Space-time. Rookie question I'm afraid.

[Radar]

Hello all. This is my first real post. Feel free to enlighten me rookie that I am.

 

I want to ask a fundamental question about time and its cosmological importance. This is not thread about events following events or what the nature of time is, just the importance of time as a description in cosmology.

 

So here is a position I would like start from, that is, that time is of no cosmological importance or significance in the origin of the universe or any processes involving the beginning of the universe to its now current state. For example, a neutron undergoing a beta decay with half life of 1.277×10^9 years is oblivious to this period of decay. At neutron level the emission either occurs or it doesn’t.

 

Here time gives us only a means to predict beta decay; it plays no part in process. Thus, if we remove the observer and the need for predictive science the period for beta decay has no importance or meaning at all. Time does not help us determine the process.

 

On the cosmic scale the period between the proposed Big Bang to now is an observer’s psychological construct with which to measure out events. To the cosmological processes it has no relevance as the only things of importance are the processes themselves regardless of how long it takes to occur.

 

Since time is no consequence it cannot be included in any model use to derive the origin of the universe, its properties or processes. Time is a descriptive tool only.

 

For example, if we take speed as distance over time we have a constructed description only as it does not involve the process of movement. Where E=MC^2 we also have the same construct with regard to the speed of light (squared), however here it is used to derive the energy of a mass in motion.

 

So here is the question. Can time as a psychological construct have any bearing on the true nature of cosmological properties etc? In which case is space-time real or is it just all in our heads?:eek:

[freeztar]

So here is the question. Can time as a psychological construct have any bearing on the true nature of cosmological properties etc? In which case is space-time real or is it just all in our heads?:eek:

I'm afraid those are philosophical questions, not cosmological ones.

 

As science is empirical, it works only on that which we can observe and relate to. If I look through my telescope and see a distant galaxy and tell you where exactly to find it, you could look for it, find it, and we would agree that we are seeing the same thing.

 

So as far as science in general goes (not just cosmology), the question of "what is real" has no meaning (with perhaps the exception of quantum mechanics and such).

 

So here is a position I would like start from, that is, that time is of no cosmological importance or significance in the origin of the universe or any processes involving the beginning of the universe to its now current state.

That's a rather bold position to start from. Since modern Cosmology has terms like Planck time, space-time, time dilation, etc. it seems a bit silly to state that time is of "no cosmological importance or significance", don't you think. :doh:

 

For example, a neutron undergoing a beta decay with half life of 1.277×10^9 years is oblivious to this period of decay. At neutron level the emission either occurs or it doesn’t.

 

Here time gives us only a means to predict beta decay; it plays no part in process. Thus, if we remove the observer and the need for predictive science the period for beta decay has no importance or meaning at all. Time does not help us determine the process.

Time definitely "plays a part in the process" of beta decay.

Remove time, and terms such as "half-life" become meaningless.

[snoopy]

Hello all. This is my first real post. Feel free to enlighten me rookie that I am.

 

I want to ask a fundamental question about time and its cosmological importance. This is not thread about events following events or what the nature of time is, just the importance of time as a description in cosmology.

 

So here is a position I would like start from, that is, that time is of no cosmological importance or significance in the origin of the universe or any processes involving the beginning of the universe to its now current state. For example, a neutron undergoing a beta decay with half life of 1.277×10^9 years is oblivious to this period of decay. At neutron level the emission either occurs or it doesn’t.

 

Here time gives us only a means to predict beta decay; it plays no part in process. Thus, if we remove the observer and the need for predictive science the period for beta decay has no importance or meaning at all. Time does not help us determine the process.

 

On the cosmic scale the period between the proposed Big Bang to now is an observer’s psychological construct with which to measure out events. To the cosmological processes it has no relevance as the only things of importance are the processes themselves regardless of how long it takes to occur.

 

Since time is no consequence it cannot be included in any model use to derive the origin of the universe, its properties or processes. Time is a descriptive tool only.

 

For example, if we take speed as distance over time we have a constructed description only as it does not involve the process of movement. Where E=MC^2 we also have the same construct with regard to the speed of light (squared), however here it is used to derive the energy of a mass in motion.

 

So here is the question. Can time as a psychological construct have any bearing on the true nature of cosmological properties etc? In which case is space-time real or is it just all in our heads?:eek_big:

 

Again in any physics you could invent you would have to have time and space as fundamental constructs on which to base your equations.

 

The idea that these constructs might not objectively exist, is highly unlikely as the eqautions work so well based on these constructs you would have to form some math proof on why these contructs are illusionary to take the science community with you on this one.

 

I am afraid you are stuck with time and space as basic concepts like velocity are based on them these basic concepts lead on mathematically to higher concepts. All these concepts are experimentally verifiable as being correct or as approximations to the truth.

 

If you are looking for ultimate truths physics wont provide you with answers but will let you glimpse if you learn enough physics how the universe really works.

 

Peace

:)

[Radar]

If you are looking for ultimate truths physics wont provide you with answers but will let you glimpse if you learn enough physics how the universe really works.

 

I am almost dismayed that physics wont provide the ultimate truths:(

 

I accept that much of what is observed in relation to space and time is experimentally verifiable. Mathimatically brilliant minds are capable of many high level concepts of which many find repeatable evidence for the concept being a reality/true.

 

However, the same brilliant minds construct concepts of space-time that inhabit multi-dimensional universes. Mathimatically doable but never observed! Why would I need a mathematic proof to disprove an illusion/concept that has not yet been concretely proven or even accepted as true by the community that helped created it.

 

I am not stating that time does not exist as a definable property of physics. I am mearly asking if it plays any crucial role in cosmological processes and as such if space-time is a construct of vital importance or an unprovable mathematical exercise.

 

Freeztar:

Time definitely "plays a part in the process" of beta decay.

 

Sorry Freeztar, I'm probably being a bit thick about how I'm phrasing my question and if you could explain to me the role of time in beta decay process I would be very happy to humbly take it onboard.

 

Sorry to all for causing confusion in my question. Please bear in mind I am a physics rookie trying to understand without unintentionally starting a fight.:eek_big:

[freeztar]

I am not stating that time does not exist as a definable property of physics. I am mearly asking if it plays any crucial role in cosmological processes and as such if space-time is a construct of vital importance or an unprovable mathematical exercise.

 

Space-time is a construct of vital importance to Relativity theory. It doesn't mean it is set in law, but it is a solid theory because it has avoided ever being disproven, so far. (well, it doesn't exactly work at quantum levels, but we have a different theory for that; probably the biggest challenge in modern physics is to unify the two theories)

Sorry Freeztar, I'm probably being a bit thick about how I'm phrasing my question and if you could explain to me the role of time in beta decay process I would be very happy to humbly take it onboard.

Well, I'm no nuclear physicist, but take a look at this Feynman diagram below. The "t" at the top of the vector arrow represents time:

 

Image:Beta Negative Decay.svg - Wikimedia Commons

 

Sorry to all for causing confusion in my question. Please bear in mind I am a physics rookie trying to understand without unintentionally starting a fight.:eek_big:

 

No worries! :)

That's what this place is for. We're all hear to learn and share ideas. No need to feel weird about asking questions.

[LaurieAG]

Well, I'm no nuclear physicist, but take a look at this Feynman diagram below. The "t" at the top of the vector arrow represents time:

 

Image:Beta Negative Decay.svg - Wikimedia Commons

 

Hi Freeztar,

 

So we have scientific proof of time travel?

 

Incidentally the diagram is similar to the paths taken in the FTL experiment with the two prisms.

[freeztar]

So we have scientific proof of time travel?

If we do, I'm not aware of it.

 

Incidentally the diagram is similar to the paths taken in the FTL experiment with the two prisms.

 

Any semblance is coincidental.

[snoopy]

 

I am not stating that time does not exist as a definable property of physics. I am mearly asking if it plays any crucial role in cosmological processes and as such if space-time is a construct of vital importance or an unprovable mathematical exercise.

 

 

 

Yes I know you are not but as I stated before space and time raise their heads in every physics equation either directly or indirectly.

 

The same is true in cosmology which is largley based on Einsteins ideas now, in which space and time are joined in a 4d spacetime block.

 

For example it is almost impossible to correctly predict the age of a star without mentioning time at some point in your equations.

 

Peace

[LaurieAG]

Hi Freeztar,

 

If we do, I'm not aware of it.

 

What do you call it when you have a dimension of time and your plotted path goes back in time? It's probably why Wiki doesn't have a definition for Feynman diagrams (many of the other example diagrams don't have a time dimension).

 

Any semblance is coincidental.

 

Have you read about Photon Transistors and the FTL experiment? They share much in common with the diagram you referred to.

[freeztar]

Hi Freeztar,

 

What do you call it when you have a dimension of time and your plotted path goes back in time?

 

Time travel, but that is not what is happening in the diagram.

 

It's probably why Wiki doesn't have a definition for Feynman diagrams (many of the other example diagrams don't have a time dimension).

Huh?

Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Feynman diagrams are merely graphs; there is no concept of position or space in a Feynman diagram, and there is no concept of time aside from the distinction between incoming and outgoing lines.

 

That certainly does not make my example a strong one, but it shows that the process is not "instantaneous" at least.

 

Perhaps a better example is to point out the time component in decay equations. All of these equations implement time in some way.

Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Have you read about Photon Transistors and the FTL experiment? They share much in common with the diagram you referred to.

 

Yes, and it's a great read.

As a matter of fact, we both replied to the original thread on it here and then Turtle started this thread which goes more in depth:

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/12750-ftl-signaling-via-frustrated-total-internal.html?highlight=faster+light

 

 

But I digress...

I feel were getting a bit off-track here. Any comments/questions Radar?

[LaurieAG]

That certainly does not make my example a strong one, but it shows that the process is not "instantaneous" at least.

 

Sorry Freeztar, just being pedantic.

 

Wiki didn't list the definition when I searched, but it did put up all of the images.

 

Feynman diagrams are frequently confused with spacetime diagrams and bubble chamber images because of their visual similarity, but the connection is weak. Feynman diagrams are merely graphs; there is no concept of position or space in a Feynman diagram, and there is no concept of time aside from the distinction between incoming and outgoing lines. Additionally, only a collection of Feynman diagrams can be said to represent any given particle interaction; particles do not choose a particular diagram each time they interact.

[Erasmus00]

What do you call it when you have a dimension of time and your plotted path goes back in time? It's probably why Wiki doesn't have a definition for Feynman diagrams (many of the other example diagrams don't have a time dimension).

 

Feynman diagrams exploit the fact that particles traveling backward in time are mathematically equivalent to anti-particles traveling forward in time. Hence, anti-particles are represented as the "plotted path" going back in time.

-Will

[PhysBang]

On the cosmic scale the period between the proposed Big Bang to now is an observer’s psychological construct with which to measure out events. To the cosmological processes it has no relevance as the only things of importance are the processes themselves regardless of how long it takes to occur.

There is definitely an actual timescale for cosmological events. Physical systems do deviate from this timescale, but as far as the influence of the background radiation and general universal expansion is concerned, there is an identifiable timescale.

 

Now this is a psychological construct just like anything in physics is a psychological construct: if we want to accurately describe the universe, we have to use this timescale.

[Radar]

Sorry for my absence - work demands!

 

I accept that time is an essential property in understanding cosmology, I am still not convinced that time is part of process. Eg., pregnancy is a process, time describes how long the process takes.

 

I'm running out of anologies for what I was asking now!!!:shrug:

 

The extreme position of my original post was to firmly represent a different approach and challenge the accepted facts.

 

I guess I was hoping if anyone out there had an alternative hypothesis to describe space-time geometry. If there had been I sure someone would have mentioned it so the original post has probably fell on its sword, so to speak.

 

In the end, as a layman, if find cosmology a very difficult subject to comprehend. Just like the bible use to be only in latin and given to the masses by authorative priests; cosmology has travelled the same path.

 

I'm just looking to find more intuitive solutions to questions that do not require me to have faith and believe in things mystica mathematica.

 

Do any of you ever have the same feeling?:eek:

[CraigD]

I'm just looking to find more intuitive solutions to questions that do not require me to have faith and believe in things mystica mathematica.

 

Do any of you ever have the same feeling?:confused:

I think nearly everyone has, at some time in some domain of knowledge, wished for intuitively obvious explanations.

 

Unfortunately, ordinary human intuition is a development of a very specific collection of “cognitive shortcuts” applicable to a very specific range of conditions, and not applicable much outside of them. While it’s possible to develop intuition in other domains, it’s necessary to use extraordinary cognitive techniques to do so. Many of these techniques fall under the broad category of math.

 

Rather than having faith and believing in mysterious, math-derived conclusion, one can learn various mathematical disciplines. Where ordinary, unintentionally acquired intuition fails, intentionally acquired mathematical intuition may not. And, even if intuition fails, mathematical formalism affords useful solutions to problems in the absence of comfortable intuitive understanding.