Debate What is the very nature of Time?

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,488
Knowing Hartey like i do, he will say the video is rubbish, and the guy doesnt know what he is talking about!! :ROFLMAO:..
Harte is a bit stubborn. But I'm trying to abstain from picking on him. We'll just let the facts speak for themselves.
 

SanicHotdog

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
89
Time is an illusion, it does not pass....It's more like an energy image. There are infinite possibilities of what the energy images could be therefore meaning theres infinite timelines with infinite potentials with every timeline having an orgin point which is basically like a fixed point in time like for example the existance of the first atom in the multiverse or one of the first supernovas being created or the first ever universe being created etc. The timeline you expierience is relative to you meaning lots of possibilities are more likely to come out depending on how probable it would be for the observer to observe and experiance them also keep in mind that youre not the only observer in the given timeline there are others and they can do as much as you can do. So basically the way you experiance and observe the world is relative to you, so you can shift from one timeline to another without noticing it where for example you ate a sandwhich instead of cereal in the morning. Obviously there's a different version of you in a different timeline that ate the cereal instead of the sandwhich as well as you staying in the bed and getting something to eat a bit later in a different timeline and so on and so on ;Quantum Universes Theory in the nutshell. As for the energy images part...Every image of reality is basically energy turning into the stuff you know like atoms air etc basically your whole reality everything around you hence the term energy image and every energy image is being experianced by you the observer one after the other like a movie. Which is why your subconcious mind belives that there is only the present,because it actually is! So in conclusion time is an experiance of reality relative to the observer. For a simpler explanation here's a clip from doctor who where the doctor talks about time
 
Last edited:

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,362
Iam very pleased that you did bring up your previous posting where you, "reluctantly" did agree with me that Neutrinos obviously "do" exist, or they wouldnt have been detected!...So there we are, Neutrinos, according to your very good self, do interact with other particles...BUT WAIT, you then you go on to say TODAY that ( Even if it happened, that interaction would NOT be detectable, because of the difference in masses), and then you conclude by saying, (So essentially no. Neutrinos dont interact with anything. Any interactions are too rare for words like "interact") :LOL: You completely contradicted yourself Hartey!!! :eek::ROFLMAO:..

You appear to be in some form of crisis Hartey, after all you do hate to admit being being wrong...When Fermilab particle physicists, who are far more informed than you obviously are, tell me and anyone else who wishes to find out, that Neutrinos DO interact with other particles and therefore, if you still want to try and argue about it, take it up with them at Fermilab and all the resident Phd and Professors at that facility :D..
No, you can't read is all it is.
Or you think that neutrinos can be detected by banging them into one of a quintillion protons.

Harte
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
8,423
Harte is a bit stubborn. But I'm trying to abstain from picking on him. We'll just let the facts speak for themselves.
Its not picking on him, its educating him!! (Or at the very least, trying to educate him) :LOL:..
No, you can't read is all it is.
Or you think that neutrinos can be detected by banging them into one of a quintillion protons.

Harte
Even against overwhelming evidence, Hartey could never bring himself to admit that he was wrong, not the best of virtues for a school teacher ;) :ROFLMAO:..
 
Last edited:

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,362
I wasn't wrong.
Neutrinos interact with protons like one tiny pissant interacts with a Blue Whale.

You'll note that the posts were concerning CERN, not some lab set up to actually detect neutrinos.

Harte
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
8,423
I wasn't wrong.
Neutrinos interact with protons like one tiny pissant interacts with a Blue Whale.

You'll note that the posts were concerning CERN, not some lab set up to actually detect neutrinos.

Harte
You were wrong yet again Hartey, and i see again you contradict yourself when you say, Neutrinios interact with Protons like one tiny pissant interacts with a Blue Whale....But nevertheless there IS an interaction...I notice you try and use CERN in some vain and desperate attempt to debunk the fact that neutrinos do interact with other particles, even though CERN has far more advanced physicists than yourself, working for them ;):D.

Fermilab is a facility set up in 1967 to detect particles , in honour of the eminent physicist Enrico Fermi, who has one unenviable title of being the architect of the nuclear bomb....Fermilab built a massive detector called NOvA, that detects streams of neutrons passing through the Earth (video shown).....Iam also showing another video of Dr Don Lincoln, separate from the one that a member of ours posted earlier on this thread..

If you cannot see either video in your country these are the titles for each video on You Tube...."NOvA Detector Construction Timelapse", the second video called, "Everything you need to know about Fermilab"....Hopefully both videos will be displayed underneath this photo of Neutrinos interacting with other particles, derived from the NOvA Detector..

8306



 
Last edited:

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,362
You were wrong yet again Hartey, and i see again you contradict yourself when you say, Neutrinios interact with Protons like one tiny pissant interacts with a Blue Whale....But nevertheless there IS an interaction...I notice you try and use CERN in some vain and desperate attempt to debunk the fact that neutrinos do interact with other particles, even though CERN has far more advanced physicists than yourself, working for them ;):D.
No, the conversation was about CERN, not Fermilab.
It's you that's "trying to use" Fermilab here, when the subject was neutrinos interacting with CERN's proton beams.

There is no interaction between the neutrinos streaming in from space and CERN's proton beams.

Harte
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
8,423
No, the conversation was about CERN, not Fermilab.
It's you that's "trying to use" Fermilab here, when the subject was neutrinos interacting with CERN's proton beams.

There is no interaction between the neutrinos streaming in from space and CERN's proton beams.

Harte

Hartey, you are desperately trying to bring up a posting i made at the very start about CERN`s proton beams somehow interacting with neutrinos, that you are now using to try and explain that this is what you have been objecting to all along!......But the conversations changed and moved onto other matters that involved Neutrinos interacting with other particles, that you have been strenuously denying ever has happened..

Therefore Hartey, in light of all the evidence given to you, do you still deny that Neutrinos DO interact with other particles, or not?..
A simple Yes or No is all that is required from you, without trying to wriggle out of the topic, by quoting irrelevancies (y):)..
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,362
Hartey, you are desperately trying to bring up a posting i made at the very start about CERN`s proton beams somehow interacting with neutrinos, that you are now using to try and explain that this is what you have been objecting to all along!......But the conversations changed and moved onto other matters that involved Neutrinos interacting with other particles, that you have been strenuously denying ever has happened..
If you go back and look, you'll see that it was the CERN comment I was responding to. It is YOU that was trying to change the subject.

I have stated several times in this thread that neutrinos interact, though rarely (and that word "rarely"doesn't do justice to how truly rare such an interaction is.)
There will be no neutrino interference with any proton beam experiment.
Even the most efficient and sensitive neutrino detector detects less than a trillionth of the neutrinos that hit it.
And a proton beam is not a neutrino detector.

Harte
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
8,423
If you go back and look, you'll see that it was the CERN comment I was responding to. It is YOU that was trying to change the subject.

I have stated several times in this thread that neutrinos interact, though rarely (and that word "rarely"doesn't do justice to how truly rare such an interaction is.)
There will be no neutrino interference with any proton beam experiment.
Even the most efficient and sensitive neutrino detector detects less than a trillionth of the neutrinos that hit it.
And a proton beam is not a neutrino detector.

Harte
I didnt say a Proton Beam was a Neutrino detector...I mentioned the fact that Neutrinos pass through every part of the Earth every second, therefore logically could go straight through a CERN Proton beam....Nothing about the Proton Beam being a Neutrino detector...However, i hope you enjoyed the video clips and photo sent to you, and i wish you a very happy break from schoolwork during the next few weeks (y)..
 
Last edited:

deliriousScientist

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
31
According to my understand all the virtual particles which are popping in and out of the existence are actually being changed dimensionally like they are being changed from the higher dimension to the lower dimension as a result we perceive it so, they are simply travelling from one dimension to the other dimension in the attempt of the other dimensional being to interact with us it could be a possibility and if we give it a thought its not irrational. But the problem is that they are so hard to observe of studied because they are there only for a small period of time which depends on the total mass, For a total mass of m
t ~ \bar h / (m*c2)
where \bar h is the planck's constant over 2 * pi
we know the particles which pop up are set of antiparticle and particle, we can assume that the particle or 5th dimensional thing what ever it was when it reached our dimension got disintergrated into particle and anti particle because of the radiation present in our space.

Just presenting my thoughts will love to get corrected if im wrong After all im a newbie.
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
8,423
There is a slim possibility that Neutrinos arrive from the future, we then observe them in a moment of "now", and then they go into the past..
You might be pleased to know that Neutrinos are one of the most abundant particles in the Universe, and trillions of them pass through us humans every second of the day, apparently without causing us any harm what so ever....But do they have anything to do with "Time" per se? :)..
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
13
I have an off topic question. Does anybody know if there is anything inside of the present scientific way of thinking which describes the unification between and or amongst that which is physical/tangible, that which is mathematical, that which is possibility & that which is boolean?
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,093
I have an off topic question. Does anybody know if there is anything inside of the present scientific way of thinking which describes the unification between and or amongst that which is physical/tangible, that which is mathematical, that which is possibility & that which is boolean?

No. This is a blindspot for a lot of folks in physics. They tend to assume they are the most fundamental science. Theoretical computer science is the most fundamental science, dealing with the logical structure of reality, etc.

Some physicists attempt to figure out how to connect these things. David Deutsche comes to mind. You might enjoy reading a book titled Fabric of Reality.

I made it about half way through my PhD before my disability from military service caught up with me. My main focus in graduate school was artificial intelligence, but secondarily it was theoretical computer science, specifically the Theory A side of the house that deals with computational complexity. This issue of a missing connection between theoretical computer science and physics was, for me anyway, quite glaring early on.

For instance, we take for granted that the universe is even intelligible. That you can understand it (i.e. compute it) is really a consequence of the Church-Turing thesis. That life as it exists on Earth, a product of evolution as we know it, is a consequence of the recursion theorem. That is, a Turing machine is able to compute it's own encoding. This makes replication of theoretical machines possible, but also the ability for a machine to modify its encoding. That is essentially how biological reproduction and evolution work.

All these things the other sciences take for granted for the most part. They do not even consider the fact that the universe possesses a logical structure that makes their assumptions possible. It would be like a biologist just assuming gravity works and is not worthy of consideration as a more fundamental science -- that it just is.

This may be more of a deeper social problem relating to this weird dark age we are falling into. Most research papers published today are garbage. Most cannot be replicated by peers. We have American theoretical physics not even doing actual science anymore.

That is just my 2c, anyway.
 
Top