Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

My daydream about time and the origin of the universe. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    I'm quite aware I'm not going to discover anything, I just wanted to ascertain whether or not there was a scrap of validity in my thinking. I'm also quite aware of the scientific process. The fact is that I find the subject fascinating and unfortunately this isn't my field of study or area of expertise. I realise physics is something one must devote their life to in order to make any significant break-through and unfortunately my life is invested elsewhere. But still it doesn't change my interest in the subject.
    Well, if you wanted to get a basic understanding, khanacademy is probably a good place to start if you don't want to fork out and commit to a "real" course. But you're very unlikely to get to the level where you can assess the likelihood of hypotheses or ideas as advanced as these without doing an advanced course from an accredited institution.

    If you want something for the layman, there are a whole host of pop-science books out there on quantum physics, relativity, the start of the universe etc. I don't recommend them, however, since I'm of the view that "simplifying" most concepts in physics simply amounts to making them wrong. You really can't understand it properly without understanding the very complicated mathematics and physical principles behind it all. In my opinion, pop-science books on physics are the reason we get ridiculous worldviews and beliefs like "quantum mysticism" floating around. They are the reason for idiots like Deepak Chopra.

    To steal an analogy from Feynman, imagine asking a physicist how/why magnets attract and repel each other. Unless you have some knowledge of physics and mathematics, the best that can be done beyond saying "there is a force/field that causes the force" is to describe the situation using analogies. But the problem is that we are talking about fundamental concepts here, and hence analogies become circular out of necessity. For example, the physicist might explain the attraction of magnets by saying it is like there is an elastic band pulling them together. But then you could simply keep asking about how/why elastic bands act the way they do, and eventually the physicist would have to resort to electromagnetism - the very phenomenon which he was trying to explain in the first instance.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I think you would make a good philosophy/metaphysics student (I study philosophy)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    So I couldn't sleep last night so I ended up staring at the ceiling pondering what is time and how did the universe come to be. You'll notice I have very little knowledge of quantum physics or any related science so please don't blast me for it. I'm sure someone else has come up with this before so I'm just curious what the science buffs of TSR will think about it.

    So we all know that thing about moving faster than the speed of light will allow you to travel in time. I would assume that applies to everything, even quantum particles which move extremely fast. From that we can conclude that rapid particle movement is what gives us the effect of time. Hence why frozen objects seem stuck in time, cold and heat is just a different of particle movement.

    So with that consider the nature of space and zero gravity, If you throw a ball through space it will keep moving forever unless it hits something. From that you can quite safely conclude that the universe and its contents could have formed over a long period of time from tiny particles moving at slow speeds, hitting other particles. I'm talking about before the big bang by the way. I'm assuming the big bang we know about followed a series of other smaller big bangs because particles the size I am talking about wouldn't be able to create anything compared to the size of the things we know to exist in space in our timescale (of the last few million years).

    So the universe must have had a beginning right? Not necessarily, if the existence of the universe is a series of kinetic forces/collisions/chemical reactions constantly following a series of smaller ones then they just keep getting smaller. For the same reason we consider 0.333 recurring to be less than 0.334 despite the former being an infinite number.

    So basically time itself is created by particle movement, hence the universe is almost expanding. If we were somehow able to travel the enormous and unfathomable distance of the universe as we know it, eventually what we'd encounter is nothing, just empty space with no planets or rocks. Although our presence there would then cause movement, and then time would start moving because we are moving within that space.

    Please poke holes in my fallacious theory, I just wanted to type this whole thing out and get some opinions before I go back to sleep and end up forgetting the whole thing.
    And yet if we don't move time still elapses for us, yet for a particle of light which travels at the speed of light no time elapses? Doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Time is a human construct to order something that actually exists. It is self evident that if I drop one ball, then when it hits the ground drop a second ball, the second ball hit the ground after the first. We can describe this accurately with time.

    I may be wrong about this (can someone clarify?), but 1/3 is smaller than 0.334, if only by an infinitesimal amount.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    For the same reason we consider 0.333 recurring to be less than 0.334 despite the former being an infinite number.
    Gaaahhh sorry mate, but I don't think you understand recurring decimals. Didn't say anything before but I can't just leave this.
    0.33333...
    0.334
    There is always 0.000666666666666666666666... difference. Of course they are different. To say otherwise would be bizarre.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The thing that separates time from space is it's metric state (physicists refer to this as the 'minus sign') meaning that you can stand still in space and move freely in any direction in space, but you can't with time.

    Einstein: "The only reason for time is so everything doesn't happen at once."


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Einstein: "The only reason for time is so everything doesn't happen at once."
    Actually I think it was Ray Cummings
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    Time is a human construct to order something that actually exists.
    If that's the case, then why does velocity (which is dependent on a change in time) have universal limits to prevent the violation of causality? If time is a solely human concept, is causality tied to our existence?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    also my pedantry gland is secreting

    0.333... isn't an infinite number. It's 1/3.

    0.333...<0.334 because we can prove that 0.334-0.333...>0
    0.334-0.333...= 334/1000 - 1/3 = 1002/3000 - 1000/3000 = 1/1500 > 0
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RunningScotsman)
    Actually I think it was Ray Cummings
    I've searched it, I'm positive it was Einstein.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    So we all know that thing about moving faster than the speed of light will allow you to travel in time
    Guys stop being mean he is allowed to think... He isn't trying to solve the mysteries of the universe, he just had a thought and wanted to share it. The sentence I've quoted above is wrong, time slows down relative to another object the faster you go sure, and once you reach the speed of light time stops completely, but if you go faster than the speed of light which is impossible... I'm telling you right now it simply is not possible.... but if you could then time would infact become imaginary and this wouldn't lead you to travel backwards in time.

    I'm not sure if this is what you mean by time travel but yes you can time travel in the forward direction, but if you go faster than light you will not start going backwards in time. I can prove it with equations but I cba to type them, if you want I can PM you or just quote me here and I'll show you why time becomes imaginary.

    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    Time is nothing but a human construct measurement created to help us organise things more easily.

    Edit, also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
    This is incorrect also. The time on your watch is man made of course but space and time are interconnected hense space-time. Without time the universe cannot exist let alone undergo change. Sinse space and time are interconnected you can regard time as being a physical object which is subject to change just as space is subject to change (gravity).

    Einstein used to think time was the fundamental constant but it's not... light is.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
    This is incorrect also. The time on your watch is man made of course but space and time are interconnected hense space-time. Without time the universe cannot exist let alone undergo change. Sinse space and time are interconnected you can regard time as being a physical object which is subject which is subject to change just as space is subject to change (gravity).

    Einstein used to think time was the fundamental constant but it's not... light is.
    Yes, which is what I was getting at. Time, by itself, does not really exist.


    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I often wonder if time really exists in a linear fashion. Supposing it goes round and round ? There would be no beginning and no end !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Simpsons did it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I want some of whatever this guy is taking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I've searched it, I'm positive it was Einstein
    Ray Cummings wrote it in 1922 in "The Girl in the Golden Atom":
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t...ing%22&f=false

    Its possible Einstein said it as well, or paraphrased it. Do you know when he said it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    Yes, which is what I was getting at. Time, by itself, does not really exist.
    Sorry I'm confused are you saying that "clock" time does not exist or space-time does not exist? You cannot have space without time and you cannot have time with space so can you explain what you mean exactly?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
    Sorry I'm confused are you saying that "clock" time does not exist or space-time does not exist? You cannot have space without time and you cannot have time with space so can you explain what you mean exactly?
    That time as a singular thing in terms of the creation, development and ultimately the demise of the universe isn't really relevant. Clock time doesn't affect the universe. It is only really relevant on Earth.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    That time as a singular thing in terms of the creation, development and ultimately the demise of the universe isn't really relevant. Clock time doesn't affect the universe. It is only really relevant on Earth.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    The time on your clock is man made. A second is only a second because we've established that duration of time to be 1 second. I suggest you read into space-time because time is just as real as the universe itself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
    The time on your clock is man made. A second is only a second because we've established that duration of time to be 1 second. I suggest you read into space-time because time is just as real as the universe itself.
    Yeah, I know. Lol.

    I think we have a communication breakdown and are both essentially getting at the same thing here.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.