosophical sense (like e.g. Kant's ding an sich).
Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality, they are exactly our way of talking about reality. Any talk about reality is about a model of reality.
So ta1234567890 inquiry is bogus, we can't have "explanations about reality [NOT] become explanations about a model of reality".
That models are abstractions, and that 'the map is not the territorry" (two ideas that might have informed ta123456... comment) is correct, but it just means that no model is perfect. Not that model-less talk about reality is possible...
Plus, the idea that no model is perfect, is problematic in itself, often usef for a tin-foil rejection of any model. Some models can be perfect for their domain, or perfect for up to some very small degree of measurement error...
I happen to disagree with ta1234567890 too, and think the parent is correct, and ta1234567890's comment is non-sensical.
He says:
"I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality. Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?"
My point is, you cannot talk about reality without using a model, except in some obscure philosophical sense (like e.g. Kant's ding an sich).
Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality, they are exactly our way of talking about reality. Any talk about reality is about a model of reality.
So ta1234567890 inquiry is bogus, we can't have "explanations about reality [NOT] become explanations about a model of reality".
That models are abstractions, and that 'the map is not the territorry" (two ideas that might have informed ta123456... comment) is correct, but it just means that no model is perfect. Not that model-less talk about reality is possible...
Plus, the idea that no model is perfect, is problematic in itself, often usef for a tin-foil rejection of any model. Some models can be perfect for their domain, or perfect for up to some very small degree of measurement error...
> Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality
They're tools to predict experience. Anything beyond that is philosophy, positive or negative (i.e. that they are only that or that they are more than that). Your philosophical position is that the reason that they are able to predict future experience is because they accurately describe reality to some degree. This is just the opposite position of Hume. If you think that the models give us knowledge of reality, then this is the opposite position of Kant.
Your position is held by only 57.1% of professional philosophers. The Humean position is held by 24.7%. [1] My point here is that Kant's position is hardly obscure being that one more extreme than it is held by a quarter of philosophers and it's not wise for you to take your position as being objectively correct and anything else a "misunderstanding." Even if you only mean that it is more common, it's firstly only barely so and secondly however reality is or is not is not going to be decided democratically.
I think additionally that your position is particularly naive considering that QM doesn't even pretend to tell us how reality actually is. That's what the various interpretations do. Or will you claim that QM is not a physical model?
1. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
They're tools to predict experience. Anything beyond that is philosophy, positive or negative (i.e. that they are only that or that they are more than that). Your philosophical position is that the reason that they are able to predict future experience is because they accurately describe reality to some degree. This is just the opposite position of Hume. If you think that the models give us knowledge of reality, then this is the opposite position of Kant.
Your position is held by only 57.1% of professional philosophers. The Humean position is held by 24.7%. [1] My point here is that Kant's position is hardly obscure being that one more extreme than it is held by a quarter of philosophers and it's not wise for you to take your position as being objectively correct and anything else a "misunderstanding." Even if you only mean that it is more common, it's firstly only barely so and secondly however reality is or is not is not going to be decided democratically.
I think additionally that your position is particularly naive considering that QM doesn't even pretend to tell us how reality actually is. That's what the various interpretations do. Or will you claim that QM is not a physical model?
1. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>QM doesn't even pretend to tell us how reality actually is. That's what the various interpretations do
Isn't that backwards? QM, without "interpretation" tells what outcomes of experiments should be. That's reality.
The interpretations are interchangeable, so even if there was some oracle to tell us one of them was better, it wouldn't tell us anything about reality.
Isn't that backwards? QM, without "interpretation" tells what outcomes of experiments should be. That's reality.
The interpretations are interchangeable, so even if there was some oracle to tell us one of them was better, it wouldn't tell us anything about reality.
No, this is a non-standard definition of reality [1]. QM does not give us an ontology, i.e. a specification of what exists. That's what the interpretations do.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
A well known definition of reality is "what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it".
If you stop believing in QM, everything happens just as before and if all knowledge was lost, the theory could be recreated.
But if you stop believing in the Copenhagen interpretation, and start believing in many-worlds, or you say "the hand of God directs things", nothing changes. If all knowledge of those ideas vanished, nothing would ensure it was recreated.
If you stop believing in QM, everything happens just as before and if all knowledge was lost, the theory could be recreated.
But if you stop believing in the Copenhagen interpretation, and start believing in many-worlds, or you say "the hand of God directs things", nothing changes. If all knowledge of those ideas vanished, nothing would ensure it was recreated.
Your new explicit definition of reality is different than your old implicit definition of reality. There are presumably more things that "don't go away when you stop believing in them" than "what outcomes of experiments should be."
What people want to know is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. What you've claimed so far is that the results of experiments (i.e. effects) don't go away if you stop believing in them. This isn't controversial; however it is incomplete. It doesn't tell us what caused the effects. If many-worlds, for example, is true, then when you stop believing in it then its branching and branches will not go away. If pilot-wave theory is true, the pilot waves do not go away when you stop believing in them. If objective collapse theories are true, wave functions spontaneously collapse whether you believe so or not. You, on the other hand, are only accounting for effects and models, not causes and what is modeled.
What people want to know is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. What you've claimed so far is that the results of experiments (i.e. effects) don't go away if you stop believing in them. This isn't controversial; however it is incomplete. It doesn't tell us what caused the effects. If many-worlds, for example, is true, then when you stop believing in it then its branching and branches will not go away. If pilot-wave theory is true, the pilot waves do not go away when you stop believing in them. If objective collapse theories are true, wave functions spontaneously collapse whether you believe so or not. You, on the other hand, are only accounting for effects and models, not causes and what is modeled.
>There are presumably more things that "don't go away when you stop believing in them" than "what outcomes of experiments should be."
If so, I don't know what.
Anyway, I think you're implicitly privileging one abstraction, called an "interpretation" over "just the plain math". But if they're equivalent, what is real about choosing one or the other, let alone between different "interpretations"?
Why is an "interpretation" a real thing and not the equations?
This seems structurally similar to a classic theological argument between theist and atheist; ok, you believe in a god, but why that particular god? And if there's no reason for a particular god, why bother with any?
If so, I don't know what.
Anyway, I think you're implicitly privileging one abstraction, called an "interpretation" over "just the plain math". But if they're equivalent, what is real about choosing one or the other, let alone between different "interpretations"?
Why is an "interpretation" a real thing and not the equations?
This seems structurally similar to a classic theological argument between theist and atheist; ok, you believe in a god, but why that particular god? And if there's no reason for a particular god, why bother with any?
There really is no reality, just models that describe our observations more and more accurately.
Of course not. We can prove things that are absolutely true. For example, we can show 2+2, with suitable definitions of 2, + and 4, always equals 4 anywhere in the universe.
Math is not reality. It's an abstract concept that we've built up on top of axioms.
Okay so
Movement through space (in any direction) is movement against time.
Is positive kinetic energy the direction opposite time?
Movement through space (in any direction) is movement against time.
Is positive kinetic energy the direction opposite time?
So, we travel through time at the same speed _that light travels through time_? Did I get that right?
No. Light travels through space at the speed of light. Physical objects travel through time at the speed of light.
For light, speed of time is zero, because it travels at speed of light. :-/
>> Light travels through space at the speed of light.
That seems a tautology isn't? Perhaps you wanted to say something else?
That seems a tautology isn't? Perhaps you wanted to say something else?
>> Light travels through space at the speed of light.
> That seems a tautology isn't? Perhaps you wanted to say something else?
Very nearly, but it is exactly what I wanted to say. Light travels at a fixed speed _through space_ which we happen to call "the speed of light". A physical object which is motionless in space travels at a fixed speed _in the time dimension_ which happens to have the same size as the speed of light.
This has consequences. A physical object which has some speed in space still has a 4-velocity vector whose length is the speed of light. That means the space velocity and time velocity must combine into a vector whose length is c. Naturally, if the space velocity is non-zero, the time velocity must be less than c. This is called time dilation.
> Therefore, if I got this right, for an external observer, light does not travel trough time, only space. However, in its own reference frame, light should travel trough time at the speed of light (and doesn't move in space in that reference frame).
Not quite.
Taken to the extreme, an object with a space velocity equal to the speed of light would have no velocity at all in the time direction. This can be a confusing statement, because we must make a distinction between times as measured by an observer and times measured by the moving object. If a photon could measure events (and most cannot), it would measure no time elapsing between it's own creation and it's own destruction. It will be emitted by an electron in one place (perhaps the coronasphere of the sun) and simultaneously absorbed by another electron in another place (perhaps a rhodopsin molecule in someone's retina). An observer, such as the owner of the retina, would of course still measure some time between the emission and the absorption; the events would not appear to be simultaneous. This is called relativity of simultaneity.
Very nearly, but it is exactly what I wanted to say. Light travels at a fixed speed _through space_ which we happen to call "the speed of light". A physical object which is motionless in space travels at a fixed speed _in the time dimension_ which happens to have the same size as the speed of light.
This has consequences. A physical object which has some speed in space still has a 4-velocity vector whose length is the speed of light. That means the space velocity and time velocity must combine into a vector whose length is c. Naturally, if the space velocity is non-zero, the time velocity must be less than c. This is called time dilation.
> Therefore, if I got this right, for an external observer, light does not travel trough time, only space. However, in its own reference frame, light should travel trough time at the speed of light (and doesn't move in space in that reference frame).
Not quite.
Taken to the extreme, an object with a space velocity equal to the speed of light would have no velocity at all in the time direction. This can be a confusing statement, because we must make a distinction between times as measured by an observer and times measured by the moving object. If a photon could measure events (and most cannot), it would measure no time elapsing between it's own creation and it's own destruction. It will be emitted by an electron in one place (perhaps the coronasphere of the sun) and simultaneously absorbed by another electron in another place (perhaps a rhodopsin molecule in someone's retina). An observer, such as the owner of the retina, would of course still measure some time between the emission and the absorption; the events would not appear to be simultaneous. This is called relativity of simultaneity.
I always get messed up when I try to think about the experience of the fast moving entity.
Imagine a photon that is emitted by the sun and travels through space bouncing off the moon and onto my retina. In my frame I can trace the path of that photon and see a sequence (sun->moon->eye). For the photon, all of that happened simultaneously, right? It would have no experience of having traveled from the sun to my eye because it was in both places at once. Is that right?
Imagine a photon that is emitted by the sun and travels through space bouncing off the moon and onto my retina. In my frame I can trace the path of that photon and see a sequence (sun->moon->eye). For the photon, all of that happened simultaneously, right? It would have no experience of having traveled from the sun to my eye because it was in both places at once. Is that right?
I am not sure one could take the same perspective as light, but that reference frame probably obeys the same four-vector rules. Therefore, if I got this right, for an external observer, light does not travel trough time, only space.
However, in its own reference frame, light should travel trough time at the speed of light (and doesn't move in space in that reference frame). I wonder what happens to the energy in that frame...
However, in its own reference frame, light should travel trough time at the speed of light (and doesn't move in space in that reference frame). I wonder what happens to the energy in that frame...
[deleted]
[deleted]
there is no time. only the infinity of now. :)
What a terrible bit of teaching.
>physics is all about equations
No. Physics is about the nature of reality. Mathematics is a tool we use to describe the world.
>physics is all about equations
No. Physics is about the nature of reality. Mathematics is a tool we use to describe the world.
At present math is the only tool that works though. I would even go a bit further and say that math isn’t only a tool but it’s a device that provides a deeper understanding and intuition. A metaphor that jumps to mind is that of woodworking. Woodworking tools are not just necessary to shape the wood. They also allow you to feel the grain and other properties of the wood, providing for a deeper understanding.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that we are living in a simulation, and time dilation (as you approach c) is an effect of the limits of computing power.
Consider that the faster you travel, the more collisions (or potential collisions) between particles need to be decided.
Is the limiting factor of c directly related to the available computational power?
Consider that the faster you travel, the more collisions (or potential collisions) between particles need to be decided.
Is the limiting factor of c directly related to the available computational power?
If we were living in a simulation, why would our perception of relative time be absolute relative to the simulation? Why wouldn’t the simulation just simulate slower at whatever level of abstraction it operates on, causing us to be none the wiser, like the AI in a frame-locked videogame?
Human perception isn't a consideration of the simulation, we are just a side-effect.
You can either simulate the entire universe in infinite detail taking infinite time, or you can optimize to focus on the more important bits in finite time.
You can either simulate the entire universe in infinite detail taking infinite time, or you can optimize to focus on the more important bits in finite time.
It might be a limit to precision too if infinite accuracy requires infinite space.
For low energy an approximation might suffice, and that would go some ways to explain quantum effects.
For low energy an approximation might suffice, and that would go some ways to explain quantum effects.
But then it doesn’t matter, because what’s at the top of the simulation tree?
The speed of light, c, is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is variable given the medium by which that light traverses.
Also, when we speak of traversal the implication is closing distance across a space. Space is also variable. According to the Special Theory of Relativity space is curved and that curvature varies according to the forces acting upon it. The general assumption is that such a curvature is uniform according to the force imposed upon at a given point relative to that force, but there is no reason to make such an assumption. More simply space is curved and that curvature may vary in unexpected ways regardless of whether an observer is outside or effected by the force imposing the curvature.
That said the safest prediction is to say we all travel at various speeds of light given enough space and duration compared to a competing observation.
Also, when we speak of traversal the implication is closing distance across a space. Space is also variable. According to the Special Theory of Relativity space is curved and that curvature varies according to the forces acting upon it. The general assumption is that such a curvature is uniform according to the force imposed upon at a given point relative to that force, but there is no reason to make such an assumption. More simply space is curved and that curvature may vary in unexpected ways regardless of whether an observer is outside or effected by the force imposing the curvature.
That said the safest prediction is to say we all travel at various speeds of light given enough space and duration compared to a competing observation.
downvoted because time traveling through a medium vs traveling through curved space are not anywhere near the same underlying principles[0].
The implication being suggested is - if I was trapped in a block of plastic or... underwater, I would experience time different compared to someone standing on land just because "c" is slower.
Clearly not the case.
To be specific, when "the speed of light" is discussed like this, it usually means the "speed of causality"[1] which is the underlying meaning of "c" in relativity.
The speed of causality through a medium (i.e. water) is the same as a vacuum if spacetime curvature is the same.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
The implication being suggested is - if I was trapped in a block of plastic or... underwater, I would experience time different compared to someone standing on land just because "c" is slower.
Clearly not the case.
To be specific, when "the speed of light" is discussed like this, it usually means the "speed of causality"[1] which is the underlying meaning of "c" in relativity.
The speed of causality through a medium (i.e. water) is the same as a vacuum if spacetime curvature is the same.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
Upvoted you and thanks. I was hoping someone would mention "the speed of causality", because to my layman's mind, I've always found thinking about "the speed of causality" makes vastly more sense of the universe to me and makes spacetime/relativity/and-all-that-jazz far easier concepts to comprehend.
For example, if a powerful laser beam was shot off in a vacuum towards an observer who is far away, it's not the "speed of light in a vacuum" which dictates the time at which the observer detects that laser light, it's the speed of causality in that volume of spacetime which determines when that light beam reaches them/is detected.
For example, if a powerful laser beam was shot off in a vacuum towards an observer who is far away, it's not the "speed of light in a vacuum" which dictates the time at which the observer detects that laser light, it's the speed of causality in that volume of spacetime which determines when that light beam reaches them/is detected.
Space is a medium of variable density that impacts the speed of light and everything else. That is clear with regard to solar winds and termination shock.
The curvature of space is directly related to time travel. Strange how you completely ignored that much larger portion of my comment to punch a straw man.
> is the same as a vacuum if spacetime curvature is the same.
If that were true particle physics wouldn’t need dark matter/energy to balance conditions that are irregular upon observable matter alone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
Causality, at least in physics, is an abstract notion and not an empirical notion. In causality effects occur in the same order as their respective causes which is substantive for logical consider, but is not necessarily measurably accurate or expected.
The curvature of space is directly related to time travel. Strange how you completely ignored that much larger portion of my comment to punch a straw man.
> is the same as a vacuum if spacetime curvature is the same.
If that were true particle physics wouldn’t need dark matter/energy to balance conditions that are irregular upon observable matter alone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
Causality, at least in physics, is an abstract notion and not an empirical notion. In causality effects occur in the same order as their respective causes which is substantive for logical consider, but is not necessarily measurably accurate or expected.
While there are a lot of big words being used, there appears to be a gap in understanding the core principles related to the article.
> If that were true particle physics wouldn’t need dark matter/energy to balance conditions that are irregular upon observable matter alone.
You responded to my vacuum statement as if we agree the vacuum is perfectly empty. In relativity, the vacuum is not considered empty[0]. Maybe I should have used "patch of space", but more importantly I said "if the spacetime curvature is the same". That literally defines how causality moves through it so that would be inclusive whatever was there including dark matter/energy, which brings us to...
> Causality, at least in physics, is an abstract notion and not an empirical notion... but is not necessarily measurably accurate or expected.
No it's not... From the wiki you quoted: "In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone."
We're talking about relativity here, not philosophy or another topic where causality isn't well defined. It is not abstract. It is explicitly defined as "c" in Einstein's equations. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove/disprove here.
You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited. So now, I don't know.
I recommend PBS SpaceTime[1] - I still don't understand a lot of things in this space even after watching many videos multiple times, but it really helped put pieces together.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#:~:text=According....
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
> If that were true particle physics wouldn’t need dark matter/energy to balance conditions that are irregular upon observable matter alone.
You responded to my vacuum statement as if we agree the vacuum is perfectly empty. In relativity, the vacuum is not considered empty[0]. Maybe I should have used "patch of space", but more importantly I said "if the spacetime curvature is the same". That literally defines how causality moves through it so that would be inclusive whatever was there including dark matter/energy, which brings us to...
> Causality, at least in physics, is an abstract notion and not an empirical notion... but is not necessarily measurably accurate or expected.
No it's not... From the wiki you quoted: "In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone."
We're talking about relativity here, not philosophy or another topic where causality isn't well defined. It is not abstract. It is explicitly defined as "c" in Einstein's equations. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove/disprove here.
You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited. So now, I don't know.
I recommend PBS SpaceTime[1] - I still don't understand a lot of things in this space even after watching many videos multiple times, but it really helped put pieces together.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#:~:text=According....
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
There were no big words or any form of exotic vocabulary.
> No it's not
Causality states that the order of effects must match the order of events. The Wikipedia articles states that almost verbatim. The mention of a light cone binds the general use of the word to its application of physics without changing the definition. No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable.
> You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited.
It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies. I am living on the otherside of the world from the US in a far away timezone.
> No it's not
Causality states that the order of effects must match the order of events. The Wikipedia articles states that almost verbatim. The mention of a light cone binds the general use of the word to its application of physics without changing the definition. No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable.
> You can say I attacked a straw man, but the original comment was edited.
It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies. I am living on the otherside of the world from the US in a far away timezone.
> No where does the article extend that definition to anything vaguely measurable.
Ah, you're right, I didn't realize you dropped the "speed of" in the "speed of causality" (because the "speed of causality" can be measured and expected... what does "expected" even mean in this context?!). So going 2 replies up you linked to Causality and made a statement about causality but ignored the "speed of causality". So nothing was said?
So you agree with me!
> It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies.
Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later thanks to Hackernew's API[0][1] and that I'm half a world closer in SGT, and that I was originally replying to something that was edited away.
[0] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24328890.json?pri... [1] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24329038.json?pri...
Ah, you're right, I didn't realize you dropped the "speed of" in the "speed of causality" (because the "speed of causality" can be measured and expected... what does "expected" even mean in this context?!). So going 2 replies up you linked to Causality and made a statement about causality but ignored the "speed of causality". So nothing was said?
So you agree with me!
> It was most likely edited hours before your reply. When I completed the edit there were no replies.
Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later thanks to Hackernew's API[0][1] and that I'm half a world closer in SGT, and that I was originally replying to something that was edited away.
[0] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24328890.json?pri... [1] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/24329038.json?pri...
> Ah! Don't worry, thankfully we know that I replied to you 35 minutes later
I don't find that as reassuring. Instead of an editing/time conflict the problem is just poor reading comprehension.
I don't find that as reassuring. Instead of an editing/time conflict the problem is just poor reading comprehension.
> According to the Special Theory of Relativity space is curved
No, it's the General Theory of Relativity that says that spacetime is curved. Spacetime is flat in Special Relativity.
> curvature varies according to the forces acting upon it
No, in GR spacetime curvature varies according to the matter and energy that are present. Gravity is not a force at all in GR.
No, it's the General Theory of Relativity that says that spacetime is curved. Spacetime is flat in Special Relativity.
> curvature varies according to the forces acting upon it
No, in GR spacetime curvature varies according to the matter and energy that are present. Gravity is not a force at all in GR.
One of the deep insights of special relativity is that these scalar and vector quantities are actually unified into a single, new entity called a "four-vector". Each four-vector has three spatial components and one temporal component. So in the two lists I wrote above, each scalar quantity gets paired with the corresponding vector quantity: time & position; energy & momentum; power & force; the electric & magnetic potentials. In Newtonian physics a rotation in three-dimensional space will transform one component of your position vector into another (say, some of your x-component becomes a bit of y-component). In special relativity observers moving at different velocities are related by a similar kind of transformation of their four-vectors --- a bit of the time component mixes with the spatial component and vice versa.
But what happens if you do this with velocity? Velocity is a vector. It's corresponding temporal quantity is a bit weird: change in time per change in time. But it's a little more subtle than that, because it's actually the change in coordinate time per change in proper time. Basically this is the ratio between how fast you observe a clock tick in an observer's reference frame relative to how fast they see it tick within that reference frame.
But the really weird thing about this particular four-vector is that it always has a magnitude of exactly the speed of light. No matter how fast you go, the magnitude of your four-velocity does not actually get larger. All you do by going faster is just mix some of the time component of your four-velocity into the spatial components. (This is why the clocks of moving observers tick more slowly.) And when you slow down, you just mix some of the spatial components into the temporal component. And when you're at rest the spatial components are all at zero, so the only component of your four-velocity is in the temporal direction. So at rest your four-velocity points directly in the future with a magnitude equal to the speed of light. This is what is meant by the statement that we travel through time at the speed of light.