One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
“Why Space and Time Might Be an Illusion”
Page 1 of 2 next>
Dec 3, 2018 13:45:32   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 


“Why Space and Time Might Be an Illusion”
by George Musser

"This year the world of physics celebrated the 102nd anniversary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which forms the foundation of our modern understanding of the force of gravity. Einstein’s creation has been the ultimate antidote to a blasé, seen-it-all attitude that sometimes infects even scientists. It opened up a universe that never ceases to surprise — black holes, the big bang, dark energy, gravitational waves — jolting us out of the grooves of thought that we fall into all too easily.

Yet the ink was barely dry on the theory when Einstein saw a problem. It contradicted quantum mechanics, suggesting that physicists needed an even deeper theory to unify these two pillars of fundamental physics. In June 1916 Einstein wrote: “Quantum theory would have to modify not only Maxwellian electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation.” That was quite an insight when you consider that quantum theory didn’t even exist yet. It was still a nebulous idea that wouldn’t coalesce for another decade. So, we have been celebrating the centenary not only of Einstein’s theory, but also of the long slog to supersede it.

Whereas general relativity took a single genius a decade to create, that deeper theory — known as a quantum theory of gravity — has flummoxed generations of geniuses for a century. In part, physicists are victims of their past successes: when you accomplish anything in life, you raise the bar, making it that much harder to take the next step. But quantum gravity also poses difficulties that are unique in the history of science. A theory of gravity is also a theory of space and time — that was Einstein’s great insight. Yet physicists have always formulated their theories within space and time.

So, a theory of gravity swallows its own tail. It supposes, for example, that the passage of time varies, but the word “varies” connotes a temporal process. If time is varying, then the very standard by which it is varying also varies. The whole situation threatens to become paradoxical. This conceptual circularity creates weird mathematical difficulties. For instance, the little ‘t’ that physicists use to denote time drops out of their equations, leaving them at a loss to explain change in the world. To describe what happens, physicists need to go beyond space and time. And what is that supposed to mean? Such an idea forces us into (literally) uncharted territory.

String theory, loop quantum gravity, causal-set theory: these are just a few of the approaches that theorists have taken. Naturally, proponents of each are convinced the others are misguided or even downright unscientific. But when you take a step back from the dispute, you notice all agree on one essential lesson: the space-time that we inhabit is a construction. It is not fundamental to nature, but emerges from a deeper level of reality. In some way or other, it consists of primitive building blocks — “atoms” of space — and takes on its familiar properties from how those building blocks are assembled.

These “atoms” are clearly nothing like ordinary atoms such as hydrogen or oxygen. For one thing, they are not tiny, because the word “tiny” is a spatial description and these atoms are supposed to create space, not presuppose it. Yet many of the same principles apply. Water, for example, consists of H2O molecules. It can undergo a change of state — freezing or boiling — as those molecules rearrange themselves into new structures. The same might be true of space. If those atoms can assemble themselves into space, presumably they could also reassemble into other structures. And that might explain many of the mysteries of modern physics.

Consider black holes. If, God forbid, you fell into one, Einstein’s theory predicts your timeline would end. You would die, but that’d be the least of it. The atoms in your body would simply cease to be. Instead of ashes to ashes, you’d have ashes to ... nothingness. The new emergent space-time theories suggest a different picture in which space undergoes a change of state in a black hole. The black hole does not have an interior volume; its perimeter marks where space melts. The result is a new state that is no longer spatial and is scarcely even imaginable in human terms. If you fell in, you would probably still die, but the atoms in your body would still carry on in some new form.

Consider, also, the big bang. Like black holes, it has always posed something of a paradox. The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time. According to those laws, something must precede the big bang to set it into motion. Yet nothing is supposed to precede it. A way out of the paradox is to think of the big bang not as the beginning but as a t***sition, when space crystallized from a primeval state of spacelessness.

Finally, consider the mysterious phenomena of quantum nonlocality — what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Two or more particles can act in a coordinated way, no matter how far apart they may be, and they do so without sending out a sound wave, beaming a radio signal or otherwise communicating across the gap that separates them. The particles behave as though they are not, in fact, separated. And one possible explanation is that the particles are rooted in the deeper level of reality where distance has no meaning.

To be sure, this is all still speculation — but it is constrained speculation. Scientists didn’t dream up these ideas over drinks after work. They were driven to them by combining the principles of Einstein’s theory and of quantum theory and seeing where the path takes them. By the very nature of research, we don’t know what these ideas mean or even if they’re right. But we do know that humans have not yet grasped all there is to grasp about the universe. And when we do take the next step, the effects will surely propagate into our broader culture. Just as learning something new makes you a better person, so too will learning something new about the universe propel humanity to the next level.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 13:47:10   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
pafret wrote:


“Why Space and Time Might Be an Illusion”
by George Musser

"This year the world of physics celebrated the 102nd anniversary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which forms the foundation of our modern understanding of the force of gravity. Einstein’s creation has been the ultimate antidote to a blasé, seen-it-all attitude that sometimes infects even scientists. It opened up a universe that never ceases to surprise — black holes, the big bang, dark energy, gravitational waves — jolting us out of the grooves of thought that we fall into all too easily.

Yet the ink was barely dry on the theory when Einstein saw a problem. It contradicted quantum mechanics, suggesting that physicists needed an even deeper theory to unify these two pillars of fundamental physics. In June 1916 Einstein wrote: “Quantum theory would have to modify not only Maxwellian electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation.” That was quite an insight when you consider that quantum theory didn’t even exist yet. It was still a nebulous idea that wouldn’t coalesce for another decade. So, we have been celebrating the centenary not only of Einstein’s theory, but also of the long slog to supersede it.

Whereas general relativity took a single genius a decade to create, that deeper theory — known as a quantum theory of gravity — has flummoxed generations of geniuses for a century. In part, physicists are victims of their past successes: when you accomplish anything in life, you raise the bar, making it that much harder to take the next step. But quantum gravity also poses difficulties that are unique in the history of science. A theory of gravity is also a theory of space and time — that was Einstein’s great insight. Yet physicists have always formulated their theories within space and time.

So, a theory of gravity swallows its own tail. It supposes, for example, that the passage of time varies, but the word “varies” connotes a temporal process. If time is varying, then the very standard by which it is varying also varies. The whole situation threatens to become paradoxical. This conceptual circularity creates weird mathematical difficulties. For instance, the little ‘t’ that physicists use to denote time drops out of their equations, leaving them at a loss to explain change in the world. To describe what happens, physicists need to go beyond space and time. And what is that supposed to mean? Such an idea forces us into (literally) uncharted territory.

String theory, loop quantum gravity, causal-set theory: these are just a few of the approaches that theorists have taken. Naturally, proponents of each are convinced the others are misguided or even downright unscientific. But when you take a step back from the dispute, you notice all agree on one essential lesson: the space-time that we inhabit is a construction. It is not fundamental to nature, but emerges from a deeper level of reality. In some way or other, it consists of primitive building blocks — “atoms” of space — and takes on its familiar properties from how those building blocks are assembled.

These “atoms” are clearly nothing like ordinary atoms such as hydrogen or oxygen. For one thing, they are not tiny, because the word “tiny” is a spatial description and these atoms are supposed to create space, not presuppose it. Yet many of the same principles apply. Water, for example, consists of H2O molecules. It can undergo a change of state — freezing or boiling — as those molecules rearrange themselves into new structures. The same might be true of space. If those atoms can assemble themselves into space, presumably they could also reassemble into other structures. And that might explain many of the mysteries of modern physics.

Consider black holes. If, God forbid, you fell into one, Einstein’s theory predicts your timeline would end. You would die, but that’d be the least of it. The atoms in your body would simply cease to be. Instead of ashes to ashes, you’d have ashes to ... nothingness. The new emergent space-time theories suggest a different picture in which space undergoes a change of state in a black hole. The black hole does not have an interior volume; its perimeter marks where space melts. The result is a new state that is no longer spatial and is scarcely even imaginable in human terms. If you fell in, you would probably still die, but the atoms in your body would still carry on in some new form.

Consider, also, the big bang. Like black holes, it has always posed something of a paradox. The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time. According to those laws, something must precede the big bang to set it into motion. Yet nothing is supposed to precede it. A way out of the paradox is to think of the big bang not as the beginning but as a t***sition, when space crystallized from a primeval state of spacelessness.

Finally, consider the mysterious phenomena of quantum nonlocality — what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Two or more particles can act in a coordinated way, no matter how far apart they may be, and they do so without sending out a sound wave, beaming a radio signal or otherwise communicating across the gap that separates them. The particles behave as though they are not, in fact, separated. And one possible explanation is that the particles are rooted in the deeper level of reality where distance has no meaning.

To be sure, this is all still speculation — but it is constrained speculation. Scientists didn’t dream up these ideas over drinks after work. They were driven to them by combining the principles of Einstein’s theory and of quantum theory and seeing where the path takes them. By the very nature of research, we don’t know what these ideas mean or even if they’re right. But we do know that humans have not yet grasped all there is to grasp about the universe. And when we do take the next step, the effects will surely propagate into our broader culture. Just as learning something new makes you a better person, so too will learning something new about the universe propel humanity to the next level.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
img https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OiHasB-WmWg/VyDBFa... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 13:50:50   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
pafret wrote:


“Why Space and Time Might Be an Illusion”
by George Musser

"This year the world of physics celebrated the 102nd anniversary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which forms the foundation of our modern understanding of the force of gravity. Einstein’s creation has been the ultimate antidote to a blasé, seen-it-all attitude that sometimes infects even scientists. It opened up a universe that never ceases to surprise — black holes, the big bang, dark energy, gravitational waves — jolting us out of the grooves of thought that we fall into all too easily.

Yet the ink was barely dry on the theory when Einstein saw a problem. It contradicted quantum mechanics, suggesting that physicists needed an even deeper theory to unify these two pillars of fundamental physics. In June 1916 Einstein wrote: “Quantum theory would have to modify not only Maxwellian electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation.” That was quite an insight when you consider that quantum theory didn’t even exist yet. It was still a nebulous idea that wouldn’t coalesce for another decade. So, we have been celebrating the centenary not only of Einstein’s theory, but also of the long slog to supersede it.

Whereas general relativity took a single genius a decade to create, that deeper theory — known as a quantum theory of gravity — has flummoxed generations of geniuses for a century. In part, physicists are victims of their past successes: when you accomplish anything in life, you raise the bar, making it that much harder to take the next step. But quantum gravity also poses difficulties that are unique in the history of science. A theory of gravity is also a theory of space and time — that was Einstein’s great insight. Yet physicists have always formulated their theories within space and time.

So, a theory of gravity swallows its own tail. It supposes, for example, that the passage of time varies, but the word “varies” connotes a temporal process. If time is varying, then the very standard by which it is varying also varies. The whole situation threatens to become paradoxical. This conceptual circularity creates weird mathematical difficulties. For instance, the little ‘t’ that physicists use to denote time drops out of their equations, leaving them at a loss to explain change in the world. To describe what happens, physicists need to go beyond space and time. And what is that supposed to mean? Such an idea forces us into (literally) uncharted territory.

String theory, loop quantum gravity, causal-set theory: these are just a few of the approaches that theorists have taken. Naturally, proponents of each are convinced the others are misguided or even downright unscientific. But when you take a step back from the dispute, you notice all agree on one essential lesson: the space-time that we inhabit is a construction. It is not fundamental to nature, but emerges from a deeper level of reality. In some way or other, it consists of primitive building blocks — “atoms” of space — and takes on its familiar properties from how those building blocks are assembled.

These “atoms” are clearly nothing like ordinary atoms such as hydrogen or oxygen. For one thing, they are not tiny, because the word “tiny” is a spatial description and these atoms are supposed to create space, not presuppose it. Yet many of the same principles apply. Water, for example, consists of H2O molecules. It can undergo a change of state — freezing or boiling — as those molecules rearrange themselves into new structures. The same might be true of space. If those atoms can assemble themselves into space, presumably they could also reassemble into other structures. And that might explain many of the mysteries of modern physics.

Consider black holes. If, God forbid, you fell into one, Einstein’s theory predicts your timeline would end. You would die, but that’d be the least of it. The atoms in your body would simply cease to be. Instead of ashes to ashes, you’d have ashes to ... nothingness. The new emergent space-time theories suggest a different picture in which space undergoes a change of state in a black hole. The black hole does not have an interior volume; its perimeter marks where space melts. The result is a new state that is no longer spatial and is scarcely even imaginable in human terms. If you fell in, you would probably still die, but the atoms in your body would still carry on in some new form.

Consider, also, the big bang. Like black holes, it has always posed something of a paradox. The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time. According to those laws, something must precede the big bang to set it into motion. Yet nothing is supposed to precede it. A way out of the paradox is to think of the big bang not as the beginning but as a t***sition, when space crystallized from a primeval state of spacelessness.

Finally, consider the mysterious phenomena of quantum nonlocality — what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Two or more particles can act in a coordinated way, no matter how far apart they may be, and they do so without sending out a sound wave, beaming a radio signal or otherwise communicating across the gap that separates them. The particles behave as though they are not, in fact, separated. And one possible explanation is that the particles are rooted in the deeper level of reality where distance has no meaning.

To be sure, this is all still speculation — but it is constrained speculation. Scientists didn’t dream up these ideas over drinks after work. They were driven to them by combining the principles of Einstein’s theory and of quantum theory and seeing where the path takes them. By the very nature of research, we don’t know what these ideas mean or even if they’re right. But we do know that humans have not yet grasped all there is to grasp about the universe. And when we do take the next step, the effects will surely propagate into our broader culture. Just as learning something new makes you a better person, so too will learning something new about the universe propel humanity to the next level.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
img https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OiHasB-WmWg/VyDBFa... (show quote)




If space doesn't go on forever, where is the wall it comes up against.. Where and what is the foundation and what is it supported by. It doesn't make sense that it comes to an end..

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 13:54:21   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
pafret wrote:


“Why Space and Time Might Be an Illusion”
by George Musser

"This year the world of physics celebrated the 102nd anniversary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which forms the foundation of our modern understanding of the force of gravity. Einstein’s creation has been the ultimate antidote to a blasé, seen-it-all attitude that sometimes infects even scientists. It opened up a universe that never ceases to surprise — black holes, the big bang, dark energy, gravitational waves — jolting us out of the grooves of thought that we fall into all too easily.

Yet the ink was barely dry on the theory when Einstein saw a problem. It contradicted quantum mechanics, suggesting that physicists needed an even deeper theory to unify these two pillars of fundamental physics. In June 1916 Einstein wrote: “Quantum theory would have to modify not only Maxwellian electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation.” That was quite an insight when you consider that quantum theory didn’t even exist yet. It was still a nebulous idea that wouldn’t coalesce for another decade. So, we have been celebrating the centenary not only of Einstein’s theory, but also of the long slog to supersede it.

Whereas general relativity took a single genius a decade to create, that deeper theory — known as a quantum theory of gravity — has flummoxed generations of geniuses for a century. In part, physicists are victims of their past successes: when you accomplish anything in life, you raise the bar, making it that much harder to take the next step. But quantum gravity also poses difficulties that are unique in the history of science. A theory of gravity is also a theory of space and time — that was Einstein’s great insight. Yet physicists have always formulated their theories within space and time.

So, a theory of gravity swallows its own tail. It supposes, for example, that the passage of time varies, but the word “varies” connotes a temporal process. If time is varying, then the very standard by which it is varying also varies. The whole situation threatens to become paradoxical. This conceptual circularity creates weird mathematical difficulties. For instance, the little ‘t’ that physicists use to denote time drops out of their equations, leaving them at a loss to explain change in the world. To describe what happens, physicists need to go beyond space and time. And what is that supposed to mean? Such an idea forces us into (literally) uncharted territory.

String theory, loop quantum gravity, causal-set theory: these are just a few of the approaches that theorists have taken. Naturally, proponents of each are convinced the others are misguided or even downright unscientific. But when you take a step back from the dispute, you notice all agree on one essential lesson: the space-time that we inhabit is a construction. It is not fundamental to nature, but emerges from a deeper level of reality. In some way or other, it consists of primitive building blocks — “atoms” of space — and takes on its familiar properties from how those building blocks are assembled.

These “atoms” are clearly nothing like ordinary atoms such as hydrogen or oxygen. For one thing, they are not tiny, because the word “tiny” is a spatial description and these atoms are supposed to create space, not presuppose it. Yet many of the same principles apply. Water, for example, consists of H2O molecules. It can undergo a change of state — freezing or boiling — as those molecules rearrange themselves into new structures. The same might be true of space. If those atoms can assemble themselves into space, presumably they could also reassemble into other structures. And that might explain many of the mysteries of modern physics.

Consider black holes. If, God forbid, you fell into one, Einstein’s theory predicts your timeline would end. You would die, but that’d be the least of it. The atoms in your body would simply cease to be. Instead of ashes to ashes, you’d have ashes to ... nothingness. The new emergent space-time theories suggest a different picture in which space undergoes a change of state in a black hole. The black hole does not have an interior volume; its perimeter marks where space melts. The result is a new state that is no longer spatial and is scarcely even imaginable in human terms. If you fell in, you would probably still die, but the atoms in your body would still carry on in some new form.

Consider, also, the big bang. Like black holes, it has always posed something of a paradox. The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time. According to those laws, something must precede the big bang to set it into motion. Yet nothing is supposed to precede it. A way out of the paradox is to think of the big bang not as the beginning but as a t***sition, when space crystallized from a primeval state of spacelessness.

Finally, consider the mysterious phenomena of quantum nonlocality — what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Two or more particles can act in a coordinated way, no matter how far apart they may be, and they do so without sending out a sound wave, beaming a radio signal or otherwise communicating across the gap that separates them. The particles behave as though they are not, in fact, separated. And one possible explanation is that the particles are rooted in the deeper level of reality where distance has no meaning.

To be sure, this is all still speculation — but it is constrained speculation. Scientists didn’t dream up these ideas over drinks after work. They were driven to them by combining the principles of Einstein’s theory and of quantum theory and seeing where the path takes them. By the very nature of research, we don’t know what these ideas mean or even if they’re right. But we do know that humans have not yet grasped all there is to grasp about the universe. And when we do take the next step, the effects will surely propagate into our broader culture. Just as learning something new makes you a better person, so too will learning something new about the universe propel humanity to the next level.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
img https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OiHasB-WmWg/VyDBFa... (show quote)


"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

You should check out The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. It's an allegory about this little conundrum. Funny when science figures out what has been known for thousands of years.

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 14:22:05   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
BigMike wrote:
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

You should check out The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. It's an allegory about this little conundrum. Funny when science figures out what has been known for thousands of years.


Science is not the only font of t***h.

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 14:40:00   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
byronglimish wrote:
If space doesn't go on forever, where is the wall it comes up against.. Where and what is the foundation and what is it supported by. It doesn't make sense that it comes to an end..


Unless it's finite, of course. They'll fight over that one until they realize this universe is what it is because it's all we're able to perceive...which is finite. The real universe is much bigger than this one.

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 14:42:27   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
BigMike wrote:
Unless it's finite, of course. They'll fight over that one until they realize this universe is what it is because it's all we're able to perceive...which is finite. The real universe is much bigger than this one.


It is forever like the Creator.He has no beginning and no end.

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 15:06:22   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
byronglimish wrote:
It is forever like the Creator.He has no beginning and no end.


Beginnings and ends are constructs of time and are inherent in the material universe. The Creator being immaterial, exists outside of time. The Creator is immanent and exists in the eternal now.

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 15:27:32   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
pafret wrote:
Beginnings and ends are constructs of time and are inherent in the material universe. The Creator being immaterial, exists outside of time. The Creator is immanent and exists in the eternal now.


Absolutely!

Reply
Dec 3, 2018 15:53:28   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
pafret wrote:
Science is not the only font of t***h.


"The heavens declare the glory of God"

In the universe but outside of it...there's more. Much more.

Reply
Dec 4, 2018 13:17:06   #
F.D.R.
 
As a Catholic (3 times removed) growing up I've always had problems with this stuff. Science teaches us the 'big bang' and the Church argues that "you can't create something from nothing". Which always led me to reply to the priest or nun "Well where did God come from". Their pat answer is always "you must have faith". That was one of many questions I always had and still do in fact. The problem I face now is that at 76 I'll soon be finding out if there really is a God. My hope is that if there is He has a great sense of humor, then again that may not work out too well. I'll go with a "Loving God".

Reply
Dec 4, 2018 14:09:54   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
byronglimish wrote:
It is forever like the Creator.He has no beginning and no end.


You really should read The Great Divorce. It's short and great. "Brevity is the soul of wit"

Reply
Dec 4, 2018 14:12:09   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
F.D.R. wrote:
As a Catholic (3 times removed) growing up I've always had problems with this stuff. Science teaches us the 'big bang' and the Church argues that "you can't create something from nothing". Which always led me to reply to the priest or nun "Well where did God come from". Their pat answer is always "you must have faith". That was one of many questions I always had and still do in fact. The problem I face now is that at 76 I'll soon be finding out if there really is a God. My hope is that if there is He has a great sense of humor, then again that may not work out too well. I'll go with a "Loving God".
As a Catholic (3 times removed) growing up I've al... (show quote)


Really? The Vatican says God can't create something from nothing?

Well, aren't they smart!

Reply
Dec 4, 2018 15:24:07   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
BigMike wrote:
Really? The Vatican says God can't create something from nothing?

Well, aren't they smart!


How did you construe this "you can't create something from nothing" to mean God?

Reply
Dec 4, 2018 20:50:22   #
teabag09
 
Way too deep for me as I know there's only one way I'll know for sure. What I fight over is the tsh, tsh in the leaves a squirrel or something else makes. Will the sun come up enough before the sound leaves my area of attention. In the end it matters not if it's a squirrel or something else, all of my senses are alert and expectations are as high as they'll ever be. The conclusion really doesn't matter, I've been wholly alive for a few minutes that God has given me. Mike
BigMike wrote:
Unless it's finite, of course. They'll fight over that one until they realize this universe is what it is because it's all we're able to perceive...which is finite. The real universe is much bigger than this one.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.