E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
WGBH
Our own planet twists the fabric of space-time, as shown in this animation from "The Fabric of the Cosmos."
Theoretical physicist Brian Greene admits that the world he describes in his new public-TV documentary series, "The Fabric of the Cosmos," is nothing like everyday experience. He's not even sure some of the things he describes are for real. For example, how can we possibly know other universes exist? Believe it or not, there are ways to find out.
The four-part "Nova" series makes its debut on PBS stations on Wednesday night with an episode that delves into the mysteriously substantial properties of empty space. "As it turns out, empty space is not nothing," the Columbia University professor says at the start of the show. "It's something. ... So real, that empty space itself helps shape everything in the world around us, and forms the very fabric of the cosmos."
That episode is already available for watching over iPhones, iPads and iPod Touch devices, as well as through Amazon Prime instant video. And if you miss seeing it on TV on Wednesday, you'll be able to catch up with it later online. Over succeeding weeks, Greene addresses not only space, but also the nature of time, the weird world of quantum mechanics and the possibility that our universe is just one bubble in the cosmic ocean (or raisin-bread loaf, or cheese wedge) of the multiverse.
Most of the substance in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" comes from Greene's book of the same name — but the part about the multiverse is more speculative, and is derived from Greene's follow-up book titled "The Hidden Reality." So of course that's where I had to start when I had a chat with Greene this week. Here's an edited transcript of the Q&A:
Cosmic Log: You must get this question all the time: What sort of proof do you have that any of this stuff is true?
Brian Greene: Well, the first three episodes — focusing on space, time and quantum mechanics — are much more closely tied to observations and experiments that have already been done. Much of what we describe in those programs is firmly rooted in science that is now largely accepted, even though it's weird. The fourth program is different in that regard, because as the last program in the series, it is looking beyond what we currently know, and surveying the landscape of possibilities that may in the future become accepted science. But not yet.
That's the multiverse. The multiverse is hard to test because we have access to this universe, and the theory proposes that there are other universes. We can't directly see them. We can't visit them. So how would you ever prove that idea?
In the program, we tackle that issue head-on. We describe how the multiverse naturally emerged from investigations that were rooted in observations and experiments: things to do with questions of the origin of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation, issues surrounding the puzzles of the big bang that can only be resolved through an inflationary view of the universe — which then yields the multiverse. But it won't be a satisfying explanation until we have some kind of direct confirmation.
To my mind, there's really one main way that could happen in the near future: In this proposal, different universes are like different expanding bubbles in some larger cosmic environment, like bubbles in a bubble bath. And when bubbles in a bubble bath expand, they can run into each other. Similarly, expanding universes can collide. The math indicates that if and when they do, the collision can send ripple-like disturbances through the microwave background radiation — the heat signature left over from the big bang. Those temperature differences of that particular sort are something that people are looking for. Some even claim they've seen the first tentative signals of the pattern. I'm highly skeptical about that, as everybody should be. But this could be a way to subject an idea that seems so foreign to an observational test.
Q: There's also been some talk about possible observations at the Large Hadron Collider that might suggest energy was "leaking" into other dimensions.
A: Yes, the notion that there are extra dimensions provides another way in which you could have other universes. Our universe might be one piece of bread in a big cosmic loaf, where the other "slices" are displaced from ours in a new direction, and are actually other universes. One way to check that idea would be to have a very energetic collision of particles in our universe, on our slice of space. The math shows it's possible for energy from those collisions to be ejected off our slice and migrate into the wider cosmos. We would notice that here by seeing that energy was not conserved. The energy after the collision would be a little less than it was before, because some of the energy would have crossed beyond our universe.
The point is that there are strange ideas about the universe that can nevertheless yield evidence, if we know where to look.
WGBH
In "The Fabric of the Cosmos," physicist Brian Greene graphically shows how the "Mona Lisa" ... and even Brian Greene ... could exist in more than one universe.
Q: One of the points of the series is that there's a deeper level to reality that what we see in everyday life, suggested by mathematics and physics. You use all sorts of animations and graphics to convey a sense of the underlying fabric of the cosmos. Do you have some favorite tricks that you've used in the TV series?
A: When you're dealing with subjects that are abstract ... these are mind-bending ideas, but what do you point the camera at? That's a funny thing, because everything we do takes place within space, within time. The concepts of space and time are so profoundly interwoven with reality as we know it, and yet science has revealed that there are features of space and time that run completely counter to our intuition — if you examine them on non-human scales, that is, scales that are very tiny, or very big, or when you're moving very fast, or if you're near a very strong, massive gravitational object.
Since we can't actually go to those exotic realms, we use animation to show what it would be like if you could shrink down to a billionth of a billionth of a meter ... or what it'd be like if you could travel at just a tiny fraction less than the speed of light ... or what it would be like to hover near the edge of a black hole and then come back to Earth. And we use animation to show the largest bird's-eye view of the cosmos if some of these multiverse ideas are correct. That really gives you a visceral understanding of the concepts.
Q: In fact Einstein used these types of thought experiments as well when he worked on his theories of relativity. He imagined what it would be like to ride a light wave, or to be falling through space in an elevator...
A: If only Einstein had the tools of animation, who knows how far he would have gone!
But there's a serious point here: When I do my own work, I'm constantly trying to build a mental image of what's going on. I'm never comfortable if my understanding is just completely in the equations. I feel like I have a storehouse of imagery built up just from the scientific research itself, which then leads to a form that will work in a book or on TV, which requires dressing it up in various ways. The whole idea of trying to visualize abstract equations is something that many of us do as part of our second nature, as researchers.
Q: Are there any favorite visualizations you keep coming back to?
A: Well, sure. A lot of my work has to do with extra dimensions of space. And I readily admit that I cannot picture anything more than three dimensions. So in my own work, I'm constantly doing what we do in the television program, which is to use lower dimensions as analogies — two-dimensional analogies that you can draw and manipulate. You use those as a guide to what's happening in higher-dimensional settings, where the equations of string theory reside.
You have to be careful. Sometimes a lower-dimensional analogy can be misleading. But you begin to build up the art of knowing what aspects of those visualizations you can trust when you're taking the leap to higher dimensions, and which aspects make you say, "No, no, no, that won't give me insight into my real interest."
Q: What do you hope viewers will take away from the show?
A: The main goal is for people to leave the program with a more complete sense that when it comes to the universe, what you see is not what you get. There are layers upon layers of reality that we are unaware of in everyday life. Intuition is built up from experience, and our experiences since we appeared on the planet has been largely dictated by what is beneficial for our survival. Understanding the quantum world, and understanding the possibility of other universes, and understanding the deep nature of time don't help you get the next meal. So there hasn't been any real evolutionary pressure for us to gain intuition about those things. But when we have the luxury of thinking about them mathematically, we learn that there's much more to the universe than meets the eye.
It's absolutely thrilling to learn that time for me is not the same as time for you; that out there in space, time is elapsing at a different rate near the edge of a black hole; that in the depths of space, there is unavoidable, ferocious quantum activity; that the world is governed by probabilities, not certainty; and then there's entanglement, the idea that what you do over here can have a direct effect on something over there. Wow!
What is space? "The Fabric of the Cosmos" explains that empty space is not really empty.
Wow indeed. The TV show is just the tip of the iceberg: The "Fabric of the Cosmos" website offers tons of videos, interactives, intereviews and links to online resources. More than a dozen "Cosmic Cafes" have been organized nationwide to talk about space, time and the multiverse. And the World Science Festival has organized a screening of the first episode at Columbia University at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday, to be followed by a forum featuring Greene, theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind and Nobel laureate Saul Perlmutter.
Even though the in-person event sold out almost immediately, you can still tune in to live streaming video and join the discussion via Facebook or Twitter. I have an alternate suggestion: Watch the episode in advance, or save it for later, and tune in to "Virtually Speaking Science" at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday for my chat with interstellar-travel expert Marc Millis. Then, at 10 p.m. ET, switch on over to the World Science Festival's forum.
More cosmic contemplations from Brian Greene:
- A black-hole fairy tale for kids
- 'Fabric' takes on the space-time continuum
- Hidden universes revealed
- String theory gets time on prime time
- Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy
- Space.com Q&A on 'The Fabric of the Cosmos'
- Read an excerpt from 'The Hidden Reality'
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
An example of how to understand multidementionality.
A point is non dementional. If you make a line at a right angle from the point you have the first dimention. When you extend the line at a right angle you have a plane, the second dimension. If you extend the plane at a right angle from itself you have a cube or the third dimension. If you move the cube at right angle to itself you have time, the fourth dimention, and so on.
Having an image byond the fourth dimention is probably going to be a subjective one. The important thing to understand is how the right angle movement keeps revealing another dimension.
What is the limit? I don't know.
Earthling Understanding of the most basic concepts or constructs of the Universe is so far off base...Everything we think we know about everything has been built supposition upon supposition with collusion and contusion, when the beginning foundation has been proven false we weave a new web to support the candy cane castle in mid air
I don't understand how you can move a cube at a right angle to itself, nor how it will alter its position in time, if you can move it at a right angle to itself. I guess I'm just a pedestrian intellect by comparison to the folks who do this work. :(
And, the neat thing is that the cube doesn't have to move spatially in order to move in time. Just staying at one location spatially will also allow it to move through time giving it that other dimension.
Other dimensions could be charge, color, texture, strangeness, etc.
Can a flat universe entity (3 dimensional, length, width and time) imagine a 4 dimensional universe (length, width, height, and time)?
I can understand time being a 4th dimension from common sense, in that if something doesn't exist for a measurable amount of time, then it doesn't exist. But even a conception of that 4th dimension is subjective.. not everyone bothers to make that conception because it's self evident to us that time moves inexorably forward - you just take it for granted.
My intention is not to draw a picture of dimensions beyond the third. Only to foster an understanding of how we can imagine what we are unable to see. Put another way, my offering is the extention of the geometrical process we can easily see in the first three dimensions.
Interesting that even Professor Greene admits that he cannot visualize what higher dimensional realities would look like, but yet follows with 'that's where the math lives' to paraphrase him a bit. This tells me nothing more than that the equations, which yield the solutions which indicate that some sort of 11 dimensional string space could be a possible way to satisfy some conditions on a piece of paper, are nothing but mathematical games played by physics grad students to amuse themselves. Just because something is a "solution" doesn't necessarily make it reality.
Well, I just hope some of these very clever people will find that Higgs boson in time to save us from global warming!
All very well and good, I suppose, but as Professor Greene said, it won't help you get dinner or avoid getting eaten by a saber tooth. I guess I should be grateful to live in a society rich enough to support people who speculate about the Cosmos for a living while the rest of us try and get by.
I think you severely overestimate how much these people are paid and severely underestimate their importance.
Without people working on these issues, we would not have GPS, cell phones, air travel and so on. Their work has helped advance our civilization and will continue to do so.
We could debate at length if those things you list really advance civilization.
No we can't Brian....they absolutely do advance civilization. You might not like the advance, but it is an advance.
I think it's a bit understated how much even just the above three have advanced civilation. If you want to get technical nothing has advanced civilation because we're one nuclear war away from being in the stone age. Still, it's what it is and we're a more "advanced" society because of these inventions, among others.
says the anti intellectuall!
"it won't help you get dinner or avoid getting eaten by a saber tooth"
While true - if it wasn't for smart people like this centuries ago who used resources to "think" about things and science to create things I wouldn't have access to high power rifles that could take down a sabertooth with a single shot should one show up outside my front door.
And of course that same rifle can be used to hunt for food and who do you think invented modern agriculture machines, pesticides, etc...? It was smart people who had the time and resources to do figure these things out.
Pure bunk!
The very nature of "bunk" calls it's purity into question. Perhaps in a parallel universe bunk can be purified but here it cannot. Your statement makes no sense. Indeed, bunk is one of the most unstable and impure substances known to man. I'm sure you've heard the theory that one man's bunk is another man's wisdom and so it is.
Please be more precise and scientific in your commentary, lest you be accused of bunkism yourself.
And please do not confuse common "bunk' with the more popular "bunk bed" which is something entirely different.
Thank you.
Bunk. Ah, another dimension! LOL
Any thoughts on the idea that everything (literally) is allocated an equal space-time total "velocity?" Â Looking at time dilation, as proven by jets and spacecraft whose clocks have slowed upon return relative to synchronized clocks on the Earth's surface, it seems to me that in order to have velocity in space one must give up a little velocity in time. Â At a relative standstill in the spatial dimensions one has maximum time velocity. Â The speed of light would be probably an asymptote of minimum time velocity, approaching zero.
Regarding time as the 4th dimension... is time orthogonal to the three space dimensions?
Kraut - what you described, in principle, is pretty much a summary of Einstein theory of relativity.
As for is the 4th dimension orthogonal to the three dimensions, no. Orthogonal is a description of space, and only can only apply to three dimensional space. The best description I've heard of the higher dimension is that for each higher dimension it is the fold of the lower dimension so that the endpoints meets. I.E a circle is two dimension line with the ends connecting. A sphere is a three dimensional circle with the endpoints of the circle touching.
from a mathmatical point of view I believe that time is considered orthagonal Kraut Dog. Its impossible to explain visually but nonetheless true.
mmmmmmm! kraut dogs!!!
Not to be a spoilsport, but what are the chances the human race remains in existence long enough to reach the next star system, never mind the next galaxy? Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across. Universe? I don't think so, Tim. Vger I blasted off in 1977. So far it has traveled 13 hrs 27 min 34 sec of light travel time. What this means is it will most likely take several generations of space travelers living and dying onboard to reach the next star. What "on earth" will they do when they get there, even in the unlikelyhood they survive the trip? Stop off at Mickey D's and Motel 6?
Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton of the U of NC Chapel Hill has been recognized for her spectacular work in the mathematical modeling of parallel universes, and lately for her work on the reversal of the arrow of time theory in expanding and collapsing universe models. Sarge is spot on. The weirdness factor has taken hold in astrophysics depts everywhere. And pray tell, for what purpose? To prove the unprovable, of course.
A new generation/species of Don Quixote-like hominauts (with gigantic brains due to loss of calcium in skull and bones)Â permanently dwelling in gravity-free orbit would appear to be our next logical evolutionary step toward space travel. Kubrick was right, just that his cinematic image of our transcendence was a little too vanilla. Any volunteers?
differ...Our species has existed from between 2 and 6 million years depending which expert you believe, even at 10% of the speed of light, which I think will be realistic within the next 100 years, 90% in 200 years, and multiples within 500...A trip across our galaxy will not seem like a impossibility for much longer
Multiples?
Do you have any references for this?
CERN has the scientific community scrabbling for answers when their experiment showed neutrinos surpassed the speed of light by 60 ns.
You think we can achieve multiples?
I sure don't want to be in the spacecraft when it reaches .90c either.
No, I don't...I'm simply extrapolating recent human advances into an expected future...but I can easily envision a method to achieve it...assuming the neutrino thingy, and I've never believed in this speed limit anyway, that light itself is knownto travel at different speeds...a neutrino is believed to have mass, if true, a neutrino drive could gradually approach light speed (equal and opposite)...the leap into multiple would be learning how to propel them faster
I've got a totally unrelated question, that maybe someone here can answer...You've got a sealed glass container filled with room temp, sea level pressure "air", in that air there is nitrogen, oxygen, co2 etc atoms...and because i'm not a molecular scientist, lets say that atoms make up 5% of the total volume...If you could remove just the atoms, what would be left in the Jar?? Is there a current scientific hypothesis...I understand the concept of a vaccum created by removing everything, that not my question, just take out the atoms p2 would it be lighter than air??
Mmm, another two digit.
Good night Wilma.
To paraphrase a Zen saying: "Reality is a butterfly's dream on a summer day." Try to work that one out with quantum physics Mr. Sulu.
I think Grandpa need to go lie down, all this high-level quantum discussion has given me a good old-fashioned this dimensional headache. Wake me in time for dinner, assuming time exists or dinner exists or any of this makes any sense to anybody out there. Owww. My brain hurts.
The fastest ship we will have in the next several hundred years will be anti-matter propulsion which I think has a maximum of half the speed of light. The issue is not even the max speed it is the acceleration. For very high speeds of maned space flight you will need to accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 this means that it would take a year just to accelerate to 1/2 c and another year to come to a stop. There can't be a way to travel quickly between stars unless we figure out how to beam and reconstruct atomic information on a large scale / true teleportation.
for your questinos about taking the atoms out of a sealed glass... to say that the atoms take up 5% of the volume that would mean you have to define hte volume of an atom. but what i think your trying to get at is when the author says that empty space isn't empty. Though there would still be photons and ions and other bits of energy left in your glass the idea is that empty space has the property of allowing things to expand into it. Our whole universe is (supposedly) made of an expanding fabric. So when somthing is empty of visible matter and energy there is still this universal fabric that the empty space is a part of. There is also the theory that where there is not matter there are large hadrons, and the bouyant like force of these hadrons is what gives mass gravity.
First things first - we need better bodies. One of our major holdbacks is.. well... ourselves. We must build on a scale to us, to hold us and our flesh-and-bone requirements.
If we can figure out how to eliminate, or mitigate this obstacle - it will prove to be a boon to such possibilities as space travel. Transfer a human mind into that of a micro-robot, or AI of some sort, and develop long-range communications for such travel, I think you will see some real breakthroughs since there would be so much more possible.
At least give them credit for making an effort to get away from Biblical explanations for everything in the Universe...
From the point of view of people who didn't have the math for thermodynamics, Genesis doesn't do a bad job of describing the Big Bang. That doesn't make it unique. Most creation myths say kind of the same things.
The big bang might be there just becasue it was in Genesis and people want to believe it. After all Lemaitre was a priest. Try proposing a cosmology without a big bang and see how far you get in getting it published, even if "they" can't find anything wrong with it other than "we don't do it that way"
A good point. I need to take a look at it from that aspect. Thanks.
I've never been comfortable with the basic idea of the big bang, no matter what all the evidence from the expansion of the universe may imply, because the theory does not adequately address causality. It just assumes that the bang happened, and 13.4 billion years of expansion later, here we are. You might as well go ahead and say, "Then god sneezed, and the universe came into existence" it's got equal validity, i.e. none.
I am personally much more comfortable with a steady state concept, as it does not imply the need for a cause, although I realize that many observations contradict this. Perhaps a satisfactory compromise is a cyclic universe of expansion, slowing, collapse, a "big crunch", and then a subsequent big bang in a sequential series. However, apparently the supposed existence of this invisible and undetectable mystery stuff called 'dark energy' even seems to apparently contradict this idea. Sigh. I give up.
what yu've got to remember , is that ," all of these stars that we observe , are not where we are looking . and ,they will be somewhere else , if and when we try to go there . alpha centauri , is about four light years away . so ,everything that we see , happened a long time ago ,"
4 years ago is not so long. Now then, 13.4 billion years ago? That's a long time.
When you turn now backword you have won
Humans can acutally visualize higher dimensions in a way. Four dimensions can be visualized as an array of cubes. Five dimensions is an array of an array of cubes, and so on.
I don't really have any thoughts on the 5th dimension and beyond, but I do have a visualization that helps me imagine the 4th dimension. I imagine if I were a 2 dimensional creature traveling through a 3 dimensional object, what would I see? You can think of those animations where they show cross-sections of the brain as you travel through it. As a 2 dimensional creature, I could only perceive one 2 dimensional cross section of the brain at a time, but as I move through it, each new cross section is like a moment in time. Likewise, as a human 3 dimensional creature, I'm merely capable of perceiving a 3 dimensional cross section of the 4th dimension at any given time, but with every passing moment, I'm getting a new cross section to view.
Grammatik... that's pretty good. I've been forever trying to wrap my head around the idea of time as a 4th dimension. I recall a segment in Carl Sagan's Cosmos where he explained/animated how a 3D object would appear to a 2D creature using an apple "passing through" the 2D landscape of a piece of paper and extrapolated that as 3D creatures, our natural perception was just as limited in regard to further dimensions. Your analogy to each moment being a cross section of the 4th dimension as we pass through it crystalized the idea for me. Thank you!
Yes, grammatik, nicely described.
But as for kyle, what is an "array of arrays"? If your first suggestion of an 'array of cubes' means a row of them, then I would understand your meaning better, as you attempt to analogize, but since each higher dimension must by definition exist a right angles to the previous ones, your array of cubes idea breaks down. It does not add additional dimensions, it only extends the dimensions that are already there.
If you wanted to argue that a cube sitting next to another cube represents a "parallel" universe or some such thing, and a row of them would be many parallels, and then into the flat array and stacked volume, then fine, but that's not additional dimensions, it's parallel structures.
Wasn't the 5th Dimension a band?
Other than that, it's just something people make up because someone will pay them to do it.
@ Reformed Liberal
Like religion? BOOM! ouch.
Per the book "The Evolutioning of Creation - Volume 2", dimensionality is relative to the measure you which to explore. The traditional explanation for the fourth dimension provides for the expectation of Time as a singular subsequence of an expanding Space. This works when considering aspects of mass comparisons. However when Time is representative of a unique consideration relative to measure, it can be explored as providing shape and force to Space; i.e. velocity demonstrates linear measure, acceleration introduces curvature, acceleration/time defines the spherical presence, and acceleration over time squared expresses force (such a gravitational and/or electromagnetic forces). It is all in how you perceive your foundation for measure. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/8/prweb8743267.htm
All physics above 3 physical dimensions and the changes in those dimensions as measured by our concept of time is theoretical and has only been described in terms of theoretical mathematics.
It just is how many variables do you need to describe the phenomena. 3 space has 3, time is the 4th. If you need more variables, they are just more dimensions. It's mathematical. My problem with string theory is 9 to 11 dimensions. "Give me enough variables and I'll draw you an elephant, one more and I'll wag it's trunk"
Time is a function of the dynamical system, the Universe, I wouldn't necessarily call it theoretical. It is just a measure of metered cycles for the rate of change or no change.
Multidimensional physics = grad student math games and nothing more.
As our scientists proclaim eureka they have the answer, there are those like
myself that cringe as the theory is presented as fact. The whole issue of
presenting time and space intertwined together as cause and effect relationship
is a confused concept.
Time is an independent observation of a sequence of events; while space is an independent
observation of a dimensional nature. They are independent observations, and do
not intertwine with each other.
This whole issue of time-space warps and how the dimensions of space hold inordinate
changes while remaining inside the confines of its’ definition requires us to
revisit the related issues.
It is NOT presented as fact. It is presented as a theory. But then you make some good points. However, the special theory says they are not independent observations, but that they must be dependndet for the world to make sense. If you assume that c is c is c is c. If it ain't then things can be differnet.
Time is not independent. It is simply a way to measure changes in three dimensional space.
Why doesn't anyone want to talk about Bigfoot???? I mean, come on, obviously he knows the answer to all of this as he flew here on the Loch Ness Monster via a space-time continuum to bring us the pyramids so we'd spend our time wondering about them and not building a simple transporter that could easily beam us to the next galaxy...it works every time on Star Trek!!!!!
(Sound up, THE TWILIGHT ZONE theme)
You're traveling through another dimension, not a dimension of sight and sound but of the mind. There's a sign post up ahead, next stop, The Twilight Zone.
doodoodoooodododooodoodooodoooo
Transporters have limited range, and are notoriously susceptible to malfunctions. Scotty spends half his time fixing the one on the Enterprise, for example.
Anybody ever watch futurama? Isn't it hilarious that (on Futurama) after James Doohan dies the cast of 'Star Trek' replaces Scotty with a similar looking guy named Welshy.. Hilarious.
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Welshy
Dimension of the mind is a good analogy for time. Time is not a dimension, but merely an observation we make that something moved from one place to another different place. This applies to all physics, chemisty, and biology.
If we lived purely in the present and had no memory of any previous state we would be unable to experience time.
We have developed mathematical representations of these movement observations to predict future states.
Or you could say that we would experience time, but would not be aware of it.
I purchased a clear glass marble in Oregon that has a sphiral 3D-image in the bottom half so that when observed there is a space within a space (mentally of course) which is as close, I think, that I've been able to mentally project a what... superposition? dimension?.
Time dilations of the laser experiment are caused by the effects of gravity and refraction on light. The atomic clock experiment proves the effects that gravity has on the internal workings of cesium atomic clocks.  The causality lies in the physics of the experimentation, not the false presumption that time is some kind of mystic pseudo-science fiction concept like UFOs. There's nothing "mystic" about time dilations, nor is there any such thing as time travel.
Then are you saying that time exists without an observer? Quantum existence depends on observation. Schrodinger's Cat experiment. Maybe time also has a quantum existence and depends on an observer.
Also, does lack of movement connote lack of time?
Hmmm... Schrodinger's cat experiment... That's the one where you put the cat in the box, right? Well, if time does exist then the box will degrade over time. But the key is in the movement.
Let's use the half-life of a Uranium-238 atom as an example. If you could imagine this one Uranium atom just simply laying on a table "at rest" so to speak, the electrons are still moving. And at some point in the next 4 and a half billion years that Uranium atom will decay and cease to be.
Because of observations that have been made we know this happens. We can detect radioactive decay (even if we can't wait around 4 billion years). And so, we can assume that the same holds true without an observer around to witness the progression of time and thus the change in whatever is being observed.
If you put a cat in a box on a table and left the experiment alone you can safely assume that time will go by and the cat will die and the box will degrade and the planet your on will be consumed by the star it orbits as the star will swell up and become a red giant then a white dwarf and so on...
Evidence of time?
Has any normal matter been discovered in the empty space between galaxies; Hydrogen clouds, for example? Are there 'population studies' on extra galactic space...on the inner stellar space within our galaxy?
There is no completely 'empty' space, (except perhaps that which is between my own ears). Even intergalactic space is diffusely filled with hydrogen atoms, I've read that it's at an estimated density of about one atom per cubic centimeter, which ain't much, to be sure, but it's far from completely empty.
I've often wondered if perhaps a miscalculation of just how much diffuse stuff there might actually be within interstellar space could account for the supposedly missing mass which requires the surmised existence of "dark matter" in order to explain why spinning galaxies don't fly apart.
The Answer is 42.
Someone always beats me to it! Dang!
Let me repeat someone who posted ahead of me: This is "theory" (sort of) and it is particularly lacking in factual substantiation.
As such, anyone who presents it as "fact" is a fool, as is anyone who believes it is fact. You can postulate some mathematical equations that supposedly would apply to a universe that has more than three physical dimensions, but that does not prove that said theoretical but unsubstantiated dimensions exist.
And by the way, time is different from physical dimensions, in case you hadn't noticed.
Exactly how is time different from your so-called "physical" dimensions?
So if Edgar Casey was able to predict the future which has been proven by his writings. He says he seen his late father several times on their property.
He also said i understand that there is no time happening, that everything is actually happening at the same time.
What do you make of these sayings by Edgar Casey?
They're not as funny as Yogi Berra's
smoke on this one Casey..."The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. "
Albert Einstein... pears to me like a superposition format here somewhere.
If there is no "time happening" then nothing can happen at the same "time".
But if everything is indeed happening all at once then that means that you are alive and dead. We all exist and do not exist. We all are sperm, egg, and nothing. The very nature of duality would persist and if you are reading this then you are not reading this.
Makes sense to me. It makes no sense at all.
Minkowski spacetime is the mathematical setting in which the three ordinary dimensions of space are entangled (combined) with a single dimension of time to form a single continuum of a four-dimensional manifold.
Question is did we need to entangle time as the evolutionary parameter to derive all other physical properties or should we have done our formulations with space / velocities ratios, instead?
The problem with using time is that the time duration of events to change quantum states conflicts with the time we use to define the evolution operator (Hamiltonian). In other words have we induced uncertainty in our formulations (understanding) by entangling the time parameter in the "equations"?
Why can't the 1st dimension be TIME in which the point moves through? Once you have that, only then you are able to meaningfully move through dimensions 2, 3 & 4!
I like the first dimension being a point singularity and being associated with the number one. It just keeps things simple. But I see where you're coming from.
At least Brian Greene has a clue that the concept portrayed in “The Fabric of the Cosmos” is so far out in space that it is not correct. But still he delivers his misconception to the public, pretending it is real. I am interested in seeing hoe he delivers an explanation of how this can be. Knowing that time is an observation of an event while incrementing the events forward in time while doing so on discrete and well defined increments. The observance of a time related event follows a progression forward in a well-defined sequence. Time is by definition, the increments of the sequence of events as the progress forward. Space is the observation of a well-defined volume or quantity. In our reality, these two observations, time and space, are distinctly different and they are not related. One does not influence the other in any way. If some of our scientific community wants to venture into other realities, I wish them well. However, they must clearly identify the fact that they have ventured outside of our reality, and let the second level observer know that he is doing so.
In our research to identify the particles that make-up the atom we have relied strongly on our understanding of electrical characteristics of matter. There is nothing wrong with this, for electrical effects are a very good tool, and useful in our research. We should recognize that by itself, our research is limited. Many of the observations that we might make go undone. One of our greatest short-comings in our research into the structure of the particles of matter and the associated fields of energy that are housed within them is our limited use of the other fields of energy that are available to us. We rely too much on electrical energy to do work for us. There are a great many alternatives in forms of energy, and we will not be able to make a significant advance in our development until we recognize and use the alternative forms of energy.
If one looks at the limit of our understanding of the nature of matter it is clear that we have reached a point that needs to take a new direction.
We define the atoms basic components of protons, neutrons, and electrons; as being made up of quarks,
leptons, and bosons; while at the same time saying that there are thousands of unrecognized individual components. And to top this dead end off, we present definitions like the fermion defined as a subatomic
particle having odd half-integral spins (1/2, 3/2). No doubt that the researchers had little to work with. But to me this definition seems to be lacking something, maybe understanding.
In the papers of Beadlingology the definitions of these components were identified and defined by first renaming the various components so that their relationship with other components could be demonstrated, and to help makes sense of the matter. Maybe some researchers find it entertaining or cute to come up with names like quirks or the use of the persons name which first identified the particle. I find that naming the particles to identify relationships with other matter or field of energies helped make sense and showed relationships.
It may seem like I am rambling, or straying from the subject, but our understanding of time and space, the structure of matter, and our concept of the cosmos has come to a point where we may not advance forward
at the rate that we could, if we don’t stop and re-think our understanding and get it back on track. This is the foundation of our understanding of the nature of matter, and the Beadlingism of matter can help clarify our understanding. When our government decided that they needed a level playing field for the correct development of our scientific understanding, we took a left turn when the traffic arrow was pointing to the right.
JAB - You are attempting to debunk a hundred years of quantum mechanics with a point of view from the 1800's. This is the most tested and most proved theory ever. Brian Greene's work replaces the zero point view with a 1-dimensional string and is really pushing our understanding of our universe and beyond. The truth is, I am 99.9999999% sure that no one here on the vine has a complete understanding of the quantum world and string theory, which means that no one here is truly qualified to even attempt to argue against the ideas that he will present. If you choose to watch, as I am now doing, you may learn something new.
Treed...from what I read the guys who developed what is now string etc; do not claim to completely understanddnatsrednu it...(dammit there goes my old hippy superpositioning again.
Drift - I had read somewhere that there were like less than 10 people in the world who probably understood all that is currently known about string theory. Brian Greene is one of those. Others that I know of is Leonard Susskind, he was on the show last night discussing about his holographic theory, and Ed Whitten, probably the brightest of them all. My views of space were already evolving and I'll have to absorb in a little more detail what he was discussing last night, but the thought process to understand space definitely has been an interesting for journey for me. I am a math geek and love this stuff.
TR ...I heard a guy on Coast to Coast last night speak of conscious as an absolute/constant-state of the ether of our universe similar to how we now experience the photon. The nature of which enters our mind according to the scaffolding of our life experiences..as conscious feeds us data to understand the universe by our progressive emergence into a non-personalized state of conscious. As a math nut are you up on 'Hilbert's space' concept?
Drift - Yep. A Hilbert can be a complex or real cartesian system of infinite dimensions. There are others, of which I remember dealing with, a Hamiltonian space, Banach space and of course Minkowski's space-time. A part of the Greene's discussion last night, that I think a lot of people miss, is that void of space really isn't empty, even if every minute atom and subatomic particle were gone, it is still not empty. The boson's of particle physics makes up all space. As the energy of the subatomic particles move through space, they interact constantly with the bosons so that their properties are maintained. My current thinking of space is that it is a 3-dimensional net of all of the bosons that expands as space expands. The question that I am pondering is whether the expanding space creates more bosons, or is it that the bosons are dividing thereby expanding space. Right now I am leaning towards the latter. I'm not a physicist so the math does not come to me as readily as it would be for them. I am studying quantum mechanics though, Feynman co-wrote an article regarding quantum computing within a neuron. This is one of the topics that I am interested in when I able to start on my PhD in Neuroscience. Very interesting stuff to me.
TR...thank you Treed that was very plesant and informative. I've mused that empty space still is in need of a place to be, wherefrom my reason (passion) dictates the original stuff of existence Space as a noun) would seemingly be reflected and in the same nature that we view light as ether-like throughout the universe - perhaps dark e/m - anyway I strech here and believe this force is reflective of the inflation period and is confused with the developing Ontological (Mankind's personal) God . Any thoughts on the recent 4th neutrino as a superposition which is not connected to time or speed?
Re visualizing our four-dimensional world. While the moving-at-right-angles thing is objectively, mathematically true, there is a much easier way to get a gut-level understanding. Think about yourself adding one dimension at a time. Think first about your height, soles of feet to top of head. Hold that thought. Now think about your thickness, front to back, at each region of height from head to toes. That's easy, now add your side-to-side dimensions as they relate to the other two. And finally, think of your duration - how the previous three dimensions have changed from childhood on; how they will change into the future.
Your own body: height, thickness, width and duration. Four dimensions. Easy.
I tried your method and am still fuzzy. I purchased a clear glass marble in Oregon that has a sphiral 3D-image in the bottom half so that when observed there is a space within a space which is as close, I think, can reflect a physical image that may be most like a... superposition, dimension or Hilbert space.
Sorry Driftrat, my fault. It's tough to wrap your head around 4 and 5-dimensional space. What works for me is unlikely to be meaningful to someone else.
absolutely Kannin...however I still think a visual 3-D image, where one's personal mind can, at will, realistically project and change a place within a place is significantly superior to understanding the concept. By the way if you really understand multi-dimensions your one of 10 in the world.
I've had the pleasure to know some world-class mathematicians and I would never place myself anywhere near their level. However, one of them once casually complemented a mathematical construct I had developed for analyzing hyperdimensional (small"d") problems. <sigh> one of my finest moments.
Never happened again ...
Kannin...I hear that brother...
Kannin on further thought...you sound like someone who will strike again...how bout this
supossing that infinty simply reflects our math and perceptual limits and not the universes...so is there is a point in any mathamatical infinty which should be updated?
I still prefer physical props...