Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Did time have a beginning?


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#76 Shadowcode

Shadowcode
  • 238 posts

Posted 23 April 2007 - 03:54 PM

As I have been following this argument, I am curious to one aspect.

Who here, if anyone, puts religion behind, and argues with pure science??

As for time, as Mr. Brandon said it, it was created when we thought it up, as I have said before.



#77 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 23 April 2007 - 05:31 PM

QUOTE(ArchAngel. @ Apr 23 2007, 03:06 PM) View Post
Wp duality applies mainly to photons.
With this basis, I've heard it applies to matter, ie, an electron having a wavelength, but I never understood that concept


it is the basis behind the very foundation of Quatum Mechanics. There are many ways to comprehend it. The most interesting being the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Not only does an election or photon have W-P dualtiy, all quatum matter does.
Google Sheiddingers(spelling?) cat thought experiment.
It explaines it really well.


#78 Shadowcode

Shadowcode
  • 238 posts

Posted 24 April 2007 - 11:09 AM

We must acknowledge that the bridge between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics hasnt been built yet.

With time, which does it fit best in? Or both equally?

I ask this because I think Relativity deals with the "aspect" of time more.

#79 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 24 April 2007 - 03:37 PM

QUOTE(Shadowcode @ Apr 24 2007, 11:09 AM) View Post
We must acknowledge that the bridge between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics hasnt been built yet.

With time, which does it fit best in? Or both equally?

I ask this because I think Relativity deals with the "aspect" of time more.



Ask any physicist and they will tell you the more complete law is Quantum mechanics.......

#80 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 25 April 2007 - 05:41 AM

QUOTE(Shadowcode @ Apr 23 2007, 04:54 PM) View Post
As I have been following this argument, I am curious to one aspect.

Who here, if anyone, puts religion behind, and argues with pure science??

As for time, as Mr. Brandon said it, it was created when we thought it up, as I have said before.

I have to put any religion behind.
The disregard and disrespect you get when you bring religion into these forums is ridiculous. blink.gif
No offense or anything, but thats just how it is.

Sonic:
He's talking about in relation to time.
I'd say Relativity.
The implications of other dimensions, dilation and other things delve deeper into time that quantum mechanics.
Or so I'm told.

#81 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 25 April 2007 - 04:53 PM

For all you laymen there is a simpler way of understanding time. Think of it as having potential quanta, aka time potential. We move on to the future because the potential is gettinga smaller over a measured time.

There is an easy way to quantize time. Just look a t energy. Energy is a wavelength and a frequency times a constant. Time is a contained frequency aspect of energy, only it has higher frequencey containing more time potential. Think if one added a quanta of gamma into a system, it would take longer to reach a steady state than a Q of IR. The more time potential added, takes more measured time to pass on or in a sense delete itself.

"The conservation of energy implies that energy is conserved" -Hiesnberg.
This implies that all energy contains time potental. Time can spread into different types of energy, but the total will be conserved. Take this for example, if a nuclie absorbed the gammma quanta into mass, the atom will get to thermal state quicker. This is because time potential is now stored in the nucleuus and the time potential can be regurgitated at a later time. Hydrogen fusion is an example, releasing time potential that has been stored in the H atom since 1000000000000 years after the big bang. This time potentail is changed back to heat that now has much more time to stay arround and dissipte.

If you look at time as only a reference, the physics get really screwy and un-understandable.
Just look time as a potentail that we measure with watches, and it is really simple.

Josh had the wrong idea of time dilation. If u look at TD, time will slow down, when relative to a refference that is standing still. Think of it like this. 15 seconds in the time dilated reference, may actually take hours to the reference that is standing still. Using special relativity, what causes this is velocity. Velocity in a nutshell is kinetic energy. this also means the dilated reference containes more potential. In another nutshell, it's stored up time potential can only be used by the slower reference that is standing still. Everythin takes more time because it has more time potential.

Relativity also has another consequence. Gravity causes TD because of the gravity storing potential energy, aka time potential.

#82 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 31 May 2007 - 10:55 PM

QUOTE(Kitsune @ May 31 2007, 08:21 PM) View Post
Just want to let you know that the person you just said simply watched the science channel physics specials actually has the following marks in University (year 1-3) physics subjects:
level 1: kinematics = B
Level 2: Electromagnetics = B
Quantum Physics = A
Particle Physics = B+
Level 3: Electro Magnetic Waves = A-
Optoelectronics = A-
Plus various levels of algerba and calculus.

For this reason, you simply don't qualify to say something he's said is wrong. It's all very well for you to read some articles and a couple books and form an unwaivering opinion, but until you have actual qualifications like John does, you don't have an opinion worth a grain of salt in comparison smile.gif



Electro Magnetic Waves? A class.
For some reason I believe you, but alot of that sounds like a bunch of BS.

I re-read his post. If it is indeed true about his qualifications then well he must have been trying to dumb it down for us.

Also I have NEVER heard of someone in their first 4 years at a university take such a wide range of physics. Electromagnetic waves? That should just be a part in particle physics...What career is he headed for..... Something with particle physics.... Still double check the classes he has taken. It makes no sense to have a particle physics class and a electromagnetic waves class. It is very possible I am wrong though, anyway, why no trig classes? Or number theory classes? Both are very important to the type of physics he is learning.

And I have by the way taken a theoretical physics and a QED class at ASU. And anything most non-professors/Physicts with a Ph.D get their info from books and lectures. And god knows I have read my share of books. I wish to have had more actual lecture time. I have only been able to take 2 college classes, but I did test out of AP physics at the high school level lol.

#83 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 10:15 AM

QUOTE(Kitsune @ Jun 1 2007, 02:00 AM) View Post
He's doing an electronic engineering degree, and those aren't the titles of the class since that wouldn't help explain what is actually learnt in that class since they're called things like "Engineering Physics 2" and so on. But yes, those are what he's studied, and I can most definitely vouch that he got those marks since John's my boyfriend (and lives with me).

That is not a comprehensive list of his classes, just the physics ones. His course is pre-described (as in you don't get to choose which subjects you take, you're told) and I can give you the link for his course outline if you wish, with full descriptions of what is involved in each subject. In fact, in case you think I'm bluffing, here it is:
http://papers.waikat...z/subjects/ENEL
We have just finished A semester for year 3.
Oh and he's been accepted to do Honors in 4th year too.

And of course it was dumbed down lol. He'd be writing for days on end if he were to write about wave-particle duality (which is the A physics mark).

Btw, he sat beside me while I wrote this to make sure it's all correct.


Its all good. I was just asking. The names of the classes are what threw me off.

#84 Nova John

Nova John
  • 126 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:25 AM

For future reference the energy from fusion comes from the creation of bonds between hydrogen atoms to form helium. NOT matter being deconstructed. The energy gained is not related to e=mc2 in any direct way, but the energy released by fast moving protons when they are forced to occupy orbits with other protons and hence turn SOME mass into energy, not all mass. This is mainly so nobody with a nuclear physics test coming up loses unnecessary marks.

Also for the record I stand by my watered down explanations of physics because some things people with less schooling cannot accept as fact. Wave particle duality is one of them. I could quote you as having said you don't understand it, which is unfortunately the basis of my arguments! This makes the watered down version a requirement without me spending weeks developing WP duality for everyone.

#85 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 12:53 PM

QUOTE(Nova John @ Jun 3 2007, 04:25 AM) View Post
For future reference the energy from fusion comes from the creation of bonds between hydrogen atoms to form helium. NOT matter being deconstructed. The energy gained is not related to e=mc2 in any direct way, but the energy released by fast moving protons when they are forced to occupy orbits with other protons and hence turn SOME mass into energy, not all mass. This is mainly so nobody with a nuclear physics test coming up loses unnecessary marks.

Also for the record I stand by my watered down explanations of physics because some things people with less schooling cannot accept as fact. Wave particle duality is one of them. I could quote you as having said you don't understand it, which is unfortunately the basis of my arguments! This makes the watered down version a requirement without me spending weeks developing WP duality for everyone.


You would be surprised.
Its an easy concept to u understand if you make yourself let go of all common sense.

The dual split experiment explanation is what helped me finally grasp it.

QUOTE(Josh @ Apr 23 2007, 09:39 AM) View Post
No now you are getting confused. Look at the way I applied it, you agree that God cannot exist and exist at the same time correct? That's what the law of non-contradiction is talking about. It does not say:

A cannot share the nature of B and A at the same time.

Think of it like this:

A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

I think that's a better example, I can see how my other one was confusing.

For more info:

http://en.wikipedia....n-contradiction


You quoted Aristotle. He had no contact with quantum systems making his opinion pointless when talking about quantum mechanics. Come on now.

QUOTE(ArchAngel. @ Apr 23 2007, 03:06 PM) View Post
You can't do that. blink.gif Ever read Language and Thought in Action?
Yes, I know. It's reallllyyy lame, but it was an English book I had to read.
Well, it talks about the uncared for rules of language, and how you can/should only define things with a more specific word.
It's actually a pretty good read, especially for it's being about language.


Once again, common sense has hold over language. Logic. QM does not share the same logic as us. A Particle is a wave, and can be either one if measured for it.

Its like if you look for a particle you get a particle, if you measure for a wave you get a wave. How else could a single particle be in 2 places simultaneously and interfere with each other? Yea you heard me.
Look up what happens if you pass a single photon through the double slit experiment.

#86 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 03:35 PM

QUOTE(Cody @ Jun 3 2007, 02:58 PM) View Post
*throws in multiverse theory*

*throws in how the non-contradiction theory is absolute bs, and something can be and can not be at the exact same time.*

*makes an escape without actually have to argue*

get back here.

#87 Nova John

Nova John
  • 126 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 03:49 PM

Um to quickly clarify a clerical error on sonics behalf, if you shine coherent light through a double slit you get a diffraction pattern (multiple lines on the wall, the wave case). If you then try to find which slit a photon travels through at any one time the pattern changes and forms 2 clumps (the particle case, think cannonballs through a pair of holes, they can only be in 1 of 2 places). If you use a detector which is only going to be correct 50% of the time you get both patterns at once. This is significant because it means we cannot identify whether photons are particles or waves because they change their nature by the sheer attempt at measurement. This is known as the measurement problem to QM physicists.

This means that if you try to prove light is a wave and know which slit it goes through, it acts like a particle, and so on.

Edited by Nova John, 03 June 2007 - 03:54 PM.


#88 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 04 June 2007 - 01:12 AM

QUOTE(Nova John @ Jun 3 2007, 04:49 PM) View Post
Um to quickly clarify a clerical error on sonics behalf, if you shine coherent light through a double slit you get a diffraction pattern (multiple lines on the wall, the wave case). If you then try to find which slit a photon travels through at any one time the pattern changes and forms 2 clumps (the particle case, think cannonballs through a pair of holes, they can only be in 1 of 2 places). If you use a detector which is only going to be correct 50% of the time you get both patterns at once. This is significant because it means we cannot identify whether photons are particles or waves because they change their nature by the sheer attempt at measurement. This is known as the measurement problem to QM physicists.


Lol, did I mis-understand you or something? or did you misunderstand me. I think thats what I was saying just with less awesomeness.

EDIT: I see the difference. Well me and you know 2 different things. I was taught that if a single photon was sent through the experiment it will NOT perform the "clump effect". it will act as on a larger scale. it will still interfere with itself and will still form a wave pattern. I believe this wiki article proves it. HERE Check under "When observed emission by emission"

#89 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 June 2007 - 02:57 AM

QUOTE(Sonic @ Jun 4 2007, 09:12 AM) View Post
Lol, did I mis-understand you or something? or did you misunderstand me. I think thats what I was saying just with less awesomeness.

EDIT: I see the difference. Well me and you know 2 different things. I was taught that if a single photon was sent through the experiment it will NOT perform the "clump effect". it will act as on a larger scale. it will still interfere with itself and will still form a wave pattern. I believe this wiki article proves it. HERE Check under "When observed emission by emission"

That was also my belief...

But then, sendind a single photon isn't the same thing as detecting which slit it passes through... so... unmeasured, a photon will interfere with itself and ultimately produce a diffraction pattern after many have been fired, whereas when a detector is used, the clumps are observed.
Is that correct?

#90 Nova John

Nova John
  • 126 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 06:14 PM

thats right sonic/sunscorch. Which is the measurement problem, by trying to know where the photon is as a wave it instead acts as a particle. It is an important aspect of the experiment which should be noticed, since it annoys every physicist.

Also of note is that the particle 'clumps' form at the first order nodes, (areas of zero occurrence) which is also particularly frustrating for physicists since waves CANNOT be there, but particles can.

If you follow this Link you will see an experiment which can tell you which hole the wave passes through without causing the measurement problem. Not to mention you may get to blow something up!

Edited by Nova John, 05 June 2007 - 06:23 PM.


#91 LastI

LastI
  • 128 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:05 AM

I dont really have that great of a explanation of or this, but I'm going to do my best.

As far as God goes - he's eternal, he's been here forever and will be forever. Eternal. I cant fully comprehend that and neither can anyone here.

I believe time didnt nescessarily have a beginning, I believe that God formed everything with Creation, as the Bible speaks about, and I always will. But was time always around, I believe partially yes, there was a time when the universe was empty, it's my belief, it's not spelled out in the Bible anywhere. Then God formed the Earth and the rest of the universe, and this is my belief when time officially "started". This just how I feel, I have no evidence or scripture to back thsi up, but this is how I feel. I dont believe that we were here by chance, I believe we are here for a purpose. To serve God.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users