Assuming there is no such thing as time, how do you describe motion in a hypothetical universe?

[lemondiesel]

As to the gravity discussion, at the singularity, there is infinite gravitational pull along with infinite density. Space and time cease to exist.

To do so at the personal level would require that I know something about the physical attributes, mind, and curiosity level of the inquiring rabbit.

Time is, IMO, a subject which is intimately intertwined with physical theology-- the very nature of God and their relationship to physical reality. This is not a subject for every casually curious little bunny. That’s why I wrote a book generalized for rabbits, moles, ferrets, and the occasional wart hog— out maybe in March.

If there is no such thing as time (which I believe) then what are you and I looking at? What is this physically reality we are all participating in? In a sense, wouldn’t everything be an ‘illusion’ or perhaps a holographic projection of the timeless particles that everything is constructed from? (Or is this along the lines of the holographic principle?)

pardon my idiocy, but i am extremely curious. i understand math very well, but physics was something i skipped over.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

As to the gravity discussion, at the singularity, there is infinite gravitational pull along with infinite density. Space and time cease to exist.

If there is no such thing as time (which I believe) then what are you and I looking at? What is this physically reality we are all participating in? In a sense, wouldn’t everything be an ‘illusion’ or perhaps a holographic projection of the timeless particles that everything is constructed from? (Or is this along the lines of the holographic principle?)

pardon my idiocy, but i am extremely curious. i understand math very well, but physics was something i skipped over.

Thank you lemondiesel, it would seem that there would indeed exist a proportionate acceleration toward the singularity creating real moments of relative time variations up until no time or space existed. Relative to the singularity the universe has both collapsed and began.
Relative to a particles journey the whole of the expansion and collapse takes place in an instant due to relative motion describing its time reality. Relative to our existence our motion describes our time perspective, No time perspective would have priority. All would only be fragments completing a timeless universe whose each perspective is made possible by motion .Recording behavior of quantum particles then shows alternate behavior because the physical recording itself forces and substantiates a physical reality of the happening , where as simple visual notice does not , there is nothing physically relative in “thought” for the happening to show same significance. So, universe contracting , expanding, being, all at once. Not that I was going toward this example but like a flower in bloom. Each of the many pedals offering by motion a different perspective, ail though the reality is the totality of the full flower, always in bloom. So anyway just having a lunch break and getting some very quick thoughts down , and no big deal.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Just want to add , no big deal, the best flower to imagine interestingly is that MOM flower with all the many pedals in all the different positions and trajectorys, with the ceter in full view all at the same time…I think thats the flower

 

[greylorn]

Then how come my book by Paul Davies says that the gravitational pull at the center of an imploding sun is the greatest force known in the universe…thats what I am describing in that sentence

This is the kind of thing that happens to people who get their physics from a pop-science book instead of a university physics program. The force at the center of an imploding star is a net force to which each one of a large number of protons contributes.

Consider this: The actual gravitational force at the center of a star is pretty much the same before it begins imploding as afterward, assuming that the mass of the star does not change. Implosion begins when the star’s chemistry changes and dampens the thermonuclear reactions at its core which have been keeping gravity at bay for a few billion years. Those reactions, which come from a small amount of matter, involve the weak and strong nuclear forces.

Best get that physics degree before you go on making incorrect statements about it.

BTW I suspect that if Davies actually wrote what you say, he is incorrect. The gravitational force at the center of a supermassive black hole is probably much greater. And I could be wrong about that. Davies may have included the kinetic energy of imploding matter in his calculations of net force, and I don’t know offhand if that would produce a greater net force than that at the center of a black hole.

 

[cho_pilo]

Actually, your head will stop working far short of absolute zero… Like at 80 F; but you already knew that

The thing is, we have no way of knowing whether what we know as time exists at absolute zero. Possibly it does not, as there is no process and no entropy. All clocks require both.

But since we can’t put our mind there and can’t perform science there, it’s an unknowable.

ICXC NIKA

What do you think heat is?

If a system was at an absolute temperature of zero there would be no random motion (heat). Then you would know the position and momentum of every particle in the system, which contradicts Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

This suggests that randomness is an intrinsic property of what we call time, or of the “direction” we perceive time has, which is the same as the “direction” that entropy increases.

 

[GEddie]

What do you think heat is?

If a system was at an absolute temperature of zero there would be no random motion (heat). Then you would know the position and momentum of every particle in the system, which contradicts Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

This suggests that randomness is an intrinsic property of what we call time, or of the “direction” we perceive time has, which is the same as the “direction” that entropy increases.

Of course you have a contradiction re Heisenberg at absolute zero. It’s an unreachable point.

It does seem that directional time is driven by entropy, in that we perceive it only as process, and all processes (including the synapses in our heads) are entropic.

ICXC NIKA

 

[greylorn]

As to the gravity discussion, at the singularity, there is infinite gravitational pull along with infinite density. Space and time cease to exist.

The concept of “singularity” has been distorted and warped worse than Obama’s memory of his campaign promises.

Despite what the pinheads on documentary science channels say, there is no such a thing as a physical singularity.

A singularity is a mathematical thing which comes up when one tries to divide anything by zero, or calculate the tangent of 90 degrees. It means that the solution to whatever problem one is trying to solve has blown up. You know that, of course, but I am mentioning it for others’ benefit.

When a physics student develops a problem solution which results in a singularity, as oft happens with students, the student gets an F on the problem, and is informed by the professor that he has formulated the problem incorrectly.

What happened to F’s for the idiot post-docs blabbing on TV about a physical “singularity” as predecessor for the Big Bang— then moving on to claim that it came “out of nowhere?” Give the drooling nitwit TV perfessers and the pinheads who told them what to say a big fat F.

They need to acknowledge that they are just students trying to study the universe. As such, it behooves them to listen to the same admonishment they would give their students: "You have incorrectly formulated the problem."

In short, it is impossible to declare any properties of a physical singularity. Infinite mass, infinite density are all nonsense concepts. They cannot be plugged into any equation without yielding an infinite solution. If Big Bang solutions require a singularity, the Big Bang was a non-event.

The TV physics evangelists are just fools armed with enough knowledge and jargon to snow those who know little about physics. Don’t believe them. Pulling the singularity-card is the equivalent of saying, “God did it,” an incongruent choice for atheists.

If there is no such thing as time (which I believe) then what are you and I looking at? What is this physically reality we are all participating in? In a sense, wouldn’t everything be an ‘illusion’ or perhaps a holographic projection of the timeless particles that everything is constructed from? (Or is this along the lines of the holographic principle?)

pardon my idiocy, but i am extremely curious. i understand math very well, but physics was something i skipped over.

I will not pardon your imagined “idiocy,” on the grounds that real idiots do not ask honest, intelligent questions.

Consider how movie projectors work. What actually appears on screen is a series of completely static images. Our brain interpolates these into motion and cannot determine the difference between real motion and static images. All video systems work similarly.

Movies are composed of a set of quantized images. There is no motion in them.

Now scale the concept down to the level of subatomic particles and you get— Voila!— quantum physics!

BTW. i’d love to find a mathematician willing to pursue the implications. My math skills are limited to 30 credits of decades-unused Applied Math, and I could not do Abstract Math, a new form of which may be needed to deal with this stuff.

 

[neophyte]

Assuming there is no such thing as time, how do you describe motion in a hypothetical universe?

You don’t, because “no such thing as time” means “no such things as motion”.

 

[lemondiesel]

Consider how movie projectors work. What actually appears on screen is a series of completely static images. Our brain interpolates these into motion and cannot determine the difference between real motion and static images. All video systems work similarly.

Movies are composed of a set of quantized images. There is no motion in them.

Now scale the concept down to the level of subatomic particles and you get— Voila!— quantum physics!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

but in all seriousness, I understand the concept you are explaining, but I am unsure as to what it would imply to existence. Seeing as this thread has miniscule activity, I might as well say a few… some are off topic, but who knows, you might have some guidance.

Is it only at the level of subatomic particles that these static images exists?

Our brain interprets the change in static images as motion, but what is essentially created in the human mind? For example, if I were playing a video game, I would be seeing motion. Yet why do I have depth perception? My mind has ultimately taken a 2D screen, and is able to see a 3D “world.” (For me this is a trippy concept, as it seems that my brain has created an “infinite universe” to let my mind wander.)

When you mentioned movies, it brings up the issue that many people are unable to make the distinction between “Hollywood” and the real world.

Yeah, in all honesty, I will read anything you have to say. You don’t really need to reply to this post, but if you have any suggested readings, videos, etc, I would be grateful for the recommendations.

 

[GEddie]

The difference between movies and physical reality is that movies can be rewound; reality cannot. The changes undergone by physical reality and our human bodies, entropic in nature, cannot be reversed. And what we know as movement, except for orbits under gravity, is driven by changes that are entropic (combustion in engine cylinders, oxidation in body muscles; etc).

This suggests to me that what we experience as “time” is really a flow of entropy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[lemondiesel]

This suggests to me that what we experience as “time” is really a flow of entropy.

mind explaining this in an easy to understand illustration? perhaps a parable?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The concept of “singularity” has been distorted and warped worse than Obama’s memory of his campaign promises.

Despite what the pinheads on documentary science channels say, there is no such a thing as a physical singularity.

A singularity is a mathematical thing which comes up when one tries to divide anything by zero, or calculate the tangent of 90 degrees. It means that the solution to whatever problem one is trying to solve has blown up. You know that, of course, but I am mentioning it for others’ benefit.

When a physics student develops a problem solution which results in a singularity, as oft happens with students, the student gets an F on the problem, and is informed by the professor that he has formulated the problem incorrectly.

What happened to F’s for the idiot post-docs blabbing on TV about a physical “singularity” as predecessor for the Big Bang— then moving on to claim that it came “out of nowhere?” Give the drooling nitwit TV perfessers and the pinheads who told them what to say a big fat F.

They need to acknowledge that they are just students trying to study the universe. As such, it behooves them to listen to the same admonishment they would give their students: "You have incorrectly formulated the problem."

In short, it is impossible to declare any properties of a physical singularity. Infinite mass, infinite density are all nonsense concepts. They cannot be plugged into any equation without yielding an infinite solution. If Big Bang solutions require a singularity, the Big Bang was a non-event.

The TV physics evangelists are just fools armed with enough knowledge and jargon to snow those who know little about physics. Don’t believe them. Pulling the singularity-card is the equivalent of saying, “God did it,” an incongruent choice for atheists.

I think you started on the right track, but veered off part way through.

Of course there is no such thing as a physical singularity; density or mass cannot be infinite in magnitude. What a singularity does mean (and the point I think you completely missed), is that a singularity means that the physical theory breaks down. Black holes are singularities because GR breaks down, not because density goes off to infinity; same thing with the Big Bang.

 

[GEddie]

mind explaining this in an easy to understand illustration? perhaps a parable?

We experience time as a linear flow rather than as a “dimension” because what we observe is not time, but entropy at work in the external world; and what we feel and experience is not time either, but entropy cooking off inside our heads and bodies. That sense of entropy began before we each grew a cognitive mind, and continues until our eyes roll back in death.

It is as if we were water-breathers living in a very wide river whose banks and surface remained unseen. We would sense ourselves moving along, tumbling, etc, in the current, and would perceive one of our dimensions as distinct from the others. But it would be not the dimension itself that was unique, but the flow of the river.

Since all matter is entropic, we cannot get away from time without divesting of our human bodies. And since entropic change fuels all directional motion, the titular question in the thread is meaningless.

ICXC NIKA

 

[greylorn]

but in all seriousness, I understand the concept you are explaining, but I am unsure as to what it would imply to existence. Seeing as this thread has miniscule activity, I might as well say a few… some are off topic, but who knows, you might have some guidance.

My post on the subject was entirely serious. The concept came as a consequence of my other ideas about the nature of God, soul, purpose, and existence in general. It is the application of the Church’s pre-Galileo belief that it is possible to derive correct physics principles from correct religious principles. This worked poorly for the church because one of its fundamental beliefs was, and remains, incorrect (IMO).

My ideas reflect my opinion that concepts about the so-called “spiritual” must be perfectly integrated into physics before either subject will realize its full potential. After all, a Theory of Everything which does not include a full understanding of the initial causes, and human consciousness, is just intellectual claptrap.

The minuscule activity on this thread is a good thing. It means that the nits and dogmatists cannot understand it, and so leave it be as a space for the curious.

I accept the notion that I have fits and starts of useful guidance, although I do not much like the idea that my thoughts are not my own, However, since guidance cannot enter a closed mind, and cannot find a place to nest in the unprepared mind, I claim personal responsibility for educating it and keeping it open.

BTW, these are the two secrets to clear and effective thought: preparation and openness.

Is it only at the level of subatomic particles that these static images exists?

Yes. (“states,” not images) But your “only…subatomic particles” clause encompasses the core of all matter. “Only” seems an understatement.

Our brain interprets the change in static images as motion, but what is essentially created in the human mind? For example, if I were playing a video game, I would be seeing motion. Yet why do I have depth perception? My mind has ultimately taken a 2D screen, and is able to see a 3D “world.” (For me this is a trippy concept, as it seems that my brain has created an “infinite universe” to let my mind wander.)

Yes! That’s what the brain was brilliantly engineered to do. Whether you wander aimlessly or purposefully determines the level of consciousness you will develop.

When you mentioned movies, it brings up the issue that many people are unable to make the distinction between “Hollywood” and the real world.

Let’s not either of us be one of them. Of course the next level of curiosity involves the realness of our “real” world.

Yeah, in all honesty, I will read anything you have to say. You don’t really need to reply to this post, but if you have any suggested readings, videos, etc, I would be grateful for the recommendations.

I absolutely love responding to curious minds, There’s an old novel that you might be able to find on the internet, The Soul of Anna Klane. Get the cheap horrid-cover paperback and be sure to figure out the day on which it ends. Amazon has reviews although the book is long out of print. If you get a copy, save it.

Check out the website, paulandellen.com and search the essay section. Paul is a mathematician and self-educated physics student who has been wrestling with ideas about how to integrate God and physics almost as long as I’ve been. I do not agree with his metaphysics, so he and I are in the process of an ongoing discussion. He has lined up a serious physicist to join it after I publish. He is a good writer, although on occasion he gets tired of a subject and drops it just when his perspective on it is beginning to get interesting.

There are several interesting websites which develop matter-wave theory. In the midst of computer difficulties, I do not have their website URLs handy.

I could make other recommendations if I knew your interests. In general, it is important to study and read extensively within your areas of interest. But first, read Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book. Really! Then, Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. These are first-rate mind-openers, part of the preparation process.

 

[greylorn]

I think you started on the right track, but veered off part way through.

Of course there is no such thing as a physical singularity; density or mass cannot be infinite in magnitude. What a singularity does mean (and the point I think you completely missed), is that a singularity means that the physical theory breaks down. Black holes are singularities because GR breaks down, not because density goes off to infinity; same thing with the Big Bang.

Your analysis of the relationship between singularity, reality, and our models of reality, is entirely correct. However, your analysis of me is a tad unfair.

If you read more closely, you’ll find the bold-faced line, *“You have incorrectly formulated the problem.” * Read in context, how can this be interpreted otherwise than as an unmistakable rejection of physical theory?

Admittedly, my rejection was not the most direct and explicit possible. The CAF is a great opportunity to experiment with writing styles. When I’ve stated with unmistakable explicitness on other threads that Big Bang theory sucks, I’ve received no end of bizarre criticism.

My notion of a theory about this is that nitwits cannot comprehend subtle statements because their attention span is too short for them to actually read all the way through. However, giving them a simple and direct statement that their little brains can wrap themselves around is dangerous. After a while they will understand that it is contrary to their opinions, and will relieve themselves of those opinions, which they got from someone else.

 

[cho_pilo]

GEddie,

Entropy is often explained as randomness. Entropy decreases in a crystal as temperature decreases because all the atoms have less random motion–they ‘jiggle around’ less at lower temperatures.

Increasing entropy means an increase in random motion (or position). Random motion is heat.

Moving a bit beyond 8th grade, entropy has units of energy per degree of temperature. But temperature is a statistic–the average energy per particle (or partition). Entropy therefore has units of the ratio of total energy of a system of particles to the average energy per particle, which becomes an energy ratio times “one particle”. Energy divided by energy is a dimensionless number (the ratio above), so one way to describe entropy is how much random motion on average each particle has.

Informationally speaking, the more random a particle’s position or momentum is the less can be known about its future evolution. Hence the use of statistical measurements, such as average energy.

 

[JDaniel]

Anyone?

Pag:

You really can’t: Time is a correlate of motion; it is not a stand-alone thing. As such, it has imperfect existence.

However, St. Thomas defined “motion” as the “act of the potential as potential.” (Here he did not mean “potential” in the sense of, for example, battery potential.) Essentially his definition depicts motion in its process (from potency to act) without having to use an example of motion as a definition, which all others appear to do.

God bless,
jd

 

[GEddie]

GEddie,

Entropy is often explained as randomness. Entropy decreases in a crystal as temperature decreases because all the atoms have less random motion–they ‘jiggle around’ less at lower temperatures.

Increasing entropy means an increase in random motion (or position). Random motion is heat.

Moving a bit beyond 8th grade, entropy has units of energy per degree of temperature. But temperature is a statistic–the average energy per particle (or partition). Entropy therefore has units of the ratio of total energy of a system of particles to the average energy per particle, which becomes an energy ratio times “one particle”. Energy divided by energy is a dimensionless number (the ratio above), so one way to describe entropy is how much random motion on average each particle has.

Informationally speaking, the more random a particle’s position or momentum is the less can be known about its future evolution. Hence the use of statistical measurements, such as average energy.

I am aware of what entropy is, CP. In fact, I have come across several definitions of it.

I am using the term as it is used in chemistry. Chemically, every process, and every compound, has a standard entropy associated with it; including the proteins and processes in our natural bodies.

Pure elements have a standard entropy of zero because they do not derive from any chemical process.

But all processes are powered by entropic change, including those we use in clocks. An electric clock runs on the entropy of battery chemistry. A grandfather clock uses gravitational movement which leads to metal wear. And the neurons of our head that sense “time” are powered by the energy of respiration, which is likewise entropic.

ICXC NIKA

 

[lemondiesel]

I could make other recommendations if I knew your interests. In general, it is important to study and read extensively within your areas of interest.

I will research anything related to understanding what this reality is. Just how far does this rabbit hole go?

 

[lemondiesel]

I am aware of what entropy is, CP. In fact, I have come across several definitions of it.

I am using the term as it is used in chemistry. Chemically, every process, and every compound, has a standard entropy associated with it; including the proteins and processes in our natural bodies.

Pure elements have a standard entropy of zero because they do not derive from any chemical process.

But all processes are powered by entropic change, including those we use in clocks. An electric clock runs on the entropy of battery chemistry. A grandfather clock uses gravitational movement which leads to metal wear. And the neurons of our head that sense “time” are powered by the energy of respiration, which is likewise entropic.

ICXC NIKA

Been thinking about this post for awhile. i :thankyou: