Live data from Hacker News

The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

sciencefocus.com

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#91
post #26

All of this should be familiar to the average programmer. The Creator (I call him Colin), rushed for time and bereft of more elegant ideas, has widely deployed lazy loading as a solution to the finite processing power of the universe. Almost all of physics (the speed of light, the expansion of space, quantum entanglement) is an answer to the question of how the universe (and indeed Colin himself) can avoid doing too…

he sends the electron both slits so is also doing some complex-numbers montecarloing. Since he has infinite ram he can sum every-single-path.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#92
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are overthinking it a bit, entangled in semantics. You can take any process that has a fixed frequency (like a clock), and measure the change in frequency in different situations, from the same point of reference. Moving that device at different speeds or into different places in a gravitational field. This is why satellite clocks move at a different rate than those on Earth. Practically speaking, tha…

I think our language is filled with misleading semantics about the flow of time, the passing of time, past, present, future, the arrow of time, all of that. It would be hopeless to try to use different language. But time isn't doing anything. There's no time for time to do anything in. I'll acknowledge relativity and different frames of reference, but that isn't really the point.

Things happen, some things happen before other things. We count time by using clocks, they tick at regular rates with respect to other things happening.

If a clock is in a frame of faster time, it will tick faster, its ticks will happen before, than an identical clock in a frame of slower time.

That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.

You keep trying to explain time as if it was a thing of its own, like a water flow, but it is no more than an abstraction to indicate how some things happen before others, and they definitely do, at least in the same frame.

This analogy is insufficient as well of course. For instance, if we have two clocks, we move one onto a faster time frame for a while and then bring it back, it is as if the clock was an ordered stack of physical events, the ordering between the events in either stack is tricky to determine, but you could clearly observe that one stack was more filled than the other.

I am not trying to get into a fight, this is simply a welcome exercise that forces me to crystallize my own understanding, hope it is for you too.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#93
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no flow per se, as it’s a subjective experience. it’s just that our current environment (specifically human environment) is predominantly structured in a way that the past makes an imprint on the present (in terms of biological memory, historical records, etc) and the future generally being unpredictable because we kinda don’t want it to be too predictable (eg you don’t want to be too predictable when a tige…

If you consider a person, their brain in particular, flowing backwards in time, the brain becomes a prediction tool. Events-memories (neural connections) appear out of nowhere (from the state of being 'forgotten' in the forward time flow) then completely disappear when the corresponding event happens, annihilating its 'predicting' memory.

The brain does want to predict (in fact I think that's what it's suppose to do), the problem is that the Earth is rather chaotic and unpredictable.

If you subject a brain-like neural network to watch planets and stars orbiting around each other and rewarding it for getting things right, it will likely do quite well.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#94
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think our language is filled with misleading semantics about the flow of time, the passing of time, past, present, future, the arrow of time, all of that. It would be hopeless to try to use different language. But time isn't doing anything. There's no time for time to do anything in. I'll acknowledge relativity and different frames of reference, but that isn't really the point.

Things happen, some things happen before other things. We count time by using clocks, they tick at regular rates with respect to other things happening. If a clock is in a frame of faster time, it will tick faster, its ticks will happen before, than an identical clock in a frame of slower time. That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe. You keep trying to explain tim…

> That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.

My teacher explained it in a similar way. Time passes when we can observe change. If there is no change then we can not measure time. Like with the heat death of the universe. At that time (lol) no more time would "happening".

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#95
post #55

They nearly have it in the article but don't take the next step, which is to realise that time is gravity. We are falling towards the future at the speed of causality. You can slow your experience of that by travelling really fast, or by being near something with a large gravity. Quantum particles can simply ignore gravity and time while we are forced to feel their effects due to our size, like a mote of dust can ign…

A mote of dust doesn't ignore gravity in a vacuum ;)

Even a photon can't manage that trick.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#96
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know empirically that time only flows in one direction, it can’t be described as just a perception. You’d have had at least the tiniest of evidence that time sometimes flows backwards.

> flows in one direction _Everything_ flows in one direction, all particles goes in a straight line from their self reference, fields "modifying direction" is just an observer point of view. The separation of time and space is purely a perception matter. A gross comparison would be to compare with objects perception, it only exists because our mind can leverage it for a strong evolutional advantage (I'm not only spea…

No, a particle can flow left OR right, up AND THEN down, forward THEN reverse THEN forward again.

But in time, it can only go forwards, at very slow rates like far from gravity wells, or fast like in relativistic situations. Never backwards. Never stop.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#97
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how "western occult science" is just magical thinking and pseudo babble, it hardly fits on HN. Additionally, "western occult science" typically glosses over its 1920-1940s roots and branches. Wondering why...

> magical thinking and pseudo babble, it hardly fits on HN Don't ask Newton about the pseudo babble stuff. Nor the string "theorists". In fact, don't ask any of the "theoretical" physicists (an oxymoron by definition, which seems to be lost on almost all of them) about "magical thinking and pseudo babble".

Those are conjectures. Even the most diehard proponents are seeking verifiable proofs, not simply stating, "Well, like, that's just your opinion, man...".

Scientific hypotheses and religious/metaphysical articles of faith are orthogonal ideas.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#99
post #78
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got downvoted on here not so long ago for mentioning time as an emergent property of quantum consciousness so maybe it's controversial.

I was downvoted for saying that our cosmological model might be wrong because "dark matter" sounds like a crutch. Now JWST has collected enough evidence that it might, in fact, be wrong.

Dark matter absolutely is a crutch.

It's "dark" in the sense that the (fabled) Dark Ages were dark. They didn't have more cloud cover then. And dark matter is 'dark' as in 'inobservable, except by gravitational attraction'. So we admit it might not even be "matter" by any definition we have; it's just what we're calling this invisible, untouchable, silent elephant in the room. That is very heavy. And might not be an elephant.

Honestly, "invisible matter" might have been a better term, but that too would have been misinterpreted.

Re: The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

#100

This was perhaps my favorite part of Physics 390 ("modern physics") which was about quantum dynamics and relativity. The speed of light is defined in terms of a velocity (~300,000,000 m/s) but if you were traveling at the speed of light time stops (which keeps the rule that its constant in all frames of reference). That and time passes more quickly at higher altitudes and these days we can actually measure that. Wild…

> but if you were traveling at the speed of light, time stops

Are we saying then that it is theoretically possible that (a) photons have a zero or near-zero lifetime, but that also (in our frame of reference) (b) they exist for a finite duration of time and are visible during that time simply because time stops for them ? Or did someone manage to slow down light to some fraction of light speed ?

Post reply on HN