J. Randall Murphy
SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Just a comment on the poll so far. I'm particularly impressed with the lone vote for firsthand experience. Although it could also have been mushed in with the "science isn't the only tool we have" option, IMO the vote for firsthand experience makes a definitive statement that recognizes that firsthand experience can represent truths that science and other types of intellectual investigation simply cannot provide a "Standard of Truth" for, particularly when it comes to the way that we perceive, visualize and feel about certain things.
Science is definitely cool, but it bothers me when it's used for propping up politics, profits, and conflict. Another problem is that it tends to be overly reductive. We've all seen a movie with a brilliant but otherwise naive scientist who makes some amazing discovery only to have it turned into a weapon or hidden away in a vault to prevent a loss of profits. There's a lot of biopolitics going on with COVID-19 and a lot of ecopolitics going on with climate change. I love science, but sometimes I don't think humans can handle the responsibility it brings, and that burden isn't getting any smaller.Science is not static. It is always evolving and changing with new discoveries. Even science deniers are using the neurons and receptors in their brains to deny. We are swimming in science!
Interesting. Thanks for posting it. The concept of time is actually very simple. Time = change. Change includes any and all kinds of change applicable to the measurement, e.g. position, velocity, momentum, energy, mass, radioactive decay, whatever the case may be. Zero change = zero time. Describing the changes in detail and explaining why there is change in the first place is a whole other matter. Nobody has that all figured out.Few days ago, there was a very interesting paper accepted, that proposes that time, like inertia is a field. It ticks really really fast, much faster than Planck time. This would kinda indicate per standard theory, that there are time particles - chronotons and anti-chronotons at least. Those particles would be in very high energies indeed. Maybe Star Trek Voyager was right?
Interesting. Thanks for posting it. The concept of time is actually very simple. Time = change. ... Nobody has that all figured out.
Time dilation is a variation in the rate of change relative to something else. So it does nothing to invalidate change as the nature of time. Take some time to think about it. Whether it's hands changing position on a clock, numbers changing on a digital readout, or the change caused by the decay of atomic nuclei. Within any given frame of reference, zero change = zero time.No, it it not simple at all. Time dilitation is very real, you can see its everyday action in your GPS.
Time is theoretically reversible in the quantum realm - but as we can see not in macro, I'll be first to investigate the report that a teacup has become together from the shards..
Change is not enough. Currently in physicists argue if time is a real feature of the universe or just an emergent feature derived of the laws of entropy.
That ticking clock thing would indeed push the idea for real time... that in turn might put string theory in trouble.
Time dilation is a variation in the rate of change relative to something else. So it does nothing to invalidate change as the nature of time. Take some time to think about it. Whether it's hands changing position on a clock, numbers changing on a digital readout, or the change caused by the decay of atomic nuclei. Within any given frame of reference, zero change = zero time.
To invalidate the reasoning above you would need to find or conceive of an example to the contrary. In other words find or conceive of an example within a given frame of reference, where something changes but there is zero time involved, or conversely, a situation where there is time involved but nothing changes. It's not possible. That's because within any given frame of reference, change = time. It is the only fundamental explanation that fits both observation and reason.
That's taking the phrase "Frozen in time" to a whole new level. So far as I know, cryogenic cooling doesn't affect radioactive decay rates. I'm not sure why, but it does stabilize larger molecules. It's a very cool area of science. The concept that time = change is easy to get on the surface, but becomes a little more murky as one delves deeper.Based on this reasoning, if you cooled something to absolute zero and isolated it from the rest of the universe, it would experience zero time.
Now, absolute zero isn't absolute in the sense that it contains zero energy - there's still movement of electrons, for example. And cosmic background energy would still be present. So there will always be some change, even if at a dramatically reduced rate.
It would make for an interesting experiment though - for example, if atomic decay gets reduced for example.
That's taking the phrase "Frozen in time" to a whole new level. So far as I know, cryogenic cooling doesn't affect radioactive decay rates. I'm not sure why, but it does stabilize larger molecules. It's a very cool area of science. The concept that time = change is easy to get on the surface, but becomes a little more murky as one delves deeper.
Although the concept is universal, when time slows down or speeds up, we see it as a localized phenomenon. In other words, for us, the whole universe doesn't speed up or slow down. If it did we wouldn't notice it anyway, unless we were observing this universe from outside. This reveals the necessity of frames of reference, and as soon as they enter the picture, most sci-fi like time travel doesn't work anymore.
Here's a mind experiment to show one way it gets murky: Let's suppose for the sake of argument that time = change and that we have been able to setup a frame of reference inside of which nothing changes. Inside this frame of reference, all positional and physical properties are at a complete standstill relative to each other. Would the mere observation of this frame of reference change it in any way? Could it even be observed in the first place?
We have some deep conceptual differences there. In the context of a model that uses Minkowski space to predict movement, the conceptual space in the model is bent. However as was shown in the explanation during my debate with Morrison on this, the evidence in the real world doesn't indicate that space itself is bent in any way shape or form. There is only evidence that things behave as predicted by the model. I thought we covered this before.Of course the opposite would also be true - based on this reasoning, the interior of the sun should be experiencing faster rates of time, and hence have a higher decay rate. Which would probably mean stars wouldn't last long. At any rate, it should be measurable and testable.
At any rate, observation of time doesn't appear to have an impact the way it does, say, QM superposition collapse. GPS works relativistically, as does a ton of astronomical phenomena like lensing - which bends space and hence also bends time.
I'm sure you can be accused of the same shortcoming as me, which is that we obviously have too much time on our hands . You're onto one of the biggest questions of all ( but why think small anyway )? One of the options I've considered when looking at the problem you've described, is that this particular universe may not be infinite in the context of the multiverse.Just reading the above, one interesting notion to consider, regarding the death of the universe.
You probably have read about dark energy and the potential Big Rip, where expansion goes awry and in the end the matter itself rips apart, leaving just elementary particles. After a even longer time, even these partcles eventually decay. And aasumably, the universe will become after stupendously long time - an uniform vast of nothingness.
And that makes it strange. Nothingness has no metric - no means to measure distance (or anything) in spacetime. That would mean that this vastness can be infinitely large, or infinitely small. It has no concept of size or time anymore.
And what does that mean? Maybe it is an infinitesimally small thing, that maybe has a fluctuation, which in turn generates a new Big Bang...