New theory to revolutionize quantum physics. - Page 5

Aldurin · 06-17-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

No, but I'll settle with crazy or mentally unstable.

Bard The 5th LW · 06-17-2010, 07:29 PM

He appears to apply his 'theory' to Geometry to, just check his location.

There's no way he's not joking at this point. Maybe he was serious at first, but he's just milking it for what its worth. No one would claim to be a genius at Physics because they watch Star Gate. He'd clearly messing with us.

Rejected Again · 06-17-2010, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

You have MY permission.

bluestarultor · 06-17-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

Chill, or I'll post your avatar again. :P

Geminex · 06-17-2010, 08:35 PM

...
You wouldn't dare.

bluestarultor · 06-17-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

...
You wouldn't dare.

CGA black, NES red, or color cycling? >)

***Fenris*** · 06-17-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

No, and if you do it I'll ban you.

Nikose Tyris · 06-17-2010, 09:03 PM

Time is an illusion. Our brains only rationalize the passage of time as the alternative was incomprehensible back when spears with stone tips were at the top of technology. There was no beginning and no real end, there was never a time when god/allah/big-bang came before.
****************************************

Nope. Time is technically a dimension. Just like we can move up/down, left/right, forward/back, we can move forward/back through time. Theoretically back. Forward is the only one we know. Time technically follows all the rules for being a 'dimension'. So, that part of the theory is flawed.

****************************************
Clocks and other objects don't disprove this theory, as we designed them to "work" to our rationalized view of "time". There is no way to detect this true functioning of the universe yet as our machines are designed to work on our terms of "time" and even if they weren't then we still could not comprehend it on our terms of "time".
****************************

Except that clocks/radios/televisions are only designed to work through an individual moment and not through the acutal concept of time applying to them at all. If we did create something that worked via time, it would probably be some kind of weird magnet clock that was powered by the spinning of the earth to determine the time, which is all kinds of hocus pocus, or we'd have carbon dating that would determine the age of something, and since age can only be applied to something through the process of time passing over it and causing it wear and grief- well, that's clearly hocus pocus too. Who'd name something stupid like 'carbon dating'?

*********************
The closest anyone is to getting toward this theory is with the concepts of god/allah having "a billion years in one day" or "one day is actually a year, and one year is actually a day". This is likely a result of the best possible description on our terms of "time" of what appears to be the true functioning of the universe.
*********************

Religous conversation isn't allowed on NPF. However, in light of the circumstances-
That was to reference dimension and scope again. "God" would merely be a being that existed in more dimensions then we are able to comprehend. His statement on time reflects the 'time is a dimension' theory- he merely has access to said dimension.

*********************
To disprove the concept of time, take a look at black holes, or any gravity well. If time is simply the progression of events and is always a constant, then it should not be slowed and constrained by even the most intense gravity fields in the universe. Yet, we have managed to find extremely small differences in the speed of time at different altitudes above the earth. So our concept of time is in fact not a mechanism the universe runs on, but a byproduct of humans having to recognize something else as "time" and adjust their perception so that it was as good as true.
**********************

I'm not even going to respond to this one. You're on your own.

((I'm responding to his theory with an equally preposterous one. Feel free to rip this apart too, but remember I'm trying for satire. D: ))

Sithdarth · 06-17-2010, 10:00 PM

First, to have any hope of tearing down established science you must first know established science. Otherwise you're bound to stumble into known mistakes. You can't revolutionize the way cars are fixed without knowing how cars are currently fixed. Same thing goes for science.

Beyond that thermodynamics would like a word with you and whoever wrote that scientific american article. Thermodynamically speaking there is both a past and a future. Combine that with Einstein's treatment of time as a dimension that is inextricably linked to space and it is clear that in someway the thing we call time must exist. It might not work how we think it works and clearly our units are arbitrary but our perception of time is definitely a manifestation of something physical and real about the universe.

The real interesting thing is that time might not be so much a single straight line as we envision. If you subscribe to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics then the past you remember is only one of many possible pasts that could have lead to your present and the future you imagine is truly on of many possible futures you can find yourself in. There are an infinite number of possible presents as well. Some subset of these (which is still probably infinite) are simultaneously explored by various versions of you. Of course that is only on interpretation. There are others but they all need some version of time. The real key is that in all of them the past you remember is more or less fixed for you because you remember it and that combined with thermodynamics and relativity makes time real.

Of course the other side of this is kinematics. Bodies couldn't move without some sort of physical "thing" (for lack of a better word) that could be called time. Without moving bodies we don't have kinetic energy, temperature, magnetism, atoms, and a bunch of other things. These things don't require the existence of say seconds or minutes or a single constant linear path through time but something inherently physical that we would perceive as time.

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-17-2010, 10:25 PM

The Sci American article did acknowledge that some fields do have required time and just getting rid of it doesn't work, though they did kind of ignore it in focusing on timeless theories. Theories that get rid of time sell more magazines than "Hey here's a theory with time in it".
The timeless theories do address this, they don't just ignore the things we use that have time- they reformulate them. You can argue that they don't address this very well but you can't just say they are wrong because certain things rely on time, the point of the theories was that our conceptions of things that rely on time are wrong.
Personally I don't agree with the timeless theories but they are put together a little more robustly than you make out.

Also time is totally a super rotor. What drives the rotor? Is it an infinite motion machine? I think it is.

06-17-2010, 07:29 PM	#42
Bard The 5th LW Feelin' Super! Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 4,191	He appears to apply his 'theory' to Geometry to, just check his location. There's no way he's not joking at this point. Maybe he was serious at first, but he's just milking it for what its worth. No one would claim to be a genius at Physics because they watch Star Gate. He'd clearly messing with us.

06-17-2010, 08:35 PM	#45
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	... You wouldn't dare.

06-17-2010, 10:00 PM	#49
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	First, to have any hope of tearing down established science you must first know established science. Otherwise you're bound to stumble into known mistakes. You can't revolutionize the way cars are fixed without knowing how cars are currently fixed. Same thing goes for science. Beyond that thermodynamics would like a word with you and whoever wrote that scientific american article. Thermodynamically speaking there is both a past and a future. Combine that with Einstein's treatment of time as a dimension that is inextricably linked to space and it is clear that in someway the thing we call time must exist. It might not work how we think it works and clearly our units are arbitrary but our perception of time is definitely a manifestation of something physical and real about the universe. The real interesting thing is that time might not be so much a single straight line as we envision. If you subscribe to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics then the past you remember is only one of many possible pasts that could have lead to your present and the future you imagine is truly on of many possible futures you can find yourself in. There are an infinite number of possible presents as well. Some subset of these (which is still probably infinite) are simultaneously explored by various versions of you. Of course that is only on interpretation. There are others but they all need some version of time. The real key is that in all of them the past you remember is more or less fixed for you because you remember it and that combined with thermodynamics and relativity makes time real. Of course the other side of this is kinematics. Bodies couldn't move without some sort of physical "thing" (for lack of a better word) that could be called time. Without moving bodies we don't have kinetic energy, temperature, magnetism, atoms, and a bunch of other things. These things don't require the existence of say seconds or minutes or a single constant linear path through time but something inherently physical that we would perceive as time.

06-17-2010, 10:25 PM	#50
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	The Sci American article did acknowledge that some fields do have required time and just getting rid of it doesn't work, though they did kind of ignore it in focusing on timeless theories. Theories that get rid of time sell more magazines than "Hey here's a theory with time in it". The timeless theories do address this, they don't just ignore the things we use that have time- they reformulate them. You can argue that they don't address this very well but you can't just say they are wrong because certain things rely on time, the point of the theories was that our conceptions of things that rely on time are wrong. Personally I don't agree with the timeless theories but they are put together a little more robustly than you make out. Also time is totally a super rotor. What drives the rotor? Is it an infinite motion machine? I think it is.