🛡️ Debate What is the very nature of Time?

TimeFlipper said:
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..
Click to expand...
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
 
Harte said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
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? :)..
 
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?
 
Quantum P. Newtonian Am.T said:
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?
Click to expand...


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