Why Does Time Fly?

sdhobbs

Strangely enough we all call it the big bang and yet sound is a resonant vibration of particles at a frequency that stimulates our ears. In fact sound will not propogate in a vaccum and so it would of been silent because outside of the blast there would be nothing to vibrate and hence carry the "sound".

Chuckle. Just a pedantic thought on wording. Laughing

Afterthought: Isn't it strange that since after all the work done on time theory and adjusting loads of equations and theories to accomodate it I hear on the news that the first space craft the UK help in launching to Mars misses its target? Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd and a bit of a warning sign? After-all all the older missions based on pure mechanics managed to hit their targets and in some cases even perform accurate sling-shot activities to propel them onwards!.

I can't help but wonder if some of this theory is more harmful than good, in the case of the missed mars mission it's already set that particular satellite project back by 3 years!

Sylwester Kornowski

"Why does time fly?"

It is because the internal structure of spacetime is the dynamic structure.

fwhong

It is because of the psychological make up of our human mind combined with the intricate details of the design of our universe.

Antti

Hi,

Many thanks for your comments. The quantized time, string theory, curved space-time, etc. are based on mathematical reality. A problem of mainstream physics and cosmology is that that they often tend to mix mathematical and physical reality.

Beautiful mathematical variables, coordinate systems and models do not prove that such issues really exist in our physical and chemical universe. Honest experimental observations create a much steady basis for the reliable physical world view. Mathematics is only a tool to analyse and understand these observations.

For example, mainstream physics assume that hypothetical graviton particles create the gravity and speed of gravity is the same as speed of light. If this assumption is true, why the gravity seems to operate instantly and without any aberration? See:

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=125&mode=view

Antti

Lesslie

Hi there...

I was searching for info on the question of whether the universe expansion is actually accelerating as quickly as generally accepted, and found this thread. A number of observations:

Einstein had some issues, no doubt about it (for instance the speed of light is now known to exceed the value of c). On that point, one of the problems, as another commenter here mentioned, is that there is a big difference between the precision of a mathematical expression and the natural imprecision of the operation it is intended to represent in a physical frame of reference.

Einstein was correct, I think though, when he observed "The centre is everywhere and the circumference nowhere". What this implies, I believe, is that there is a crucial correlation (as yet not fully understood) between Heisenberg's ideas (the quantum universe) and Einstein's ideas (the universe as described in the theory of special relativity). The implications of quantum mechanics are that the OBSERVER is key to the nature of the observation, and there is always an "information void" somewhere in the observational matrix.

Why is it so diificult for physicists to fully subscribe to the idea that what we deal with in all of this interesting stuff is INFORMATION about a mass/energy field ... which is an ultimately unknown entity from an objective viewpoint. Our terminology, our paradigm, our intellectual perspective (depending on the area of science within which we are educated), indeed the semantics of our cultural biases ... all colour what we see and discuss.

Incidentally it seems obvious to me that light is a "spiralate" energy... that unobserved it is a dynamic wave/particle which is rendered static upon observation. It must be slowed down in some way as it passes through the ocular mechanism and reaches the cerebral cortex (analogous to passing through a prism and via refraction rendering the colour spectrum). Closure of the colour continuum occurs between infrared an ultraviolet frequencies. This is a case in point.... we do not see light in its dynamic state, only in its static state.... with a resulting information loss at the transition point between IR and UV.

I am an information systems specialist, and a such I do not subscribe to any scientific paradigm in its entirety. I propose that there is much we can learn from interdisciplinary studies... a fact which scientists are generally loathe to accept, often being committed to their own specific intellectual paradigm. The exception is at the leading edge of various disciplines... and is NOT what is taught in the institutionalized backwaters of even the best universities.

Thoughts?

Lesslie

Me again...

BTW, on the subject of "why time flies"... Space/time is a construct of the mind, not an objective phenomenon. It's more like a "template" ... one with which we observe the details of both scientific experiments and daily life. It does not exist in its own right, as separate from the observation that manifests it in the mind. Thus different cultures, different species, different individuals, and indeed different events observed by a single individual, register time ... as CHANGES in spacial references ... in differing ways. In the total absence of all movement (never fully achievable in a living system, only asymptotically small in certain altered states of consciousness) space/time would cease to exist. Objective and subjective speed are correlated but distinctly different. Quantum speed is measured differently from inter-stellar speed (etc, etc) because we use different kinds of instumentation (calibrated to register drastically different scales of spatial-temporal change). The bottom line ... the concept of speed must be indexed both to the point of reference (the spatial location of the observer) and to the measurement system used to observe the specific phenomenon of interest. I think this is what the Heisenberg paradox is about (either position or vector, but not both within the same observation).... another "lossy" situation, information-wise.

Thoughts?

Lesslie

One last post …. re the mass/energy field mentioned in my last …

I conceive this mass/energy entity as an amorphous field (having no extrinsic observable phenomena per se), one which is in a continual state of flux. The flux in this field can be described in various terms depending on the semantics of the template provided in the scientific paradigm within which the phenomenal information is recognized and recorded. In the paradigm of biological systems, for example, this flux would be termed “life”. In the paradigm of an electro-chemical system it would be termed dynamic equilibrium…. which is a much more evocative designation for our purposes here, as I will cover further below.

This field/flux can be likened to the dualistic tension represented in the image of the Taoist yin/yang mandala. However the static aspect of the Taoist mandala must be “energized” by a sort of spinning motion (both laterally and horizontally), and the dimensionality must not be seen as Euclidean (order 3) but rather infinite. The polar extremities, represented in the mandala as the two black and white tear-shaped areas, are not explicitly attainable. Rather the polar opposites in the flux/field have as many gradations (scalar values) between them as the measurement system employed during a specific observation allows. Also, to ensure a “counterpoint tension” is maintained within the flux/field, each polarity is modified by its opposite (represented as the “dot” within each “tear” of the mandala). This indicates that the circular/spiral dynamic equilibrium exists not only between the two polarities, but also between its inner and outer loci (the hypothetical centre and circumference of the mandala image).

The principles of quantum mechanics dictate that during a specific observation (i.e. at a specific point in space/time) the dynamic aspect of this intrinsic equilibrium is not only rendered static… it is also altered by the observational act. Thus the flux/field could never be known in its entirety, were it not for the it’s holographic nature (as established by photon behaviour in quantum mechanics). Since the observer is part of the universe that is itself under observation, at some generalized level of interpretation the flux/field actually can be seen to monitor itself. At this level (which is unknowable in the same sense as the results of a specific observation are knowable), all information is available to all components of the universal system simultaneously. Thus at this level space and time cease to be differentiated (i.e. are rendered synonymous with each other)…. very much like the concept in Einstein’s relativistic model that as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down.

The mathematics of sets theory and Boolean logic are frequently used to define the properties of an information system domain. These tools can be generalized to effectively represent important abstract properties of a “universal domain” (i.e. the intrinsic characteristics of this flux/field). This is particularly the case in regard to it’s self-referential nature, using a special kind of set relationship known as recursivity.

Thoughts?

Why Does Time Fly?

Forum Options

Register