Aqua-Soft ForumsInteresting Reading
Three Drives: Thanks for the excellent site. This is the kind of stuff I love to read over coffee and a good cigar.
Thats a cute article, yet begs the obvious; we live within our own world lines, even at the quatum scale, so like Einstein's Aether, shouldn't this be discarded? Even the writer begs that math "re-engineers itself with '1' as a quanton", yet I declare that what is, is. Imaginary time at high energy states may be plausible, yet I think the author misses the point in remaking our very perception to create a world that his warped time works. Arcums razor rules supreme, in every dimension.
We must stay based within reality, regardless of how NUTty that reality is.
Ten points to anyone that catches the NUT reference
I haven't read it through, but I will try to find the NUT.
What intrests me more, and what leading physicists have not pondered in depth is this; apart from a single timeline governing the universe(s). Going foreward and back, Goethe I believe once hypothesised the following, time as we know it = t. Backwards or minus is -t. What about at, bt, ct, xt, yt, zt?
In the meantime I believe that you will absolutely, absolutely love this page, I think you all will:
Hmm, are you making reference to Stephen Hawking's theories?
A very interesting reading indeed, but it makes very difficult to me to comprehend such a dense article in a foreigne language. I will read several times tough.
Originally posted by Three Drives@May 20 2003, 09:33 AM250-300 IQ.
I think the record IQ was somewhere around 200...
Also, modern IQ tests aren't accurate above a certain point...
What about at, bt, ct, xt, yt, zt?
if those are coordinates, you cannot express or define time as a coordinate. Time exists by itself just as length or width. Multiplying length by width does not give you a new length. What's a,b,c.
I think there are multiple dimensions = multiple universes each with different properties and therefore slightly different physics
With World Lines I am referring to the work of Einsteins General Relativity, specificaly violations of CTC's by Godel (and more recent mathmaticians).
Quantonic Time to me is the same as saying red is green, giving whimsy to support the statement, then asking everyone in the world to remake the color spectrum to fit the idea. Take that a step further, and the author asks us to change the spectrum because its possible, if not probable, that someone who has not seen color would not know what is red or green.
Hawkings proposed universal wave function is a perfect example of why Quantonic Time is pointless for anything other than trivial pursuit; because we observe time in a classical state it is most probable to be in a classical state...even though Quantonic Time exists, the probability existing within our defined reality is near zero because the function of classical math/ measurement is extremely large where we observe it - within our current reality.
Even the math is baseles...the more I read this the angrier I get. I am far from being a mathmatician; however I know poor reasoning when I see it. The foundation of the suppositions are invalid at almost every turn.
A = AA is either A or not A
A is not both A and not A
We see SOM dependence on a ridiculous identity concept (=) which is naught but conjuring.
We see SOM's either/or knife. We see SOM's excluded middle.
We see one truth, one context, one logic, and homogeneity.
All for the sake of establishing logical contradiction, so that proponents may assess absolutely,
"True or False, Yes or No!"
All illusions!
And so the author wishes to step outside the bounds of reality and remake the pallette to find his answer. When infact, A = A is not absolute, yes or no. It simply is, because it is most probable. In perspective of a quantum wave function, A does not always = A, yet the equation is still true because it is observed to be so, thus giving it truth. There is always the fleetingly small, and infinite chance that A will not always = A, and in fact could be A=6, or A=G, or any other number of combinations. Does A=T? Yes, but not in this most probable, observed reality. Does A=A have any unique special significance? Thats for a greater mind than mine...yet I think we cannot remake the probability we live in simply because we dislike that it is most probable.
This alone unmakes Quantonic Time. The author should dream less seriously.
Ack, people.
I asked if you were refering to Hawking as an answer to the NUT thing. The reason is that Hawking compares the reality with a nutshell. His theory throws 10 or even 11 dimensions, where 4 of them are "visible" and the rest are rolled into themselves.
Furthermore, his last book is "The Universe in a nutshell" so that gave me the possible connection.
Originally posted by Ender@May 20 2003, 06:28 PMI asked if you were refering to Hawking as an answer to the NUT thing. The reason is that Hawking compares the reality with a nutshell. His theory throws 10 or even 11 dimensions, where 4 of them are "visible" and the rest are rolled into themselves.
Furthermore, his last book is "The Universe in a nutshell" so that gave me the possible connection.
Sorry about that: NUT refers to a set of solutions to Einsteins equations that allow for time travel by Ezra Newman, Louis Tamburino and Ted Unti (Newman, Unti & Tamburino = NUT). The NUT solutions solved relativity in ways that allowed for time travel in the most bizarre ways. Although mathmatically proveable, they were discarded out of hand because they were not practical (or probable) solutions.
Since the original NUT solutions, this nickname has been applied to the countless ways relativiy has been solved to allow for bizarre behavior...not probable behavior, but possible behavior.
I haven't seen Hawkings last book...Im sure its good reading. I stick more to Kaku and Feynman. I think Id rather have a drink with either of these two guys, although Hawking is open minded on his own terms.
Originally posted by Three Drives@May 20 2003, 10:33 AMResearch more on William James Sidis, arguably the most intelligent man who ever lived. 250-300 IQ.
A joke site?
"We start using s¤me ¤f ¤ur n¤vel
Quantonics English Language Remediati¤n f¤r Millennium III here on 17Jul2001.
Some classical 'o's' we replace with Quantonic/quantized '¤'s'
Assume a more classical context when you see 'o's,'
and assume a m¤re quantum comtext when y¤u see '¤'s.'"
Uhhh?
yeah it comes up like that for me?
did everyone else just try to read through it anyway, or does it come up properly for you?
yeah and time can be expressed as a co-ordinate 
Originally posted by fissyb@May 20 2003, 03:44 PMyeah it comes up like that for me?
did everyone else just try to read through it anyway, or does it come up properly for you?
yeah and time can be expressed as a co-ordinate
And it is all gibberish, I think.
yeah and time can be expressed as a co-ordinate
You can use time in a coordinate but you are not getting a different type of time with new properties as to the reference above talking about xt,yt, etc. . Nor can you define place in time absolutely in infinitesimal degree, the Heizenberg Principle speaks to this. You will either know the exact time but not the exact location. The Heizenberg Principle is everywhere in quantum mechanics. One must ponder that all our physics and mathematics are only MODELS of how we perceive and interpret the rules of reality. Our physics are nowhere near the actual rules of true reality when high degree of accuracy is necessary at very small or minute volumes (beyond the nanometer) or at very large volumes, or at states of extreme high energy ( black holes, large scale of the universe). Until testable mathematical models are shown it is all whimsical conjecture , it is important but not anymore valid than the number of Angels in the head of a pin.
There is also a well documented and repeatable experiment to make a quantum change in an atomic particles at a distant with absolutely no know connection or pathway that is instantaneous and independent of distance (it can be done 3000 miles away or 200 lightyears away). This could well mean that information can travel instantaneously irrespective of distance maybe through some dimensional conduit that ties all realities together.
Dreaming-up new universes and how physics applies to them must be put into perspective whether they help us describe the universe we live in more accurately or not. For all we know, if our universe were to be created 100 times we may end-up with 100 universes with many variations in the way matter interacts and different physics. The same may apply if universes exists in different unknown dimensions. Much of all these speculations must be grounded with a dose of skepticism and some acceptance that it is an exercise of some degree of fantasy.
We still do not know what light really is ...particle..wave..what? nor do we know the makeup of basic atomic structure beyond protons/electrons/neutrons into quarks,neutrinos and other exotic particles. When 98% of the mass of the universe has not been accounted for, it makes you wonder whether we are anywhere close to come with respectable theories.
Here's a question:
If there IS a god, then how many billions of years did it wait before creating the universe? Did it have have to encounter time?
If there ISN'T a god, then how long did the helium ball just sit there before exploding?
Our physics are nowhere near the actual rules of true reality when high degree of accuracy is necessary at very small or minute volumes
A lot of quantum mechanics can predict a value thousands of times more accurately than we could measure it. Most theoretical physicists (the ones i know) would say that quantum mechanics is a complete theory not susceptible to modification. (Bohr and Heisenberg said that too.)
Nor can you define place in time absolutely in infinitesimal degree, the Heizenberg Principle speaks to this.
Dunno about that: Δx times Δp > h/4Pi
I don't see how you would get time in there without borrowing formulas from relativity. You could be right though, and it be a gap in my knowledge.
There is also a well documented and repeatable experiment to make a quantum change in an atomic particles at a distant with absolutely no know connection or pathway that is instantaneous and independent of distance (it can be done 3000 miles away or 200 lightyears away). This could well mean that information can travel instantaneously irrespective of distance maybe through some dimensional conduit that ties all realities together.
i've heard of those... transporting laser beams across a lab...
not entirely convinced by it - it seems to break the most important law of the universe.
Have you got a link so i could read more, pretty please
edit: Δ was supposed to be a delta symbol, but it didn't come out
Here's a question:If there IS a god, then how many billions of years did it wait before creating the universe? Did it have have to encounter time?
If there ISN'T a god, then how long did the helium ball just sit there before exploding?
Oh Taha
Time is a part of the universe so there is no time before the universe, and no time after its end. Its weird to think about it i know.
If God does exist in some sort of time outside the universe, its not the same time as ours.
Hes going along on his time line and at some point he started our time going off at a right angle to his. Like the different dimensions of space are at right angles to each other.
However, this God would not be able to have any further effect on our universe, so I doubt thats the way it works
right, "god" is probably not how most people think of it. If it exists, it is probably what started the big bang or whatever or what created the matter in the big bang in the first place, and probably everything after that is chance, not acts of "god"
right. That's what I thought too, that time was a dimension of this universe, and before existence there was no 'time', there was no waiting time.
Ok... that aside, where did the initial helium ball come from? What surrounded it? nothingness? who made nothingness? Or the helium ball?
There wasn't a helium ball as such. Just energy, and lots of it.
No-one can say where it comes from, its a mystery. Some say that time is circular, so there isn't a beginning or an end, or like a sphere. When you keep walking towards the south pole, you'll end up walking back to the north pole, so time keeps going round like that. Imaginary time is the direction lattitude goes in, in that example.
In the whole history of man, people have only managed to come up with God started the universe, or nothing started the universe. I go for the latter, but no-one can say who is wrong I don't think.
time isn't really there, we made it up
even after the universe is over, "time" would still go on, just a matter of if there is anyone to observe it.
like if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? of course!
EDIT: I give goku an hour before he shuts this thread down b/c we're talking about religion
if the universe ends then so does time and space.
like if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? of course!
hehe, quantum mechanics says it doesn't 
or a the accepted interpretation says that anyway.
read schrodinger's cat, (John Gribbin). Its very easy to understand.
as for the religion thing - aqua is my religion, and we talk about that all the time 
i'll re-open the thread.
the thread is more than that - it is a reflection of one's beliefs and its interesting to share your views with others..
yeah,.. god is prolly just a character made up by the ancient man, who was terrified by the idea of being alone and needed some sort of support. Thus, by creating a charecter 'god', he found peace. Whenever there were troubling times, he would feel better when he remembered 'god'. 'god' was also the inspiration that drove some of the major wars history has seen..
Don't you think its about time god was forgotten now? its the 21st century dammit..
Lets drop the discussion of God, as the thread is focused on the physics of Quantonic Time.
I'd love to discuss God, however this isn't the place.
-------
dz