If you have no point of reference (in time or space) how would you then know you are moving/travelling?

"Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."

I think this means that time, space and gravitation are part of perception.
Exactly the same way that electrons appear to be particles when you do measure (perceive) them, but appear as waves when you dont measure them. You know the double slit experiment right? We can calculate how matter behaves in multi universe, but (in this universe) we can only see them as particles. As if our perception works with snapshots of matter. That s why we see matter as points or spheres (particles). Static picture of rolling wave.

The space you see between the electron and the core of an atom is not empty as you know. There is lots of energy in there. The electron seems to be popping in and out of our universe (borrowing energy). But remember space and time are only dimensions. The passing of time (future compared to history) is only so because we can only look in our 3d universe. Space, time and gravity are the bias of our perception. This does not mean there is 'nothing' outside our human perception. We just cant see it because of our limited perception. That is why you can only imagine a finite universe, with an end and a beginning. You cant imagine infinity, just try...

If you could imagine time as a spatial dimension, then it would be easy to see the eletron moving in and out of that dimension borrowing energy from that direction (up down - future history).

This is how i try to see it of course. How i understand it right now.
If one would ask me in the future i probably give different view.

Thx to this discussion i have been reading up on my physics and found out more about the relation between quantum theory and philosophy.
You have some though questions Cheeto. I realize i have a lot more learning to do. When is that fucking LHC starting again?
I want answers...

"If you have no point of reference (in time or space) how would you then know you are moving/travelling?"

Picture this, you can hover, your in a dark room and can't see, you fly forward but there is nothing to give you a hint that you are moving forward, then you hit the wall. Now, before you hit the wall there was no indication that you where moving, but does that mean you wern't? No, it just means you had nothing to relate your movement to. You don't finnally start moving when you hit the wall, you had to travel to it.

See, thats what im saying, time is not just relative to matter, it is an ongoing event...as we preceive it. I think even assumptions(Not caculations, theory) that QM makes can be wrong, i don't think energy is being borrowed, it could be and i could be wrong, but i don't think so. Particles can still SEEM to pop in and out, but simply getting energy from energy thats already there.





LHC Latest News: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/latest-news.html

---

http://press.web.cern.ch...first-physics/schedule/

"Schedule
This is how CERN will communicate the major milestones on the way to first physics:

1) Start-up of the accelerator in November
First beam circulated in the Large Hadron Collider on 20 November 2009, and first collisions at 900 GeV (450 GeV per beam) followed on 23 November. The LHC set a world record for beam energy on 29 November, accelerating beams to energies of 1.18 TeV. Please check the links on left to view the press releases issued for each of these milestones, along with the latest information, photos and video footage.

2) MEDIA EVENT: "LHC first physics" at the energy of 3.5 TeV per beam:
There will be a media event at CERN for the first high energy collisions at 7 TeV (3.5 TeV per beam). This event is expected to occur in the first quarter of 2010. Bringing beams into collision is a complex process, and it is impossible for CERN to announce a more precise date until roughly a week in advance. We realise that this makes planning hard for you and thank you for your patience – we will send updates as early as possible.

Accreditation for this event is closed. We plan to host media in the control centres of the LHC experiments on a rotating schedule. These control centres will be the heart of the action, but space is very limited. There will also be a media centre in a hall on the CERN site.

Some of the experiments have data centres away from CERN, which may also be able to host media. Details of these will be posted on this website as soon as they become available.

These pages will be regularly updated with information about the event, including information for broadcasters concerning distribution of images from the events. Updates will also be distributed via CERN's twitter feed, http://twitter.com/cern"

See, they say space is expanding, but i see it as matter in our universe just expanding in space. What would happen if you could magically manage to get ahead of the big bang, to go further into space than the universe has reached, could you possibly reach another universe? I think its possible, to say people are special and the only ones is far fetched to me, also to say our universe is the onlyone in space is the same to me, far fetched, a need to feel special.

Kewl, im not alone...

I like Newton's View, but to each his own.

Wiki: Space

"In Isaac Newton's view, space was absolute - in the sense that it existed permanently and independently of whether there were any matter in the space"

"Newton took space to be more than relations between material objects and based his position on observation and experimentation. For a relationist there can be no real difference between inertial motion, in which the object travels with constant velocity, and non-inertial motion, in which the velocity changes with time, since all spatial measurements are relative to other objects and their motions. But Newton argued that since non-inertial motion generates forces, it must be absolute. He used the example of water in a spinning bucket to demonstrate his argument. Water in a bucket is hung from a rope and set to spin, starts with a flat surface. After a while, as the bucket continues to spin, the surface of the water becomes concave. If the bucket's spinning is stopped then the surface of the water remains concave as it continues to spin. The concave surface is therefore apparently not the result of relative motion between the bucket and the water[9]. Instead, Newton argued, it must be a result of non-inertial motion relative to space itself. For several centuries the bucket argument was decisive in showing that space must exist independently of matter."

A very important part of that quote is in the last sentence: "For several centuries the bucket argument WAS". Was being the part not to overlook here.

Newton was an amazing fellow but ya gotta wonder about a guy who inserted a bodkin (sort of a giant, blunt needle) into his head (next to his eyeball ) just to see what would happen....

Pokey

I wasn't talking about why he thought, just the idea of what he thought. So what if he did weird shit, lots of people did weird shit, that dosen't make there views on certain subjects wrong. I didn't really see how the bucket even explained the view, but its in there so i left it the way i found it. Relativity i'm sure you know, means that to have space you have to have two points to measure in between, maybe even only one point. Which in my view is incorrect, but i can fully explain why.

Its flawed because it trys to state that space is all in our head, it only exists as a measurement related to matter, like you could not travel in empty space. Which is true only to a degree, because space does have matter in it, so you can relate your position in space to the position of matter. If you could magically teleport outside of our universe far enough to be away from all the matter in it, and see nothing. You move around yet there is no matter to relate you position, does this mean your not traveling in space? Of course not, if you happen to travel back in the direction of our universe and eventually see it then you have a position to relate to.

If you never reached sight of our universe, does that mean you never went anywhere, you never traveled in space? No it dosen't. Space is not just relative to matter, space contains matter. Thats how i see it, if i see something that proves otherwise in my mind, then i will believe. But i haven't seen anything yet. I wouldn't care if space was as they said, and really could be manipulated. I wouldn't care if time really did tick faster in spots, and slower in spots. I don't want space and time to be anything, i just look at it to see it for what it is, and currently...thats how it looks to me.

If you have two marbles on a table, you mark there position, then you roll them away from each other an extra inch. There view says space was stretched 2 in, i say no, all you did is spread the marbles out two more inches, you did nothing to the space inbetween. You increased the space inbetween my moving the marbles apart, you did not distort space. In there view, it bassically says that traveling outside our universe is impossible, because you cannot have space without matter. I hardly see getting to the edge of our universe and running into a fake black background like in a video game, where you can go no further.



Im not saying i know what space and time is, i'm just giving my view. For all i know, everyone could be wrong, including me. It could be impossible for anyone to even guess it right.

See, i thought i was correct, by theory anway. Hawking predicted that at the death of a black hole, it gets smaller and smaller as it radiates its energy away, then when it gets to its smallest point, the very end, there is a big explosion like the big bang. Hawking thinks that the end of a black hole is very much like the big bang, where matter is condensed to a very small point...a black hole, then has a massive explosion. They actually have their telescopes pointed at a very small black hole in space, hopeing to one day see its death, expecting it to cause a great explosion as it dies out.

hahaha
i like the way you always seem to reason your way through



Perhaps you cant get outside this 3d universe. Even if you were out of sight of the stars, then the stars would still be there. You would still be moving relative to their position. I you can't see them that means your telescope isnt big enough. In this way, again, there is not space without matter (in it )

Also the universe could be circular without us knowing it. Imagine an ant walking a road around the world. It would be endless... But from a different perspective the ant is walking a globe shaped structure.



There is more than 1 perspective avaible to you. You can take the abstract view and see space as containing matter. Otherwise one could think that 'empty space' is an illusion, in this view there is only matter (particles being the visible form of). Another guy doesnt like metaphysics and starts measuring things, he will find relativity. In my opinion string theory will eventually lead to some more clarity on the subject.


all good ofc.



If it is circular (as simplification), than you can go further and further and further as long as you want.
It is because of the limits of our perception i think.

You still have not provided me an example of space wherein you do not refer to matter. You cant talk about nothing

I have gave the example, you may be just over looking what i'm trying to say. I can't give an example of no matter existing in space, because no matter how far you go, you are still in space, along with our universe which is full of matter. What i'm trying to say is matter dosen't make space and time, matter is within space and time. when you relate your position to a peice of matter, your useing the matter to deffine your position in space, that peice of matter isn't making the space possible, its only a reffrence, it is not space and time being deffined, its using matter to relate to a part of space. Thats what i'm trying to say.

If it is as they say, matter creates space and time, then what is our universe in...nothing? They say because the matter in out universe is expanding, space is expanding. I say the matter in our universe is expanding in space. They look at our universe as a bubble of space that was once very small, i ask the question...what word do the give the container which held that small amount of space, our small universe? I call it space, i say space is there, it dosen't expand...matter expands in it, time is not created by the big bang, the big bang is an event in time.

I think science is going to find that the big bang is as hawking thinks, the death of a large black hole. In this view, a black hole can drift off into deep space, radiate out its energy and end in a big bang which creates another universe. In the view that most hold now, each exposion which flings matter outward is space expanding, rather than what i think is truth, matter expanding in space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfbCgG72jg
you might enjoy Ananda, he seems to believe something that manifests in the same way as waht you are describing.

ill check that out later, im on my way to work. But one more point i would like to make, ther view of space expanding also gives them there new theory of gravity, which i also think will fail as an explanation. They say gravity is so weak because space is expanding, as it stretches out gravity is supose to get weaker. This i think is completely wrong, and time will tell. With this theory, earth will slowly loose its gravity, or weaken. The problem is gravity depends on the mass of an object, not how big they think space is, i think we will find that gravity still only depends on the mass of an object, no matter how far out in space our matter travels. Earth will never loose gravity unless it looses mass, i count on that.

They've had a good start at helping explain how our universe works, and the particles & objects in it, but with some errors, and now i believe thoughs errors are leading them further off track.

As far as i have understood the LHC experiments are also aimed at finding 'graviton' particles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG-r-oTrBMM

Yes, that is true. I've never quite understood how they see lines swirl from smashing particles together, and somwehow bassed only on those lines, predict how much energy came out from each swirling line. I guess its not possible to understand everything, i would like to know that though.

From my understanding, say they have a 2 particles and give them each an energy value of 10, 20 alltogether. They smash these 2 particles together and see 10 particles swirl, 5 particles come out of each original particle, so they have a picture of 10 particles when smashed together. How do they get different enegy levels for each swirling line? How do they even know how much energy came out, what are they using that detects all forms of energy? I just don't know.

---

I have no idea at all what Ananda Bosman was talking about. About all i understood was him suggesting we are merging with another universe, and saying we have evidence of it, and something about ET, which i'm not sure what he was saying about that. I just don't know about him, if the laws of phyisics where changing due to merging with another universe, i'm sure it would be all in the news, and more scientists would be aware of it.

Though i do think its possible for universes to merge, i wouldn't think it would change laws of physics. In my view, all of space would operate in a basic way, under the same laws. If condictions change, then laws have to account for that change in condiction, just like how water is a solid when cold enough, yet liquid when warm enough, and even hotter you have a gas. I view space as an unpredictable size, universes distibuted out in the same manner as galaxies, with vast amounts of space between.

I dunno the math. As i understand it they can caculate if some energy is missing after the collision of two particles. If so then this energy (in the form of gravity? graviton?) has disappeared from our known universe. It is no longer holding the original particle together.

Here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he gave a presentation on the arrow of time, scientists stopped him in the hallway to tell him what big fans they were of his work.

Carroll sat down with Wired.com on Feb. 19 at AAAS to explain his theories and why Marty McFly’s adventure could never exist in the real world, where time only goes forward and never back.

Wired.com: Can you explain your theory of time in layman’s terms?

Sean Carroll: I’m trying to understand how time works. And that’s a huge question that has lots of different aspects to it. A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how we measure time using clocks. But the particular aspect of time that I’m interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is different from the future. We remember the past but we don’t remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet into an egg.

And we sort of understand that halfway. The arrow of time is based on ideas that go back to Ludwig Boltzmann, an Austrian physicist in the 1870s. He figured out this thing called entropy. Entropy is just a measure of how disorderly things are. And it tends to grow. That’s the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy goes up with time, things become more disorderly. So, if you neatly stack papers on your desk, and you walk away, you’re not surprised they turn into a mess. You’d be very surprised if a mess turned into neatly stacked papers. That’s entropy and the arrow of time. Entropy goes up as it becomes messier.


So, Boltzmann understood that and he explained how entropy is related to the arrow of time. But there’s a missing piece to his explanation, which is, why was the entropy ever low to begin with? Why were the papers neatly stacked in the universe? Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy. It’s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing. But why was it ever wound up in the first place? Why was it in such a weird low-entropy unusual state?

That is what I’m trying to tackle. I’m trying to understand cosmology, why the Big Bang had the properties it did. And it’s interesting to think that connects directly to our kitchens and how we can make eggs, how we can remember one direction of time, why causes precede effects, why we are born young and grow older. It’s all because of entropy increasing. It’s all because of conditions of the Big Bang.

Wired.com: So the Big Bang starts it all. But you theorize that there’s something before the Big Bang. Something that makes it happen. What’s that?

Carroll: If you find an egg in your refrigerator, you’re not surprised. You don’t say, “Wow, that’s a low-entropy configuration. That’s unusual,” because you know that the egg is not alone in the universe. It came out of a chicken, which is part of a farm, which is part of the biosphere, etc., etc. But with the universe, we don’t have that appeal to make. We can’t say that the universe is part of something else. But that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m fitting in with a line of thought in modern cosmology that says that the observable universe is not all there is. It’s part of a bigger multiverse. The Big Bang was not the beginning.

And if that’s true, it changes the question you’re trying to ask. It’s not, “Why did the universe begin with low entropy?” It’s, “Why did part of the universe go through a phase with low entropy?” And that might be easier to answer.



Wired.com: In this multiverse theory, you have a static universe in the middle. From that, smaller universes pop off and travel in different directions, or arrows of time. So does that mean that the universe at the center has no time?

Carroll: So that’s a distinction that is worth drawing. There’s different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment you’re talking about. And then there’s the arrow of time, which give us the feeling of progress, the feeling of flowing or moving through time. So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there’s no arrow of time. There’s no future versus past, everything is equal to each other.

Wired.com: So it’s a time that we don’t understand and can’t perceive?

Carroll: We can measure it, but you wouldn’t feel it. You wouldn’t experience it. Because objects like us wouldn’t exist in that environment. Because we depend on the arrow of time just for our existence.

Wired.com: So then, what is time in that universe?

Carroll: Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?” They say, “Yes! Of course it makes a sound!” Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there’s no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There’s still time. It’s still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It’s just that events that happen in that empty universe don’t have causality, don’t have memory, don’t have progress and don’t have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It’s just random fluctuations.

Wired.com: So if this universe in the middle is just sitting and nothing’s happening there, then how exactly are these universes with arrows of time popping off of it? Because that seems like a measurable event.

Carroll: Right. That’s an excellent point. And the answer is, almost nothing happens there. So the whole point of this idea that I’m trying to develop is that the answer to the question, “Why do we see the universe around us changing?” is that there is no way for the universe to truly be static once and for all. There is no state the universe could be in that would just stay put for ever and ever and ever. If there were, we should settle into that state and sit there forever.

It’s like a ball rolling down the hill, but there’s no bottom to the hill. The ball will always be rolling both in the future and in the past. So, that center part is locally static — that little region there where there seems to be nothing happening. But, according to quantum mechanics, things can happen occasionally. Things can fluctuate into existence. There’s a probability of change occurring.

So, what I’m thinking of is the universe is kind of like an atomic nucleus. It’s not completely stable. It has a half-life. It will decay. If you look at it, it looks perfectly stable, there’s nothing happening … there’s nothing happening … and then, boom! Suddenly there’s an alpha particle coming out of it, except the alpha particle is another universe.

Wired.com: So inside those new universes, which move forward with the arrow of time, there are places where the laws of physics are different — anomalies in spacetime. Does the arrow of time still exist there?

Carroll: It could. The weird thing about the arrow of time is that it’s not to be found in the underlying laws of physics. It’s not there. So it’s a feature of the universe we see, but not a feature of the laws of the individual particles. So the arrow of time is built on top of whatever local laws of physics apply.

Wired.com: So if the arrow of time is based on our consciousness and our ability to perceive it, then do people like you who understand it more fully experience time differently then the rest of us?

Carroll: Not really. The way it works is that the perception comes first and then the understanding comes later. So the understanding doesn’t change the perception, it just helps you put that perception into a wider context. It’s a famous quote that’s in my book from St. Augustine, where he says something along the lines of, “I know what time is until you ask me for a definition about it, and then I can’t give it to you.” So I think we all perceive the passage of time in very similar ways. But then trying to understand it doesn’t change our perceptions.

Wired.com: So what happens to the arrow in places like a black hole or at high speeds where our perception of it changes?

Carroll: This goes back to relativity and Einstein. For anyone moving through spacetime, them and the clocks they bring along with them – including their biological clocks like their heart and their mental perceptions – no one ever feels time to be passing more quickly or more slowly. Or, at least, if you have accurate clocks with you, your clock always ticks one second per second. That’s true if you’re inside a black hole, here on Earth, in the middle of nowhere, it doesn’t matter. But what Einstein tells us is that path you take through space and time can dramatically affect the time that you feel elapsing.

The arrow of time is about a direction, but it’s not about a speed. The important thing is that there’s a consistent direction. That everywhere through space and time, this is the past and this is the future.

Wired.com: So you would tell Michael J. Fox that it’s impossible for him to go back to the past and save his family?

Carroll: The simplest way out of the puzzle of time travel is to say that it can’t be done. That’s very likely the right answer. However, we don’t know for sure. We’re not absolutely proving that it can’t be done.

Wired.com: At the very least, you can’t go back.

Carroll: Yeah, no. You can easily go to the future, that’s not a problem.

Wired.com: We’re going there right now!

Carroll: Yesterday, I went to the future and here I am!

One of things I point out in the book is that if we do imagine that it was possible, hypothetically, to go into the past, all the paradoxes that tend to arise are ultimately traced to the fact that you can’t define a consistent arrow of time if you can go into the past. Because what you think of as your future is in the universe’s past. So it can’t be one in the same everywhere. And that’s not incompatible with the laws of physics, but it’s very incompatible with our everyday experience, where we can make choices that affect the future, but we cannot make choices that affect the past.

Wired.com: So, one part of the multiverse theory is that eventually our own universe will become empty and static. Does that mean we’ll eventually pop out another universe of our own?

Carroll: The arrow of time doesn’t move forward forever. There’s a phase in the history of the universe where you go from low entropy to high entropy. But then once you reach the locally maximum entropy you can get to, there’s no more arrow of time. It’s just like this room. If you take all the air in this room and put it in the corner, that’s low entropy. And then you let it go and it eventually fills the room and then it stops. And then the air’s not doing anything. In that time when it’s changing, there’s an arrow of time, but once you reach equilibrium, then the arrow ceases to exist. And then, in theory, new universes pop off.

Wired.com: So there’s an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes coming ahead of us. Does that mean we can go forward to visit those universes ahead of us?

Carroll: I suspect not, but I don’t know. In fact, I have a postdoc at Caltech who’s very interested in the possibility of universes bumping into each other. Now, we call them universes. But really, to be honest, they are regions of space with different local conditions. It’s not like they’re metaphysically distinct from each other. They’re just far away. It’s possible that you could imagine universes bumping into each other and leaving traces, observable effects. It’s also possible that that’s not going to happen. That if they’re there, there’s not going to be any sign of them there. If that’s true, the only way this picture makes sense is if you think of the multiverse not as a theory, but as a prediction of a theory.

If you think you understand the rules of gravity and quantum mechanics really, really well, you can say, “According to the rules, universes pop into existence. Even if I can’t observe them, that’s a prediction of my theory, and I’ve tested that theory using other methods.” We’re not even there yet. We don’t know how to have a good theory, and we don’t know how to test it. But the project that one envisions is coming up with a good theory in quantum gravity, testing it here in our universe, and then taking the predictions seriously for things we don’t observe elsewhere.

Source:http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
also has illustrations

Yes, thats pretty much how i see it, nice post...thanx.

When he describes how air expands across the room, when filled he says time then stops, but it dosen't stop, there is just nothing else going on at that time, so nothing to relate time passing too. Latter on, there could be another event that happens in that same space, showing that time trully never stops, there is always the arrow of time flowing. Its only a matter of time.