- Define time! ;-D
- I don't think we will ever really know was before the (last) BB. It's not just possible.
//
Time gets even weirder when you read what Stephen Hawking had to say!
He argued that to understand the very high-density stage, when the universe was very small, we require a quantum theory of gravity. This theory would combine General Relativity with the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum theory introduces the concept of imaginary time. Think of ordinary time as a horizontal line. On the left is the past, and on the right is the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time!
So as matter is relativistic and increases with the factor 1/ sqrt(1 - Vexp2/Eexp2) {V is speed of matter, E is lightspeed), physical dimension (eg 'length') is also increased with the same factor.
So, at about half the speed of light, matter and length has increased already about 40%. Reaching the lightspeed itself, say 95%, matter and lenght are approx 4.5 times heavier and longer resp.
Matter and lenght (spacial dimensions in general) have the same 'character', as we experience ourselves dragging our miserable lives through existance.
But we can move our bodies through space, given some effort, joy and grief.
If one might reach the lightspeed, it outweights the universe (?) and stretches beyond its limits (?).
Time is different. It does not increase with speed, but decreases instead with that special relativistic factor. At 99% of the lightspeed travelling, your time has slowed down to one tenth of the 'normal' time. At lightspeed, times stops ticking.
Oh, a clever chap notes, so faster then the speed of light and you're traveling back in time! Sure, but then your are unweightable (???) and unmeasurable (???) too. Nice trip!
Time seems to present itself as a recprocal of spacial dimensions: we cannot travel through it, but travels through us and all. We are not free nor can escape our bitter faith.
Hurrey for Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, his cat and Hawking!
Hurrey for SCIENCE!!!
Now take your grail and wand, whisper your magic spells and start poking around in your own black hole. If lucky, you can see two (!) white holes in the mirror.
Hurrey again for that cat! It lives and is dead!
On the horizontal axis we have the real or ohmic load (can even be negative), and on the vertical axis we have the imaginary or capacitive-inductive load. The combination is called impedance (vector amplitude and corner/phase), and we're dealing with it every day without discussion, quarrels or fights. (cough)
If you can imagine a sound reproducing machine ("No, mister Edison, we don't buy that!"), lets call it a 'loudspeaker', it's not a giant leap but only a small step for menkind to grasp imaginary time specifically and quantum mechanics in general (no relation cause-result, easy part).
This is nothing extraordinary. The quantum wave equation is an expression with sines and cosines. The total area under the graph of this expression is intentionally made equal to 1, because a particle must always be somewhere. The probability of the particle being found between [a, b], is the area under the curve for this interval.MarsBravo said:
The claim about the cat being alive and dead simulaneously stems from the nature of probability. For instance, before a lottery, any ticket holder is both a winner and a loser.
With respect: all true indeed.
Currently however, my glass of wine is both half filled and half empty.
Now what? Finish it and a refill!
I sine the waiter who cosine the glass. (yes, awful)
Until the second law of thermodynamics kicks in and shuts the bar.
Black holes? White holes? What about grey holes?
Prof. Hawking proposed that a black hole has no event horizon as such, just an "apparent horizon" made up of space-time that's fluctuating too wildly to have a fixed boundary - leading to a grey hole, if you will, instead.
No Black Holes? More Like Grey Holes, Says Hawking - Seeker
Prof. Hawking proposed that a black hole has no event horizon as such, just an "apparent horizon" made up of space-time that's fluctuating too wildly to have a fixed boundary - leading to a grey hole, if you will, instead.
No Black Holes? More Like Grey Holes, Says Hawking - Seeker
Come on! This is the Lounge. It is the right place, the right initiation and the right posts of its kind.This is where all the mumbojumbo and divergencies should be and disappear in the DIY black hole of nothinglessness.
Have we finally created something completely useless ourselves in the most remote outskirts of a frantic nerdy universe which will inevitable dissapear into oblivion and we judge it as "a tangled, chaotic mess of information"
Come on! This is the Lounge. It is the right place, the right initiation and the right posts of its kind.This is where all the mumbojumbo and divergencies should be and disappear in the DIY black hole of nothinglessness.
Have we finally created something completely useless ourselves in the most remote outskirts of a frantic nerdy universe which will inevitable dissapear into oblivion and we judge it as "a tangled, chaotic mess of information"
Come on! This is the Lounge. It is the right place, the right initiation and the right posts of its kind.This is where all the mumbojumbo and divergencies should be and disappear in the DIY black hole of nothinglessness.
Have we finally created something completely useless ourselves in the most remote outskirts of a frantic nerdy universe which will inevitable dissapear into oblivion and we judge it as "a tangled, chaotic mess of information"
_^
Have we finally created something completely useless ourselves in the most remote outskirts of a frantic nerdy universe which will inevitable dissapear into oblivion and we judge it as "a tangled, chaotic mess of information"
Come on! This is the Lounge. It is the right place, the right initiation and the right posts of its kind.This is where all the mumbojumbo and divergencies should be and disappear in the DIY black hole of nothinglessness.
Have we finally created something completely useless ourselves in the most remote outskirts of a frantic nerdy universe which will inevitable dissapear into oblivion and we judge it as "a tangled, chaotic mess of information"
Come on! This is the Lounge. It is the right place, the right initiation and the right posts of its kind.This is where all the mumbojumbo and divergencies should be and disappear in the DIY black hole of nothinglessness.
Have we finally created something completely useless ourselves in the most remote outskirts of a frantic nerdy universe which will inevitable dissapear into oblivion and we judge it as "a tangled, chaotic mess of information"
_^
To add to the chaotic mess of information in this thread I will offer the quotation "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" which is often incorrectly attributed to William Shakespeare when it is actually extracted from the long romantic poem 'Marmion' written by Sir Walter Scott in 1808.
To update that for the 21st century, there's a lot of deceit going on in the web these days!
To update that for the 21st century, there's a lot of deceit going on in the web these days!
White holes are a consequence of substituting v, the velocity, by a values greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. This leads to a negative square rooted 1 - (v/c)^2. The mathematical solution does not fall in the real number domain, but in the imaginary number domain. However, a direct consequence of imaginary numbers, is that there is no ordering between imaginary numbers. This is much unlike real numbers, which obey odering rules, and given any two real numbers, a and b, one of the following must be true.
For a, b in R: (R: real continuum/set):
a > b
a < b
a = b
The Proof: (By contradiction)
Let us apply this to i, the square root of -1. Let us compare i with 0 (real 0):
i > 0 => i^2 > 0^2 => -1 > 0 .... contradiction
i < 0 => i^2 > 0^2 => -1 > 0 .... contradiction (since i < 0 implies i is negative in our assumption)
i = 0 => i^2 = 0^2 => -1 = 0 .... contradiction
Note: I still remember my maths professor explaining this to the class during my A-Levels.
Since, time in its very nature is orderable, hence the words, 'before', 'after' and 'during', a complex time is quite difficult to account for.
For a, b in R: (R: real continuum/set):
a > b
a < b
a = b
The Proof: (By contradiction)
Let us apply this to i, the square root of -1. Let us compare i with 0 (real 0):
i > 0 => i^2 > 0^2 => -1 > 0 .... contradiction
i < 0 => i^2 > 0^2 => -1 > 0 .... contradiction (since i < 0 implies i is negative in our assumption)
i = 0 => i^2 = 0^2 => -1 = 0 .... contradiction
Note: I still remember my maths professor explaining this to the class during my A-Levels.
Since, time in its very nature is orderable, hence the words, 'before', 'after' and 'during', a complex time is quite difficult to account for.
I'd watch the full 48 minutes, but there's too much torque for my liking.
It's just a moment. A very large moment.
I saw where this hypotheses (which has no practical explanatory power as far as I know) was used to promote quackery of a certain nature.
I may be wrong, but I think this adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to cosmology, while providing little (or no) benefit.
And since this claim has been much touted to support blatant BS, I am extra skeptical.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.