The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets(sciencefocus.com)
sciencefocus.com
The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/the-closer-we-look-at-time-the-stranger-it-gets
118 comments
All of this should be familiar to the average programmer. The Creator (I call him Colin), rushed for time and bereft of more elegant ideas, has widely deployed lazy loading as a solution to the finite processing power of the universe. Almost all of physics (the speed of light, the expansion of space, quantum entanglement) is an answer to the question of how the universe (and indeed Colin himself) can avoid doing too much work.
I bet Colin gets annoyed every time we point a telescope at far away objects as he has to rush around behind the scenes and paint in all the details.
Wait until you hear how he performs garbage collection.
Does it involve sweeping stuff under black holes?
Noah's Automatic Reference Counter
Arena allocators?
he sends the electron both slits so is also doing some complex-numbers montecarloing. Since he has infinite ram he can sum every-single-path.
This was perhaps my favorite part of Physics 390 ("modern physics") which was about quantum dynamics and relativity. The speed of light is defined in terms of a velocity (~300,000,000 m/s) but if you were traveling at the speed of light time stops (which keeps the rule that its constant in all frames of reference). That and time passes more quickly at higher altitudes and these days we can actually measure that. Wild stuff.
The fact that at speed of light time stops is just so bonkers to me.
A photon is, from its point of reference, at the point of creation and at the point of destination at the same "time". Its literally seeing both parts of the universe at the same time, and since its traveled some distance over that time it cannot perceive, its essentially connecting 2 points in spacetime.
If I understand it correctly, every photon exists, from its point of view, for only infinitely small amount of time (similar to how virtual particles do exist from our point of reference), but for us its so easy to "play" with the photon along its path, giving us plenty of time to even decide what we want to do with it after it has already been created.
Its just so bonkers that time can be perceived such differently depending on frame of reference.
A photon is, from its point of reference, at the point of creation and at the point of destination at the same "time". Its literally seeing both parts of the universe at the same time, and since its traveled some distance over that time it cannot perceive, its essentially connecting 2 points in spacetime.
If I understand it correctly, every photon exists, from its point of view, for only infinitely small amount of time (similar to how virtual particles do exist from our point of reference), but for us its so easy to "play" with the photon along its path, giving us plenty of time to even decide what we want to do with it after it has already been created.
Its just so bonkers that time can be perceived such differently depending on frame of reference.
Layman thoughts: The photon cannot experience the universe as it passes through it instantly. It seems to me the universal speed limit creates an observability barrier that is really fascinating. The question is what are we missing, because we're zipping through _something_ at the speed of light relative to it.
Lately, I've been wondering what evidence we have that the speed of the photon/light is really the universal speed limit, and not a very close fraction of it. I could find the argument that a photon must be massless, otherwise photons of different wavelengths would travel at different speeds. But that says nothing of the speed of a massless photon relative to maximum causality propagation speeds.
Lately, I've been wondering what evidence we have that the speed of the photon/light is really the universal speed limit, and not a very close fraction of it. I could find the argument that a photon must be massless, otherwise photons of different wavelengths would travel at different speeds. But that says nothing of the speed of a massless photon relative to maximum causality propagation speeds.
It does, though. Because it's massless, it either needs to be going at max speed or zero speed. And a zero-mass, zero-energy object is a pretty good working definition for "nothing", so photons must travel at the speed of causality, thus making it "the speed of light".
Thanks for the reply. That's still a theoretical reasoning. "Based on our current _models_, it must follow that c=c'." I can accept that. I guess part of a wider theoretical answer is that a photon is just an interaction in quantum fields, and that indicates there's nothing special about a photon that could limit its speed (as you imply.) What you're saying makes me think I should be looking for impediments for attaining speed, and it seems only (inertial) mass is that thing.
My question is if this part of the model has been validated experimentally somehow.
BTW, it seems odd calling a photon a zero-energy object.
My question is if this part of the model has been validated experimentally somehow.
BTW, it seems odd calling a photon a zero-energy object.
Photons are zero-mass, some energy. (and thus moving at max speed). I was trying to convey that the only way for something to be massless and not moving at the speed of light would be for the massless object to be stationary (and thus zero energy).
> A photon is, from its point of reference, at the point of creation and at the point of destination at the same "time"
> every photon exists, from its point of view, for only infinitely small amount of time
Why is that amount “infinitely small” and not 0 since photons travel exactly at the speed of light?
> every photon exists, from its point of view, for only infinitely small amount of time
Why is that amount “infinitely small” and not 0 since photons travel exactly at the speed of light?
Existing for zero time would imply it never existed.
> Existing for zero time would imply it never existed.
In the mathematics of infinity, something can have exactly zero probability yet still happen, and exactly one probability yet nonetheless fail to happen (hence the standard term “almost surely”).
If something can have literally zero probability of existing yet still exist, why can’t it exist for literally zero time yet still exist?
In the mathematics of infinity, something can have exactly zero probability yet still happen, and exactly one probability yet nonetheless fail to happen (hence the standard term “almost surely”).
If something can have literally zero probability of existing yet still exist, why can’t it exist for literally zero time yet still exist?
Have a question related to this, if a photon has zero proper time between emission and absorption, how should I think about the influence of later-created photons or fields on it?
In our frame, we can interact with a photon long after it's emitted send it through a filter, bounce it off a mirror, measure it, etc. But from the photon's own “no proper time” perspective, does it make sense to ask how something created after its emission could affect its path?
In our frame, we can interact with a photon long after it's emitted send it through a filter, bounce it off a mirror, measure it, etc. But from the photon's own “no proper time” perspective, does it make sense to ask how something created after its emission could affect its path?
The photon doesn't have an inertial frame of reference precisely because it's moving at the speed of light, so it doesn't have a perspective. It's a (quantized) wave in the electromagnetic field. The closer you get to the speed of light, the closer the proper time of the journey goes to zero, but actually taking the limit does not make sense physically.
I wonder if Photon doesnt have an inertial frame of reference - from our point of view.
Like, from our point of view, we assume that from photons point of view it has no perspective.
But maybe we are limited by our spacetime, where photon goes trough our universe in an instant, and continues to pierce infinite universes over its non-zero frame of reference.
Like, from our point of view, we assume that from photons point of view it has no perspective.
But maybe we are limited by our spacetime, where photon goes trough our universe in an instant, and continues to pierce infinite universes over its non-zero frame of reference.
>does it make sense to ask how something created after its emission could affect its path
The problem here is likely the concept of "after". It's relativity; what's "after" in our frame of reference isn't after in all frames of reference.
The problem here is likely the concept of "after". It's relativity; what's "after" in our frame of reference isn't after in all frames of reference.
It sort of makes sense to me. It means effectively there is no speed limit. At least from the reference point of who is moving.
> but if you were traveling at the speed of light, time stops
Are we saying then that it is theoretically possible that (a) photons have a zero or near-zero lifetime, but that also (in our frame of reference) (b) they exist for a finite duration of time and are visible during that time simply because time stops for them ? Or did someone manage to slow down light to some fraction of light speed ?
Are we saying then that it is theoretically possible that (a) photons have a zero or near-zero lifetime, but that also (in our frame of reference) (b) they exist for a finite duration of time and are visible during that time simply because time stops for them ? Or did someone manage to slow down light to some fraction of light speed ?
Also see the twin paradox, which is related to this and equally fascinating.
If one twin stays on earth and the other makes an intergalactic trip (with the speed of light), upon return, the one on earth will have aged much more than the one on the trip.
If one twin stays on earth and the other makes an intergalactic trip (with the speed of light), upon return, the one on earth will have aged much more than the one on the trip.
The paradox isn't actually when the twin is returning, the paradox is seen during the trip away from earth. Both are observing each other through telescopes, and both can see the clock on the wall in each other's home (a house, or for the twin, his space ship. Which has got a big window). And both can observe that the other twin's clock is moving at a slower pace than their own clock. And that's the paradox.
(p.s. the spacefaring twin doesn't have to move at the speed of light, and indeed cannot, it's enough to move at a "relativistic" speed, i.e. fast enough that this is actually measurable. With today's clock that doesn't have to be very fast actually)
(p.s. the spacefaring twin doesn't have to move at the speed of light, and indeed cannot, it's enough to move at a "relativistic" speed, i.e. fast enough that this is actually measurable. With today's clock that doesn't have to be very fast actually)
My favorite explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vitf8YaVXhc
Not related to this article, but this post seems to attract so many cranks. Just look at other comments. The amount of weird (out-of-touch) comments on this post is fascinating.
Some of those might be AI accounts that found an ambiguous topic for upvote farming.
What might be the motivation for upvote farming on HN? There is the personal satisfaction of a carefully written comment being acknowledged and validated, but otherwise?
You do get some minimal upgrades with enough karma, like the ability to downvote. But it's not like you get any priority or special treatment, and the numbers are not exposed unless you open individual profiles.
I suppose it could be useful to give legitimacy to bot accounts to be able to inflate upvotes of some posts, but from what I've seen vote-ring detection is really good on HN.
You do get some minimal upgrades with enough karma, like the ability to downvote. But it's not like you get any priority or special treatment, and the numbers are not exposed unless you open individual profiles.
I suppose it could be useful to give legitimacy to bot accounts to be able to inflate upvotes of some posts, but from what I've seen vote-ring detection is really good on HN.
[deleted]
I think I like Tim Maudlin's approach to the question. Time isn't all that mysterious: it's simply fundamental meaning it cannot be explained has being the sum of some things more fundamental. The argument is that's where the difficulty lies for many is they want to express time as though it's a composite, and it just isn't. So the best you can do is explain time by referencing those other aspects of existence which incorporate time.
Here's a much longer take from Tim Maudlin, "Tim Maudlin: A Masterclass on the Philosophy of Time" (https://youtu.be/3riyyEmWwoY?si=9aI-bETWcNpdjMW9), Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at NYU and Founder and Director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. The podcast is Robinson Erhardt's.
Here's a much longer take from Tim Maudlin, "Tim Maudlin: A Masterclass on the Philosophy of Time" (https://youtu.be/3riyyEmWwoY?si=9aI-bETWcNpdjMW9), Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at NYU and Founder and Director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. The podcast is Robinson Erhardt's.
I like Tim, his arguments come across as an honest attempt to answer real questions. I feel as if the current crop of physicists look down on things that appear too simplistic.
Their math give an answer with artefacts they can’t match to reality so they keep probing the outliers of these absolutely bonkers ideas, and rabbit holes keep getting deeper & weirder.
Time doesn’t exist. Do the people writing this garbage live in a vacuum? Is it AI slop?
Their math give an answer with artefacts they can’t match to reality so they keep probing the outliers of these absolutely bonkers ideas, and rabbit holes keep getting deeper & weirder.
Time doesn’t exist. Do the people writing this garbage live in a vacuum? Is it AI slop?
> Time doesn’t exist. Do the people writing this garbage live in a vacuum? Is it AI slop?
Maybe don't dismiss an idea as garbage before trying to understand it.
One of the ideas here is that time is an emergent phenomenon, like how temperature and gas pressure seem real at a macroscopic level, but disappear once you look closer. They simply describe the average kinetic energy of all the molecules in the area.
The _hypothesis_ is that time could be similar.
Maybe don't dismiss an idea as garbage before trying to understand it.
One of the ideas here is that time is an emergent phenomenon, like how temperature and gas pressure seem real at a macroscopic level, but disappear once you look closer. They simply describe the average kinetic energy of all the molecules in the area.
The _hypothesis_ is that time could be similar.
SEP is always an interesting companion to these articles about physical fundamentals. [0]
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
I'm only slightly disappointed that this is not the "Someone Else's Problem" version of SEP.
They nearly have it in the article but don't take the next step, which is to realise that time is gravity. We are falling towards the future at the speed of causality. You can slow your experience of that by travelling really fast, or by being near something with a large gravity. Quantum particles can simply ignore gravity and time while we are forced to feel their effects due to our size, like a mote of dust can ignore gravity, but a brick can't.
You might be interested in The Order of Time by Carlo Ravelli. Time and gravity are certainly linked, but from what I took away from the book (which is a lot to digest, even as non-mathy as it tries to be) is that Time is really heat. Heat moves only from hot to cold, dispersing in some entropic fashion as we move toward the final state of the universe, but in the meantime we can measure that time/heat "flows" at different rates, depending on how near or far you are from large bodies.
I likely need to reread it, though, as some of its ideas are a bit above my weight class when it comes to understanding physics. But, you may enjoy it!
I likely need to reread it, though, as some of its ideas are a bit above my weight class when it comes to understanding physics. But, you may enjoy it!
Entropy! What interests me is that particle behavior is reversible at micro scale, but then activity becomes irreversible "above" some point.
Well, almost. Because these usual descriptions you give here are approximations. Yes, to the first order, gravity is expressed as the effect on time in general relativity. So you could describe how planets move simply by calculating how they move differently through time. But in the full picture, the way you move through space or near strong gravitational fields also influences your experience of space itself. So the ultimate realization is that gravity is space and time. Or spacetime. Basically exactly what the article says when it references general relativity. And it holds as well for quantum particles. They experience spacetime just as well as we do. The ultimate question is, does spacetime itself also come quantized when you look close enough? This is the true head banging one that noone knows.
> The ultimate question is, does spacetime itself also come quantized when you look close enough?
Isn't there some sort of "quantum foam" ? So it's going to be difficult to define a metric ?
Isn't there some sort of "quantum foam" ? So it's going to be difficult to define a metric ?
The difficulty is turning the metric tensor into a quantum field like object. Apart from being incredibly complicated, because the field interacts with itself and all other fields, there are a bunch of mathematical quirks that prevent this from working out like it does in all our usual quantum field theories. Until someone comes along with a theory where all this works and still returns our normal physics in the low energy limit, noone can say what might really happen at that level. Maybe spacetime isn't quantizable because it fundamentally isn't quantum. Maybe it doesn't even exist at those length scales and what we perceive as space and time are emergent properties of some yet to be understood quantum process.
A mote of dust doesn't ignore gravity in a vacuum ;)
Even a photon can't manage that trick.
We understand "time" in the context that we must: to subsist in order to procreate. The extent it exists outside of our own perception as we imagine it does, is debatable. Ultimately, time is our sensory interpretation of the world around us to facilitate our survival and thus, we may never make sense of it outside the constraints it exists within.
We know empirically that time only flows in one direction, it can’t be described as just a perception. You’d have had at least the tiniest of evidence that time sometimes flows backwards.
Time doesn't flow at a speed. So, time flows at no speed, so, time doesn't flow. Time doesn't exist within time, so it has to be static. Moments don't change.
How would you measure time going backwards if you can only perceive it going forwards? How can you "experience" everything around you going "backwards" if that includes your memory? How can you determine that a specific moment in time was arrived at by time going forward, or by going backwards?
How do you know anything outside of your perception is true? All things boil down to a philosophical argument. The simplest answer is that "time" as we imagine it is a product of our interpretation and the true nature of "it" is hidden from us.
This is about time as it relates to our understanding of the physical world through science. You might as well say matter is an illusion, nether is relevant to this discussion.
You believe it is irrelevant - I believe it is relevant. I argue matter itself has more basis in reality in that it cannot be as easily explained away as time. In the context you're speaking in, there is much more evidence and logic to support the existence of matter. My point is that time as we believe it exists, is a construct that has meaning to us because of its benefit to our survival, rather than it being an objective reality.
[deleted]
> flows in one direction
_Everything_ flows in one direction, all particles goes in a straight line from their self reference, fields "modifying direction" is just an observer point of view. The separation of time and space is purely a perception matter.
A gross comparison would be to compare with objects perception, it only exists because our mind can leverage it for a strong evolutional advantage (I'm not only speaking of humans here).
_Everything_ flows in one direction, all particles goes in a straight line from their self reference, fields "modifying direction" is just an observer point of view. The separation of time and space is purely a perception matter.
A gross comparison would be to compare with objects perception, it only exists because our mind can leverage it for a strong evolutional advantage (I'm not only speaking of humans here).
No, a particle can flow left OR right, up AND THEN down, forward THEN reverse THEN forward again.
But in time, it can only go forwards, at very slow rates like far from gravity wells, or fast like in relativistic situations. Never backwards. Never stop.
But in time, it can only go forwards, at very slow rates like far from gravity wells, or fast like in relativistic situations. Never backwards. Never stop.
What if it's circular, or cyclical?
We don't know empirically what came before the beginning.
We don't know empirically what came before the beginning.
As we haven't seen any evidence of this, then the effects must be so tiny that we can just ignore that possibility. It's like worrying about the gravitational effects of Russell's Teapot.
Then it'd still have a direction
[deleted]
IANACosmologist, but in for a penny, in for a pound. If one accepts weirdness along the lines of extra spatial dimensions and mathematical singularities made physical, why not throw in a few extra dimensions for time or why not have imaginary time (in Hawking's sense)?
> One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
> One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
"describe our observations of the universe"
I strongly recommend reading Carlo Rovelli, starting with "The Order of Time"
One problem that I have with trying to understand "time" is that we can't measure how quickly it "flows" or at least how quickly we travel through it.
> One problem that I have with trying to understand "time" is that we can't measure how quickly it "flows" or at least how quickly we travel through it.
Our experience of time passing is heavily influenced by the temporal granuality of our subjective experience-at the upper end, “now” lasts 2-3 seconds; at the lower end, our temporal discrimination goes down to tens of milliseconds for visual and tactile stimuli, and reaches down to microseconds for certain types of auditory stimuli. But, one supposes other species with different neurology would have these durations be shorter or longer, which would make time pass more slowly or faster for them, in subjective terms.
Our experience of time passing is heavily influenced by the temporal granuality of our subjective experience-at the upper end, “now” lasts 2-3 seconds; at the lower end, our temporal discrimination goes down to tens of milliseconds for visual and tactile stimuli, and reaches down to microseconds for certain types of auditory stimuli. But, one supposes other species with different neurology would have these durations be shorter or longer, which would make time pass more slowly or faster for them, in subjective terms.
> we can't measure how quickly it "flows" or at least how quickly we travel through it.
I don't understand this, because it seems like "with a clock" is too obvious an answer, so surely you can't have meant what it sounds like it meant?
I don't understand this, because it seems like "with a clock" is too obvious an answer, so surely you can't have meant what it sounds like it meant?
If we say that seconds "pass", at what rate do they pass? Could they pass at some rate other than one second per second? That would entail outer seconds (second seconds, if you like). Which also have their own rate at which they pass, so now we need a third-level "flow of time", and so on.
So to say seconds "pass" is describing something else. They aren't moving.
So to say seconds "pass" is describing something else. They aren't moving.
> If we say that seconds "pass", at what rate do they pass?
One second per second for yourself, but other observers generally disagree.
Or one could use it as an inverse of the things measured against time, so meters/second of speed can be turned into seconds flowing at a rate of length.
Does "miles per gallon" lead to similar questions about gallons passing?
> Could they pass at some rate other than one second per second?
Only, and always, from the point of view of people in different frames of reference.
One second per second for yourself, but other observers generally disagree.
Or one could use it as an inverse of the things measured against time, so meters/second of speed can be turned into seconds flowing at a rate of length.
Does "miles per gallon" lead to similar questions about gallons passing?
> Could they pass at some rate other than one second per second?
Only, and always, from the point of view of people in different frames of reference.
You're talking about something else. Or rather, my line of argument ran into a distraction hazard, namely relativity. I wasn't trying to talk about relativity, but I should have seen that coming. And now everybody's very keen to explain relativity to me, dammit.
I did give a response to the non-relativity interpretation too.
Sure, it wasn't clear which way you were going with that question, but I recognised that it could have been either.
Sure, it wasn't clear which way you were going with that question, but I recognised that it could have been either.
Time having a static existence, and all moments of time being equally real, ought to boggle the mind. Then again, it's not compulsory to be boggled, goodness knows it's exhausting and doesn't accomplish much.
Hm.
I only find that boggling in the context we both agree you're not using: relativity (block universe in particular).
In so far as we ignore all of relativity because it's so counter-intuitive and strange, "all moments of time being equally real" seems as trivial and straightforward as "all places in cartesian 3-dimensional space being equally real".
But yes, boggling is never compulsory.
I only find that boggling in the context we both agree you're not using: relativity (block universe in particular).
In so far as we ignore all of relativity because it's so counter-intuitive and strange, "all moments of time being equally real" seems as trivial and straightforward as "all places in cartesian 3-dimensional space being equally real".
But yes, boggling is never compulsory.
I feel like you are overthinking it a bit, entangled in semantics. You can take any process that has a fixed frequency (like a clock), and measure the change in frequency in different situations, from the same point of reference. Moving that device at different speeds or into different places in a gravitational field. This is why satellite clocks move at a different rate than those on Earth.
Practically speaking, that's really what we care about when we talk about the speed of time. If some process takes a certain amount of time to complete, sending it to space and back, without changing anything else about it, might make it complete earlier from our point of reference.
It is actually about seconds per second, and there is an inner and an outer second as you say. There’s nothing wrong with that, because it is always a relative difference between two frames of reference. There are the seconds for our point of view, and there are the seconds for the device we are sending to space and back.
I think you are struggling to understand how to measure the absolute speed of time, but there’s no such thing, it’s always a comparison, it is relative.
Practically speaking, that's really what we care about when we talk about the speed of time. If some process takes a certain amount of time to complete, sending it to space and back, without changing anything else about it, might make it complete earlier from our point of reference.
It is actually about seconds per second, and there is an inner and an outer second as you say. There’s nothing wrong with that, because it is always a relative difference between two frames of reference. There are the seconds for our point of view, and there are the seconds for the device we are sending to space and back.
I think you are struggling to understand how to measure the absolute speed of time, but there’s no such thing, it’s always a comparison, it is relative.
I think our language is filled with misleading semantics about the flow of time, the passing of time, past, present, future, the arrow of time, all of that. It would be hopeless to try to use different language. But time isn't doing anything. There's no time for time to do anything in.
I'll acknowledge relativity and different frames of reference, but that isn't really the point.
I'll acknowledge relativity and different frames of reference, but that isn't really the point.
Things happen, some things happen before other things. We count time by using clocks, they tick at regular rates with respect to other things happening.
If a clock is in a frame of faster time, it will tick faster, its ticks will happen before, than an identical clock in a frame of slower time.
That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.
You keep trying to explain time as if it was a thing of its own, like a water flow, but it is no more than an abstraction to indicate how some things happen before others, and they definitely do, at least in the same frame.
This analogy is insufficient as well of course. For instance, if we have two clocks, we move one onto a faster time frame for a while and then bring it back, it is as if the clock was an ordered stack of physical events, the ordering between the events in either stack is tricky to determine, but you could clearly observe that one stack was more filled than the other.
I am not trying to get into a fight, this is simply a welcome exercise that forces me to crystallize my own understanding, hope it is for you too.
If a clock is in a frame of faster time, it will tick faster, its ticks will happen before, than an identical clock in a frame of slower time.
That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.
You keep trying to explain time as if it was a thing of its own, like a water flow, but it is no more than an abstraction to indicate how some things happen before others, and they definitely do, at least in the same frame.
This analogy is insufficient as well of course. For instance, if we have two clocks, we move one onto a faster time frame for a while and then bring it back, it is as if the clock was an ordered stack of physical events, the ordering between the events in either stack is tricky to determine, but you could clearly observe that one stack was more filled than the other.
I am not trying to get into a fight, this is simply a welcome exercise that forces me to crystallize my own understanding, hope it is for you too.
> That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.
My teacher explained it in a similar way. Time passes when we can observe change. If there is no change then we can not measure time. Like with the heat death of the universe. At that time (lol) no more time would "happening".
My teacher explained it in a similar way. Time passes when we can observe change. If there is no change then we can not measure time. Like with the heat death of the universe. At that time (lol) no more time would "happening".
What I ask myself is: is time purely the ordering of things that happen, or do gaps where there is potential for something to happen also count?
Let's assume for simplicity that time is a discrete dimension, which it might be. Then there would be a measure of distance of how many ticks of potential events there are between two actual events, even if nothing happened in between. Or maybe that's not the case and it's more of a directed graph defining the partial ordering of actual events.
Not sure if we could measure that in any case, we always need some kind of actually ticking clock, and it's not like we can isolate a period of time where nothing happens globally, unless its in a simulation. Just like weird things happen at quantum scale, I'm sure weird things happen at small enough time scales where there's really nothing between one event and the next, and there's no good way to determine how far a part they are.
Let's assume for simplicity that time is a discrete dimension, which it might be. Then there would be a measure of distance of how many ticks of potential events there are between two actual events, even if nothing happened in between. Or maybe that's not the case and it's more of a directed graph defining the partial ordering of actual events.
Not sure if we could measure that in any case, we always need some kind of actually ticking clock, and it's not like we can isolate a period of time where nothing happens globally, unless its in a simulation. Just like weird things happen at quantum scale, I'm sure weird things happen at small enough time scales where there's really nothing between one event and the next, and there's no good way to determine how far a part they are.
You’ve never listened to a podcast at a rate of 1.5 seconds per second?
I guess I have to ask what more you're looking for, perhaps hoping for, than: 1 second per second?
In Anthroposophy or Western occult science time runs in reverse in something we call the etheric body. The physical body on the other hand is something that experiences the world through organs that register only the present moment. It can't perceive what no longer physically exists or what has not yet manifested physically. The etheric is a time-body, containing the complete formative record of one's biography and is the source of memory, the brain is sort of a receiving organ for it, though the whole body utilises it.
Upon death the etheric body opens up and turns itself inside out and as you identify less with your physical body and more with your etheric body your perception of time is now in reverse. Your entire life tableau is opened in front of you, and as your spiritual organs of perception once "facing inwards" to your interior are now "outward-facing" and working backwards you start to see the effects of all your choices and actions from the perspective of its consequences. This is the source of those "life flashes before your eyes" moments people with near death experiences go through.
Only for very unconscious people is it a hell-like experience. Even if you lived a rather thoughtless and abusive life it is said that it can still be a time of reflection and learning. Eventually after viewing your entire life "inside out" your perception opens up to your pre-birth condition, the etheric body sloughs off (being made of elemental beings itself) and is picked up and put together with all the karma of your previous lives for your next go-around on Earth. You liberate the elementals in your etheric body (which are just below humans in the spiritual hierarchy) by growing spiritually either during life or in the etheric condition and eventually, hopefully, move up the spiritual hierarchy to a being that liberates humans, an Angel.
Thought maybe HN might be interested in some other conceptions of time. :^)
Upon death the etheric body opens up and turns itself inside out and as you identify less with your physical body and more with your etheric body your perception of time is now in reverse. Your entire life tableau is opened in front of you, and as your spiritual organs of perception once "facing inwards" to your interior are now "outward-facing" and working backwards you start to see the effects of all your choices and actions from the perspective of its consequences. This is the source of those "life flashes before your eyes" moments people with near death experiences go through.
Only for very unconscious people is it a hell-like experience. Even if you lived a rather thoughtless and abusive life it is said that it can still be a time of reflection and learning. Eventually after viewing your entire life "inside out" your perception opens up to your pre-birth condition, the etheric body sloughs off (being made of elemental beings itself) and is picked up and put together with all the karma of your previous lives for your next go-around on Earth. You liberate the elementals in your etheric body (which are just below humans in the spiritual hierarchy) by growing spiritually either during life or in the etheric condition and eventually, hopefully, move up the spiritual hierarchy to a being that liberates humans, an Angel.
Thought maybe HN might be interested in some other conceptions of time. :^)
Interesting that this comment appeared precisely when I needed and wanted to see it on the most unlikely of websites.
Thanks for your insights
Thanks for your insights
Given how "western occult science" is just magical thinking and pseudo babble, it hardly fits on HN. Additionally, "western occult science" typically glosses over its 1920-1940s roots and branches.
Wondering why...
> magical thinking and pseudo babble, it hardly fits on HN
Don't ask Newton about the pseudo babble stuff. Nor the string "theorists". In fact, don't ask any of the "theoretical" physicists (an oxymoron by definition, which seems to be lost on almost all of them) about "magical thinking and pseudo babble".
Don't ask Newton about the pseudo babble stuff. Nor the string "theorists". In fact, don't ask any of the "theoretical" physicists (an oxymoron by definition, which seems to be lost on almost all of them) about "magical thinking and pseudo babble".
Those are conjectures. Even the most diehard proponents are seeking verifiable proofs, not simply stating, "Well, like, that's just your opinion, man...".
Scientific hypotheses and religious/metaphysical articles of faith are orthogonal ideas.
Scientific hypotheses and religious/metaphysical articles of faith are orthogonal ideas.
Well, Anthroposphy was explicitly targeted by the Nazis.. Rudolf Steiner's first Goetheanum was literally burnt down by them and he had to flee to Switzerland.
The 'roots' and branches of 1920s - 1940s Western occultism is largely a Theosophical society thing.
I have a solution that addresses this. Will publish soon, it’s a slow process.
Ooh, do the unified-field thing next!
You are everything that’s wrong with STEM. Sarcastic and angry with 0 contribution.
Would you like to share any details?
I would love to. Unfortunately when you’re talking about physics the community doesn’t welcome casual conversations, that’s been my experience. If you start with anything less than a formal proof all the hackstchuallys come out. So I will start with the proof, soon. Working with some academics on peer review now.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bad for the BBC brand to have this site licensed which is riddled with ads. Turning off JS does the trick though.
What's new here? I spent a few minutes reading it end to end, and it sounds like slop without new info.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's another inscrutable mystery in physics, the nature of consciousness. Time might as well be an artifact of that. I'm surprised this article doesn't mention this possibility.
Here's an interesting lecture about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YusrOYGAhqM
Here's an interesting lecture about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YusrOYGAhqM
The first problem with the nature of consciousness is describing what you mean by it. Try, and I guarantee you that someone will find a sponge, Apple product, or bathroom slipper that meets that definition.
Electro-magnetic radiation, on the other hands, is highly describable in precise, testable, repeatable terms.
When you can state Maxwell's Laws of Consciousness, we'll talk. And rename them "Grishka's".
Electro-magnetic radiation, on the other hands, is highly describable in precise, testable, repeatable terms.
When you can state Maxwell's Laws of Consciousness, we'll talk. And rename them "Grishka's".
> consciousness. Time might as well be an artifact of that.
Psychedelics can remove the sensation of time passing. But they are also modifying the experience of "consciousness" itself.
Psychedelics can remove the sensation of time passing. But they are also modifying the experience of "consciousness" itself.
I got downvoted on here not so long ago for mentioning time as an emergent property of quantum consciousness so maybe it's controversial.
I was downvoted for saying that our cosmological model might be wrong because "dark matter" sounds like a crutch.
Now JWST has collected enough evidence that it might, in fact, be wrong.
Now JWST has collected enough evidence that it might, in fact, be wrong.
Dark matter absolutely is a crutch.
It's "dark" in the sense that the (fabled) Dark Ages were dark. They didn't have more cloud cover then. And dark matter is 'dark' as in 'inobservable, except by gravitational attraction'. So we admit it might not even be "matter" by any definition we have; it's just what we're calling this invisible, untouchable, silent elephant in the room. That is very heavy. And might not be an elephant.
Honestly, "invisible matter" might have been a better term, but that too would have been misinterpreted.
It's "dark" in the sense that the (fabled) Dark Ages were dark. They didn't have more cloud cover then. And dark matter is 'dark' as in 'inobservable, except by gravitational attraction'. So we admit it might not even be "matter" by any definition we have; it's just what we're calling this invisible, untouchable, silent elephant in the room. That is very heavy. And might not be an elephant.
Honestly, "invisible matter" might have been a better term, but that too would have been misinterpreted.
Honestly, just saying the maths doesn’t always work is much more approachable than dark/invisible matter.
Can anyone actually understand this at this point?
I will reread it like three times maybe the third time is the charm
I will reread it like three times maybe the third time is the charm
The ads on this website are atrocious.
I recommend an ad blocker. I didn't see any ads.
The Japanese use this one simple trick to reduce sleep apnea - it's...
> Combining quantum mechanics and General Relativity is all well and good, but there‘s one key mystery it doesn’t address: why does time only seem to flow in one direction?
Time still flows and ebbs, we just lack the ability to sense it just like a cork in a river doesn't feel the water flowing past.
For the "canonical" physics explanation, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_hypothesis
You can happily run physics backwards and forwards, and there's no difference. But assuming that entropy was very low in the distant past is very useful and lets us talk about fascinating things, like what happened last tuesday (or 12 billion years ago)
If you just know the current state of the a system, there isn't really any difference between running time backwards and forwards. Of course, if you know exactly the state of every particle, field, etc, and the past hypothesis is true, running time one way will lead to lowering entropy, and the other way will lead to raising entropy. But if you're a mere mortal and just know the macrostate, either way you run time, the entropy of the system will increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_hypothesis
You can happily run physics backwards and forwards, and there's no difference. But assuming that entropy was very low in the distant past is very useful and lets us talk about fascinating things, like what happened last tuesday (or 12 billion years ago)
If you just know the current state of the a system, there isn't really any difference between running time backwards and forwards. Of course, if you know exactly the state of every particle, field, etc, and the past hypothesis is true, running time one way will lead to lowering entropy, and the other way will lead to raising entropy. But if you're a mere mortal and just know the macrostate, either way you run time, the entropy of the system will increase.
there is no flow per se, as it’s a subjective experience. it’s just that our current environment (specifically human environment) is predominantly structured in a way that the past makes an imprint on the present (in terms of biological memory, historical records, etc) and the future generally being unpredictable because we kinda don’t want it to be too predictable (eg you don’t want to be too predictable when a tiger is chasing you for example)
but in other environments (talking about same universe here!) the future is more predictable than here on earth, for example motions of planetary bodies can be predicted way in advance within error bars as in the past, and when you have that kind of relatively symmetrical system, any subjective experiences within those systems would be much less inclined to feel that time flows on way or the other. (of course, the only kind of subjective experiencers we know are made of biological stuff which structurally remembers the past and leaves the future open as form of evolved ability, so this timelessness experience may be harder to imagine for us)
but in other environments (talking about same universe here!) the future is more predictable than here on earth, for example motions of planetary bodies can be predicted way in advance within error bars as in the past, and when you have that kind of relatively symmetrical system, any subjective experiences within those systems would be much less inclined to feel that time flows on way or the other. (of course, the only kind of subjective experiencers we know are made of biological stuff which structurally remembers the past and leaves the future open as form of evolved ability, so this timelessness experience may be harder to imagine for us)
If you consider a person, their brain in particular, flowing backwards in time, the brain becomes a prediction tool. Events-memories (neural connections) appear out of nowhere (from the state of being 'forgotten' in the forward time flow) then completely disappear when the corresponding event happens, annihilating its 'predicting' memory.
The brain does want to predict (in fact I think that's what it's suppose to do), the problem is that the Earth is rather chaotic and unpredictable.
If you subject a brain-like neural network to watch planets and stars orbiting around each other and rewarding it for getting things right, it will likely do quite well.
If you subject a brain-like neural network to watch planets and stars orbiting around each other and rewarding it for getting things right, it will likely do quite well.
Not that kind of predict. And this reverse-time brain instantly forgets things it saw for the last time.
Consider a black box. A person opens it, sees a dice with a number, closes it. In our version of the time flow, the person finds out there's a dice and remembers it. In the 'reverse time' persons brain, they would know they would open the black box and know which number they will see. Then they will close it and completely forget what was inside forever.
Consider a black box. A person opens it, sees a dice with a number, closes it. In our version of the time flow, the person finds out there's a dice and remembers it. In the 'reverse time' persons brain, they would know they would open the black box and know which number they will see. Then they will close it and completely forget what was inside forever.
The past that we have yet to subject to our subjection also is effectively future.
Supplication for unknown outcomes surely already determined in the objective past wrt the present time still makes sense. The Divine Successive Relaxation with physical laws as the substrate, and the choices of human free will, human petition and desire, and Divine Will And Intention as boundary conditions, will solidify objective reality into a coherent whole in Open Theism.
Supplication for unknown outcomes surely already determined in the objective past wrt the present time still makes sense. The Divine Successive Relaxation with physical laws as the substrate, and the choices of human free will, human petition and desire, and Divine Will And Intention as boundary conditions, will solidify objective reality into a coherent whole in Open Theism.