Why do you ASSUME time is infinite? There is an END OF TIME (I mean that literally) in the center of our galaxy, a black hole.
Hiya No leaf,
Another interesting topic. I didn't read the post on the theory as I have been building my web page, but would like to get in on this subject.[:)]
I did see a theory that suggested all moments exist as one thing called time. And in my own experiences during Soul journeys to other lives of mine, I found that it is pretty damn close to the reality. What I learned was that each moment existed as a present reality no matter where or what 'time-frame' I was in. So I penned a quote to describe it..."Time is only relative to having a perception of it."
There are other philosophies that say we are creating each and every moment anew, and that past and future do not exist except as thoughts in our minds. So, if I saw a car I liked on the road, I could not be sure it even existed once it was out of my sight, out of the moment that I was creating! I really like this concept as it appeals to my preference for a lack of structure. LOL. Who knows, maybe the mentally insane aren't insane at all, maybe they are sinply living other realities that are dependant on their time-frame creations!!!
I'm looking forward to reading what others have to say on this excellent topic of yours No leaf. [:P]
Love always.
I was just throwing out an idea. I don't really know that much about space or time and I wouldn't be surprised if it fell apart in the face of something as simple as an apple falling from a tree (but maybe not that example literally). But why do you assume there is an end of time in a black hole?
I did not assume. I took a class on spacetime and know in detail the time structure of a black hole.
Beavis,
Even if you did take a course, how could anyone say for certain that time does or does not exist in a black hole. No one has ever been able to take measurements inside of one. Therefore how could we ever hope to say what one is capable or not capable of doing. It is entirely possible that the inside of a black hole is complete nothingness where even time does not exist.
Time is only relative to the idividual or the grop perspective. However one individual or groups perspective of time can differ from anothers. So using this as a basis can we even say that time exists?
Also if time is truely infinite, meaning that it is infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, can it exist?
Only that which has a desernable begining or end is can truely exist from our own perspective.
Since time has neither, it can not exist.
Well, what you said about time could also be said about space. A line in space creates an infinite number of points. Even if you divide it up to the atomic level, there will always be more space in between. I don't like referring to time as the 4th dimension, because our definitions of 1, 2, and 3 exist in the spatial domain and time does not. However, time does indeed behave like a spatial dimension. If you compare width, height, depth, and length (in time), they all have the same essential properties. They all create a line if a point is extended in their direction. They are all independent dimensions at right angles to each other. Each acts as a coordinate to define the location of a point.
So.. yeah. I don't know where I was going with this. X|
Hey Tayesin.. You posted while I was posting a reply, too, and after I posted I didn't wait for the page to reload, so I just saw your post for the first time. I like a lack of structure too, a lot of the time. [:D] It seems like the physical is the most intricate place in the universe.. and from the astral on, things just become more simple.
I don't really feel that time is infinite. The universe had a starting point. There are two main theories to how it will end as well.
The first, which I hold to be true is that there is enough gravitational attraction in the universe to cause it to stop expanding and collapse inward again. The other theory is that it will grow larger and larger forever ending in a cold dead empty lifeless universe.
If you look at an element like gold or iron. If you break it down far enough you get to an atom, which is the smallest part of that element you might have that is still that element. I feel time and space are the same. Human's might never be able to see down far enough to see an atom of time but it's there nonetheless. Alot of different theories about space say it's full of little things called super strings....
Basically I guess it really doesn't mater in the end. Science is just like a religion. You just can't be 100% positive about anything it says.
I also think the world is really flat and that the 3d dimension is a lie told to keep us in our place.
TheLunatic "Human's might never be able to see down far enough to see an atom of time but it's there nonetheless."
The smallest known unit of time is a "quantum wave function"
Hummm I've not heard of that, sounds awful mathematical. I'm somewhere between a laymen and a theoretical physicist. I've always enjoyed learning about things like this but I've never felt the urge to start messing with the equations...
I don't like math problems with lots of Greek letters, they make me very unhappy.
quote:
Originally posted by beavis
The smallest known unit of time is a "quantum wave function"
Its not complicated. A quantum wave function is just a sine wave where the absolute value of the height of the wave is the probability you will find a particle in that space.
probability = | sin(position) |
O! Humm sounds like there are 12 more pages of equations to go along with that somewhere though. heh.
Quantum theory is pretty cool stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by beavis
Its not complicated. A quantum wave function is just a sine wave where the absolute value of the height of the wave is the probability you will find a particle in that space.
probability = | sin(position) |
There might be 12 pages of equations other than that. Thats just what a wave function is. It applies to all particles.
All particles or just sub-atomic particles? heh... But yeah I think I understood the basic idea of the equation. Pretty nifty stuff, some times I wonder if I should have took the science road and not the computer related one...
-Luke
quote:
Originally posted by beavis
There might be 12 pages of equations other than that. Thats just what a wave function is. It applies to all particles.
Lunatic "science road and not the computer related one"
I'm a computer programmer. I took both roads. A few physics classes and internet reading.
"b is the electron amplitude"
"n = 1, 2, 3, 4..."
"[wave function] = b sin( n pi x / L )"
I was talking about constant amplitude. N (energy level in the atom) can change, but will usually return to its original position really fast. L can change if the particle interacts with an outside force, but I did not try to account for that. N B, n, pi, and L are all constant, leaving my original equation for a particle not affected by outside forces:
wave function (probability) = | sin(x) |
It was meant to give a general idea of a wave function, not to calculate it in combination with other things.
Why are you posting in a thread about time, timeLESS.
My act was choosing to react. We were giving equations for different things, and I wanted to explain that so people here would continue to listen to me about physics. hehehhe hehheheh hehehehhehehehehehehehe [/stupid beavis laugh]
What is the size of a planks length compared to the smallest wave function wavelength?
Is the smallest wave function wavelength bigger or smaller than 10-44 seconds?
You go timeless [;)]
I enjoyed reading that.
timeless "Wavelengths are measured in distance (i.e. metres, m) not time (sec.)."
C = 1 (no units)
Can you figure it out now? Dont forget to use the correct size of the smallest wave in all spectrums. If there is not a smallest wave, then I am right that a quantum wave function is the smallest unit of time. If there is, what is its size and how did you calculate it?
"Gamma rays are in the 10-15 m range on the electromagnetic spectrum."
Are you afraid to use the other spectrums?
"Atomic time is shorter than the time it would take for any wave to oscillate"
Obviously you cant measure the oscillation of the smallest wave directly. What smaller thing would you measure it with? A different method must be used to determine its size.
ha. you guys are funny. you are all missing the point. no leaf clover was just asking what time it was. it's now one thirty pm, no leaf. i didn't go to college. have a nice day.
Thanks, Fred. [:D] I should get a watch.
timeless "Visible light is measured in nanometers (10-9) all wavelengths are measured in distance."
Thats as rediculous as measuring height in inches and width in centimeters. I'll give you the conversion since you didnt take the hint in the last post. 299700000 meters = 1 second. Any distance can be measured in time.
"Third year physics is when you start really getting into this stuff"
I learned about spacetime in a third year class.
You assume the electromagnetic spectrum is the only spectrum. Many people here at the astral pulse should agree that there is at least one higher frequency (therefore shorter wavelength) spectrum you are ignoring, the astral spectrum.
honestly, are the both of you finding yourselves logging on here very eagerly to see what the other has written because you can't wait to be right?
this isn't an attack. it's just interesting how much more energy there is available to use when someone is arguing/ferociously debating/whatever word you want to use for it, compared to making progress in some way. it seems to be in abundance.
the desire to be 'right' seems to take precedence over everything at the time, even reason.
<---- stops swinging his science penis and puts it back in his pants
now that we have that out of the way...
A simple solution would appear to be simply to select more wavelengths. For that matter, why not select every data point in the spectrum? The reason is that the Mahalanobis model tends to become overfit very quickly as more wavelengths are added. This is only logical when the method of calculating Mahalanobis matrix is considered. Since all the inter-wavelength variations are considered just as important as matching the corresponding wavelengths, the likelihood of an unknown sample having the same relative intensity values at all selected wavelengths decreases substantially. In the worst case, using too many wavelengths can cause "good" samples to be misclassified as not in the group. In practice, using more than approximately 10 to 15 wavelengths can lead to misclassification of known samples. In other words, samples that should be classified as members of that group, are rejected as non-members. There have been procedures put forth for optimum wavelength selection33 based on all the groups used for comparison. However, this can be a time consuming and computationally intensive process.
A fast and precise position of GRB was needed, where the Holy Grail of GRB scientists, i.e. the counterpart, could have been searched for at all wavelengths. This became possible within a year after the launch on April 30, 1996, of the Italian-Dutch satellite BeppoSAX, named after Giuseppe (Beppo) Occhialini, one of the fathers of high energy astrophysics in Italy. The poor positional accuracy of Gamma-ray instrumentation is circumvented by associating to a monitor of gamma-ray bursts (GRBM, which provides the temporal signature of a GRB), two wide-field X-ray cameras (WFC), able to locate the GRB within 3', in a field of view of 40° x 40°. A deep search of the afterglow emission of the GRB is then carried out with a set of more sensitive, narrow-field (~ 1°) X-ray telescopes (NFI), by re-orienting the satellite towards the location provided by the wide field instruments. On February 28, 1997, the gamma-ray burst GRB970228 was detected by the BeppoSAX GRBM and localized by the WFC. The NFI were pointed to the GRB location 8 hours after burst, leading to the discovery of a previously unknown X-ray source. The new source appeared to be fading away during the observation. On March 3, another observation confirmed that the source was quickly decaying: at that time its flux was a factor of about 20 lower than at the time of the first observation. This was the first detection of an "afterglow" of a GRB (Fig.1). While the X-ray monitoring of GRB970228 was going on, numerous observatories probed the location of the GRB, which had been provided by the BeppoSAX team, at all wavelengths. This campaign led to the discovery of an optical transient associated with the X-ray afterglow by a group led by Jan van Paradijs. Yet, the crucial information on the distance of the GRB was still missing. On 8 May 1997 the second breakthrough came with another BeppoSAX GRB: GRB970508, which was observed by the BeppoSAX NFI 5.7 hours after the burst, and by optical telescopes starting 4 hours after the burst. The early detection of the optical transient, and its relatively bright magnitude permitted a spectroscopic measurement of its optical spectrum with the Keck telescope by a team led by S. Kulkarni. The spectrum revealed the presence of absorption lines at a redshift of z = 0.835, produced by the gas of the galaxy hosting the GRB, and therefore demonstrated that GRB970508 was at a cosmological distance. As of today, we have measured the distance of 20 GRB, and all of them are in distant galaxies.
this should clear up any misunderstandings.
It's as clear as mud. How did I miss that one?
It's really just all gibberish isn't it?
After thinking about what I read about the new theory on time that I posted on the Astral Chat forum, I'm going to spit this out to you guys and you tell me what you think. I don't know if it's what this new theory is stating or whether I'm completely off, but I think its an interesting idea nonetheless.
Time is infinite, so no matter how you divide it, it's still infinite, and therefore you cannot truly divide it, right? You can measure it to a certain point, and use those units of measurement in equations, but when you start playing around with time itself, you wouldn't be able to assign time a number at any one specific point in time, because you can divide that moment trillions and trillions of times over and you'd still be 0.000000% done towards picking an exact 'frame' or 'moment' in time. They simply don't exist as modern theories hold (that time is like a freeze-frame sort of camera: specific moments that flow together like the way pictures flow together to form movies).
You can't define a specific moment because a specific moment is infinitely small. In fact, our whole lives are infinitely small. The only moment in time, is time itself (time is infinitely long and a single moment is infinitely small, so therefore they equal out and time itself is equal to 1 freeze-frame, if that's the idea that you're used to), and everything that will happen and has happened.
If everything that has ever happened and will ever happen is just 1 moment, the only moment, an infinite moment, then every lifetime, every day, every year, etc., all take up the same amount of time: an infinite amount of time. Remember the last time you ate? You're eating that meal now and you always were and always will be. BUT, you are no longer conscious of it or experiencing it, obviously, or things would get get very confusing as you went to do something else.
This is what leads me to believe that time was designed to organize experiences. Without time, you would be doing everything in your lifetime at once, including dying and being born, which would be extremely hard to make sense of with the kinds of brains we are equipped with here.
As far as the astral and realms above it, the units of time we use to measure the speed of our flowing consciousness (and not the flow of time itself!) distorts, but time itself still exists, or else, once again, you would experience everything you are to experience at once in that realm. Time no longer exists when you finally a part of the universal consciousness, and you finally *do* experience everything that you ever have or will experience at once. At that point, since time no longer exists, that 'moment' can actually be called just that: a moment. It would impossible to measure in means of time since time would no longer exist. It's a situation that I don't think I can even comprehend, since I'm to experience everything with the help of time.
So there you go.. To me, it sounds possible at least, if that is actually the new theory. If it isn't, like I said before, I think it's an interesting idea. I love topics like this [8D]