ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 142 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Does Time Really Flow?
Posted on Monday, November 16, 2020 @ 16:09:35 UTC by vlad

Science
Via QuantaMagazine.org: Does Time Really Flow? New Clues Come From a Century-Old Approach to Math by Dave Whyte

The laws of physics imply that the passage of time is an illusion. To avoid this conclusion, we might have to rethink the reality of infinitely precise numbers. If numbers cannot have infinite strings of digits, then the future can never be perfectly preordained.

Strangely, although we feel as if we sweep through time on the knife-edge between the fixed past and the open future, that edge — the present — appears nowhere in the existing laws of physics.

In Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, for example, time is woven together with the three dimensions of space, forming a bendy, four-dimensional space-time continuum — a “block universe” encompassing the entire past, present and future.


Einstein’s equations portray everything in the block universe as decided from the beginning; the initial conditions of the cosmos determine what comes later, and surprises do not occur — they only seem to. “For us believing physicists,” Einstein wrote in 1955, weeks before his death, “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

The timeless, pre-determined view of reality held by Einstein remains popular today. “The majority of physicists believe in the block-universe view, because it is predicted by general relativity,” said Marina Cortês, a cosmologist at the University of Lisbon.

However, she said, “if somebody is called on to reflect a bit more deeply about what the block universe means, they start to question and waver on the implications.”

Physicists who think carefully about time point to troubles posed by quantum mechanics, the laws describing the probabilistic behavior of particles. At the quantum scale, irreversible changes occur that distinguish the past from the future: A particle maintains simultaneous quantum states until you measure it, at which point the particle adopts one of the states. Mysteriously, individual measurement outcomes are random and unpredictable, even as particle behavior collectively follows statistical patterns. This apparent inconsistency between the nature of time in quantum mechanics and the way it functions in relativity has created uncertainty and confusion.

Over the past year, the Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin has published four papers that attempt to dispel the fog surrounding time in physics. As Gisin sees it, the problem all along has been mathematical. Gisin argues that time in general and the time we call the present are easily expressed in a century-old mathematical language called intuitionist mathematics, which rejects the existence of numbers with infinitely many digits. When intuitionist math is used to describe the evolution of physical systems, it makes clear, according to Gisin, that “time really passes and new information is created.” Moreover, with this formalism, the strict determinism implied by Einstein’s equations gives way to a quantum-like unpredictability. If numbers are finite and limited in their precision, then nature itself is inherently imprecise, and thus unpredictable...


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Does Time Really Flow?" | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Does Time Really Flow? (Score: 1)
by solaris on Wednesday, November 18, 2020 @ 16:54:34 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
You and your readers may like this one as well: Can we craft a theory in which space and time aren’t assumed to exist?

In some versions of quantum gravity, time itself condenses into existence.




Re: Does Time Really Flow? (Score: 1)
by RBM on Friday, December 25, 2020 @ 09:28:16 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
"Can we craft a theory in which space and time aren’t assumed to exist?"

That's theory has already been written with the experimental data lagging in the form of the Simulation/Virtual Reality concept.

The experimental data is progressing at this time, but this is a new paradigm and so the challenges are many and varied.


]


Re: Does Time Really Flow? (Score: 1)
by RBM on Friday, December 25, 2020 @ 09:30:59 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Exist as fundamental is implied.


]


Contemplating the End of Physics (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, November 25, 2020 @ 16:54:57 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
...The aim of physics is to understand in a precise, mathematical way all manifestation of matter and energy in the universe — and we have barely started to explore this infinitude of possibilities. Claiming that physics is finished is akin to arguing that mathematics ended after the introduction of natural numbers and basic arithmetic, or that chemistry was over with the advent of the periodic table. Learning the rules of chess doesn’t make you a grandmaster...




A New Theorem Maps Out the Limits of Quantum Physics (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, December 22, 2020 @ 18:07:16 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Via QuantaMagazine.org: A New Theorem Maps Out the Limits of Quantum Physics

The result highlights a fundamental tension: Either the rules of quantum mechanics don’t always apply, or at least one basic assumption about reality must be wrong.

What counts as an observer in quantum mechanics? Can an atom be an observer? A virus? Artificial intelligence?

The founders of quantum mechanics understood it to be deeply, profoundly weird. Albert Einstein, for one, went to his grave convinced that the theory had to be just a steppingstone to a more complete description of nature, one that would do away with the disturbing quirks of the quantum.

Then in 1964, John Stewart Bell proved a theorem that would test whether quantum theory was obscuring a full description of reality, as Einstein claimed. Experimenters have since used Bell’s theorem to rule out the possibility that beneath all the apparent quantum craziness — the randomness and the spooky action at a distance — is a hidden deterministic reality that obeys the laws of relativity.

Now a new theorem has taken Bell’s work a step further. The theorem makes some reasonable-sounding assumptions about physical reality. It then shows that if a certain experiment were carried out — one that is, to be fair, extravagantly complicated — the expected results according to the rules of quantum theory would force us to reject one of those assumptions...

Full article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theorem-maps-out-the-limits-of-quantum-physics-20201203/




Re: A New Theorem Maps Out the Limits of Quantum Physics (Score: 1)
by RBM on Friday, December 25, 2020 @ 08:50:02 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
"What counts as an observer in quantum mechanics?"

What counts is a Consciousness. The source of this statement is My Big TOE, by Tom Campbell, author and Consciousness researcher.

I experiment with  the essence of this position, continually.


]


 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.