šŸ›”ļø Debate What is the very nature of Time?

Quantum P. Newtonian Am.T said:
This is what I don't understand you're saying that time began with the big bang but how could there be a big bang without there first being the energy required to cause that big bang? In other words how can there be physical spacial area without there first being the energy which causes the physical manifestation of that physical spacial area? And how can there be polarized quantum fluctuating matter without there first being the energy which causes the physical manifestation of that polarized quantum fluctuating matter? Second I did not say that subatomic particles are made of/from photons I said it is to my understanding that they are caused through the process of changing the quantum state of photons of raw particle causing energy. If I remember this properly Einstein called them photons of quanta.
Click to expand...
8297
 
Harte said:
Okay:

Source


source

Harte
Click to expand...

Ref your last sentence Hartey...I recall about 20 years ago, a TV program where some guys were deep underground picking up particles that only came into existence for fractions of a second....They theorised that those particles were coming from the future and then going into the past...They only saw them for a brief period of time, when they appeared into the present moment :cool:..

I presume one of the reasons why CERN is 575 feet below ground, is to eliminate unwanted particles...But then again, what if they were picking up those particles i mentioned, within the two colliding beams that circulate CERN?...Maybe Naval Captain Higgs and his First Class Boson (word play Hartey), might have something to say about that :D..
 
TimeFlipper said:
Ref your last sentence Hartey...I recall about 20 years ago, a TV program where some guys were deep underground picking up particles that only came into existence for fractions of a second....They theorised that those particles were coming from the future and then going into the past...They only saw them for a brief period of time, when they appeared into the present moment :cool:..

I presume one of the reasons why CERN is 575 feet below ground, is to eliminate unwanted particles...But then again, what if they were picking up those particles i mentioned, within the two colliding beams that circulate CERN?...Maybe Naval Captain Higgs and his First Class Boson (word play Hartey), might have something to say about that :D..
Click to expand...
I think you are talking about neutrinos.
There are areas of quantum physics that seem to show that quantium states of subatomic particles are influenced by future events, so there may be some validity to what you remember. But I think what you're remembering is what's called superposition. That's where a particle assumes the quantum state of another particle. There are three kinds of neutrinos, but every neutrino assumes the quantum state of the other two kinds, morphing from one kind into another.

But you can bet that neutrinos aren't interfering or in any way reacting with the protons (and ionized nuclei) in the beams used by Cern. Neutrinos don't interact with anything. WAY too small and practically massless. That's why detectors have to be far underground, to try and eliminate "hits" caused by other particles.

Harte
 
Treversal said:
Wouldn`t infinity imply that every possible event must happen an infinite number of times?
Click to expand...
No.
Infinity doesn't imply everything. For a trivial example, think of the set of whole numbers. It's infinite, right?
It doesn't contain the number 2/3, does it.

Harte
 
Treversal said:
W/a multi-verse, multiple universes, etc, it`s not even a hypothesis so how can you say probability?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said if the probability of an event is zero, then it's not going to happen in any universe. Of course, it depends upon what you mean by probability. I mean here the probability of something happening at all. If the probability of a purple unicorn appearing from nothing on the next DNC debate stage is zero, then in no universe is that going to happen. I guess you'd have to distinguish between the probability of something happening in this universe from the probability of something happening at all (every universe). But I meant the latter.

Also, the very idea of a multiverse is a hypothesis for which we currently have no means to test. So if you are saying that multiple universes is not a hypothesis, then you are wrong. I personally do not believe there is a multiverse. There's no evidence of it and parsimony to my mind would indicate only one universe. If somebody can prove more than one universe, then I'd change my mind.
 
@Kairos but going back to one of your other posts.

if its not discovered and at this time how can you rule out a multiverse?

At some point in the future are you not predicting the future in saying it has to be proven today?

anyway whats your credentials for proving otherwise?
 

Top