Uses of The 4th Dimension (Einstein was wrong!)

by use4d 138 Replies latest social current

• 

  DannyBloem

  This is an interesting thread, even if it was started by a fruitcake...

  This is quite right in most parts. I do agree. But we have to assume, that particles must show a certain minimal-configuration to be able to serve as "observer". I do not believe that an elementary particle like a photon is sufficiently complex to sense TIME. A complete atom certainly --> yes, maybe baryons (protons, neutrons), because they are more complex and consist of sub-particles. Note: Every sensed time interval (elapse time) has to be measured and STORED in the particle for a moment. (The shortest time interval possible ist the Planck time 5.39121 × 10 -44 s, as you know). Otherwise no "recognition" or "sensing process" is possible; and if not possible, then there - on the other hand - NO TIME exist !!

  The plack-time is more a limit to the measurement of time. It does not say that time is indeed quantisized. The plack-time is based on the planck-length, a theoretical minimum for measuring one of teh spacial demensions. There is a minumum for measuring it, because you need a particle to measure something. Higher enengy, higher preccision of measurement. But there is a limit to how high you can get the energy, because of general relativity.

  terry's analogy of the building blocks is interesting. Although, I think it is only a assumption that the total mass-energy of the universe is constant in time. This would also man the laws of physic would be constant in time, which look like they are, but physicist still speculate about this. Einstein theories of relativity do not leave a lot of room for time-travel anyway (that is not backward)

  About the need for a particle of (less elementary particle as I read) to experience time, otherwise it will not exists, does not sound very convincing to me.
  There is a theory about virtual particles that can exists within the heisenberg uncertainty limits. Quantum physicist believe that the fabrics of space-time are not smooth but a bumpy ride of temprary particle and other events. This would be enough to give time a meaning without any observable particles.

  DaNNY
• 

  kid-A

  This was an interesting thread, even if it was started by somebody on a really bad LSD trip....4D, please post again once the acid has worn off! LOL
• 

  zen nudist

  those who believe all times exist from a higher dimensional point of view, seem to ignore the fact that if there were so, then no moemnt would be priveldged as THE PRESENT MOMENT and nothing observered would be in motion, there would only be static moments...and so motion as we live and perceive it would be impossible for us unless we were higher dimensional beings reading our lives as if we were reading a book.
• 

  flyphisher

  
  jst2laws

  You seem to have a rare understanding of the weird world of quantum physics. This didn't come from a high school science class. The only point you make that is puzzling to me is that of Kurt Goedel, that a "suitable SENSORIUM" does not have to have CONSCIOUSNESS. What notable experimentation has been done to prove this hypothesis.

  Hi. I am discussing this topics the first time in my life in English language. (I discussed in German science forums since 1999).
  Kurt Goedel never postulated the existence of a "sensorium" in the universe, able to sense TIME. This theory came later, and it rather was the result of scientific cognitions made in informatics, sensor technology and robotics, than in physics or epistemology or philosophy. It is a PARADIGMA, because standard, it would change everything. This is the reason - and you are right with your supposition - why a student of philosophy or physics will never be confronted with this theory, - while on the other hand, a student of informatics or robotics, who operates with analog signals, time recording and sensors, certainly will be wondering every day why such a theory not became standard meanwhile (!!)... Goedel just postulated the mathematically verifiable fact, that : "In any universe described by the theory of relativity, time cannot exist." As a consequence thereof, TIME is only an illusion, it just get subjectively sensed - it is no objective reality.
  
  You say: A "suitable SENSORIUM" does not have to have CONSCIOUSNESS. Absolutely o.k.! I only know one philosophy that postulated the contrary (all sort of matter has consciousness): Panpsychism. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

  
  
• 

  flyphisher

  DannyBloem

  About the need for a particle of (less elementary particle as I read) to experience time, otherwise it will not exists, does not sound very convincing to me.

  Any elementary structure e. g. a molecule or atom, produces its proper time. This is an unconditional prerequisite to establish self-organizing-properties. There is NO self-organization or self-adaption possible WITHOUT time-aquisition. Verifiable, in molecules or atoms, proper time only can be provided in form of infinite sequences of measured ELAPSE TIMES. The shortest elapse time possible is the Planck time (as quoted). Elementar structures are similar with self-organizated structures. Like complicated timing technology. Do you believe a timing processor could exist without a precise time clock? This is the real reason why we have to assume the existence of precise timing and time-sensing (experiencing) systems in atomic structures.
• 

  Terry

  if you're LOOKING for a particle you will find a particle, if you're looking for a wave you will find a wave) WE the OBSERVER in our world force the wave collapse by 'looking'

  
  

  
  Yes, well...not REALLY. This is a comment on OUR PERCEPTION and not the reality of either a particle or a wave.

  We don't cause people to be beautiful by looking at them and those clouds that "look like" alligators aren't really alligators either.

  This is a huge widespread misconception. The problem with conversing in a meaningful way about quantum physics is LANGUAGE. Human language is so conducive to inference by metaphor that we slur our concepts constantly and buy-in to the illusion proper AS IF it were the reality we seek to discuss.

  The human mind can only UNDERSTAND what is ostensible. It INFERS all the rest in a mathematical model or a metaphorical analogy. The trick is keeping track of which is which.

  Think of it this way. I can draw a picture in great detail with pencil and paper of a time and place and creatures which never existed. I can write stories about them laden with referents in actual history. I can make conversations in my stories detailed and rich with personality. Then, when society all around me starts finding things in these stories that are SO TRUE and mythologizes them as a recursive-ostensible referent (that is; uses them as examples to make a point) then what you have is RELIGION.

  Quantum Physics can become religion when you lose track of that which you seek to describe and the manner in which the description bleeds over into metaphor.

  There is no Time.

  There is no Space.

  You don't draw teeth.

  (i.e. you "indicate" teeth by what you put around the area in your drawing.)

  Read this sentence:

  itbecomesdifficulttoreadameaningfulsentencewhenyoufailtointroducemeaningfulpausesfortheyewhichwecallspaces

  We introduce spaces into the above and PRESTO! the sentence has "meaning".

  T.
• 

  Satanus

  Terry

  That no space sentence had meaning for me, therefore, your whole premis falls flat Just kidding. How ya doin?

  S
• 

  Terry

  Terry

  That no space sentence had meaning for me, therefore, your whole premis falls flat Just kidding. How ya doin?

  S

  I'm doing...um.....well...I don't actually know. Life has no meaning right now. I'm searching for a purpose driven life. (Wait! There is a knock at my front door...........................) Ah!

  Some Jehovah's Witnesses have offered my life meaning! I'm very excited.

  Gotta go now. See ya at the Kindom Hall...........................

  T.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry,

  While we are on the subject of "very small building blocks," what is a gluon? A hadron? A quark? Without something that serves as a gluon, why do quarks bind together?
  How can a particle be both neutral and massless and still be considered a "particle?" I invite you not to gloss over it, as the nature and properties of the building blocks is the very foundation of your argument. I think you started with an already built building block, didn't you?

  I asked these because they go straight to the heart of your building blocks analogy. IF (and it is HUGE "if" at this point) atoms function as building blocks, which only has to be true if argumentum ad antiquitatem is a valid basis for your premise, then your analogy holds true.

  I discard that notion because it is based on the unproven premise that matter cannot come from "nothing," which would necessitate the eternal existence of matter. I don't dismiss the notion because it would necessitate the eternal existence of matter, I am just calling attention to that inevitable conclusion of your premise.

  If e=mc² then m=e/c², and if that is true—i.e. if there is a direct relationship between matter and energy—then matter is energy, not atoms. Atoms are simply an expression of energy, a form of energy.

  That being the case, what is energy in this context? I believe your premise is flawed at a very basic level, you assume the amount of energy cannot shift and you assume that atoms are constant. Otherwise how could someone have atoms in their body that once were part of Caesar?

  As decay occurs, do the foundational atoms always maintain their original atomic nature, or are they sometimes modified based on the decomposition of the material? See, if your building blocks are inconstant your analogy falls apart. Atoms don't look like this:

  

  Atoms look and function more like this:

  

  But even the site this picture came from warns:

  Step 5 - Things to Remember
  It is important to remember that a model is a simplified representation of an object. Some of the models discussed above are more accurate than others, but none of them are completely correct. Here are a couple of the things we have ignored:
  The Size of the Nucleus
  In the drawings above, the nucleus is too large. Or, put another way, if the nucleus is going to be that large, the electrons are too close. Real atoms are mostly empty space. If we wanted our drawings to be accurate, we would have to place the electrons about a mile away. Clearly, it would be difficult to bring a drawing that large to class. Electrons do not Orbit the NucleusIn the drawings above, we have drawn nice circles showing where the electrons go around the atom. In reality, scientists cannot tell exactly where an electron is at a given moment or where it is going. They can calculate the probability that an electron will be found in a given volume of space, but that isn't the same as knowing where that electron is. This behavior is described in the Quantum Model of the atom. Although it is the most accurate description that scientists currently have of the atom, it is much more difficult to understand.

  Now, my question relates to how THIS constructed "building" came into being. Because if you want to use your bricks in an anology, you need to demonstrate the nature of the composites the bricks are made from. In this case, an unlimited source of energy could easily provide an infinite source (the pile) of more bricks. Your analogy is simplified for the many, however it is flawed in premise.

  Atoms are not "the building blocks" of matter. Atoms are matter.

  Scientists can make roughly 25 more atoms than are observable in nature. This would be impossible if atoms were the building blocks of matter. Atoms are matter. What are they built from? It is obviously the properties of the real building blocks that will expose the nature of reality, not something that is already built.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Terry

  Atoms are not "the building blocks" of matter. Atoms are matter

  A distinction without a difference.

  Since we are discussing QUANTUM physics we naturally focus on the elements (a particular view) of matter.

  If we look at the human body closely enough there is a constituency apparent (with a microscope, at least). There are cells and the cells have parts, etc.

  It is not a stretch to ask how much dividing up can you do until you can no longer divide matter. This is the etymology of the word ATOM (a-tomos; not divided) which is to say, "What do you have when matter can no longer be divided?" The Greeks enjoyed this sort of elemental view.

  The periodic table of elements convinces us that things (matter) are made up of constituency. A recipe for this and that.

  The idea that MATTER HAS ALWAYS EXISTED is an ancient idea and I find nothing inherently disturbing about it.

  If I read your post correctly you seem to take issue with one point only: WHAT IF MATTER CAN COME INTO BEING? Yes, if matter could increase or decrease IN TOTAL my concept would be wrong.

  But, then--if pigs had wings they could probably fly.

  T.