Topic: Very well dw, let's have a normal conversation as you requested.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U started this discussion 2 years ago #112,217
I'll get us started.
Topic #1: Was Niels Bohr right?
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”. Can you argue with one of the fathers of quantum theory?
Topic #2: Is there time, or just movement?
Theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli said there is no such thing as past or future, and that our concept of time as a thing that exists or flows is only a chemical that is changing things in our brains. Is he right? Is time quantifiable, or is there only movement from one state of being to the next?
Come, let's chat.
Topic #1: Was Niels Bohr right?
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”. Can you argue with one of the fathers of quantum theory?
Topic #2: Is there time, or just movement?
Theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli said there is no such thing as past or future, and that our concept of time as a thing that exists or flows is only a chemical that is changing things in our brains. Is he right? Is time quantifiable, or is there only movement from one state of being to the next?
Come, let's chat.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,245,093
1. Yeah, sure, he was right by the definition of real that he was using which was an observation about the uncertainty principle.
You can't know the position and speed of a particle at the same time, but everything we regard as real can only exist if both quantities are expressed simultaneously.
But, he never said that what we call real are things we'll never understand how they can be real. He said, at the time, that we lack that ability in quantum mechanics.
He wasn't saying nothing is actually real, he was pointing out that despite the fact we don't know why we DO still regard things as real.
Like, einstein was quoted as saying, "when you stop looking at the moon does it cease to exist?" As an argument against QM. But, you know, it doesn't matter that we don't have that answer, it doesn't change what IS real that we simply can't describe things in that way, and quantum mechanics is still an excellent model for understanding what it does describe. Which are in fact things that are not real.
It is just a model. It fits extremely closely to reality. Extremely. But well far from fully or completely or anything like that as if it's describing the actual reality of particle collisions.
Feynman diagrams -not real. But, statistically bears lots of real fruit.
2. I love Carlo Rovelli. Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea. Time is just a parameter in the equations under which systems evolve. It's not a "thing". It's a value. A number. There's no equation of time any more than there is one for distance. It's just a numerical value that defines the size of the interaction space the theory operates on when using it to predict outcomes from interactions.
And when talking general relativity time is a scale. Like distance scales. And time, like distance, scales by the metric tensor at the heart of GR, which is along hyperbolic geometry in minkowsky space.
It's just math.
Personally I lean more towards rovelli and less towards Lee Smolin who says time may be the ONLY actual real "thing," and everything else is more likely to be, like, the computation. 2+2=4, which is true, but that's just math and computation. Which isn't really 4 or even 2 + 2. It's voltages in a calculator.
But, 2+2 = 4 is still a valid way to know how many apples you have if you had x apples and got y more apples.
Anyway, of course time is quantifiable, can it be quantized under QM? Idk, you're asking for the answer a theory of everything can explain.
But as far as physics stands, "the movement from one state to the next" is exactly what time is doing in the equations. That's all it's doing.
Is that real and describe reality fully?
Probably not? Maybe it is tho?
Ultimately physicists are just kicking ideas around. I promise you rovelli doesn't BELIEVE he is RIGHT. He thinks it's a good idea maybe, quit worrying about philosophical physics, like many worlds interpretation of wave function collapse. If those "worlds" are forever out of reach except for the worlds our movement allows us to reach then it doesn't matter if they're "real." They can't have influence here. Real is observed.
And we can observe that movement, and we can't observe the past as a thing. We just see things being as they are and as they have been evolved to the current state.
You can't know the position and speed of a particle at the same time, but everything we regard as real can only exist if both quantities are expressed simultaneously.
But, he never said that what we call real are things we'll never understand how they can be real. He said, at the time, that we lack that ability in quantum mechanics.
He wasn't saying nothing is actually real, he was pointing out that despite the fact we don't know why we DO still regard things as real.
Like, einstein was quoted as saying, "when you stop looking at the moon does it cease to exist?" As an argument against QM. But, you know, it doesn't matter that we don't have that answer, it doesn't change what IS real that we simply can't describe things in that way, and quantum mechanics is still an excellent model for understanding what it does describe. Which are in fact things that are not real.
It is just a model. It fits extremely closely to reality. Extremely. But well far from fully or completely or anything like that as if it's describing the actual reality of particle collisions.
Feynman diagrams -not real. But, statistically bears lots of real fruit.
2. I love Carlo Rovelli. Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. We really have no idea. Time is just a parameter in the equations under which systems evolve. It's not a "thing". It's a value. A number. There's no equation of time any more than there is one for distance. It's just a numerical value that defines the size of the interaction space the theory operates on when using it to predict outcomes from interactions.
And when talking general relativity time is a scale. Like distance scales. And time, like distance, scales by the metric tensor at the heart of GR, which is along hyperbolic geometry in minkowsky space.
It's just math.
Personally I lean more towards rovelli and less towards Lee Smolin who says time may be the ONLY actual real "thing," and everything else is more likely to be, like, the computation. 2+2=4, which is true, but that's just math and computation. Which isn't really 4 or even 2 + 2. It's voltages in a calculator.
But, 2+2 = 4 is still a valid way to know how many apples you have if you had x apples and got y more apples.
Anyway, of course time is quantifiable, can it be quantized under QM? Idk, you're asking for the answer a theory of everything can explain.
But as far as physics stands, "the movement from one state to the next" is exactly what time is doing in the equations. That's all it's doing.
Is that real and describe reality fully?
Probably not? Maybe it is tho?
Ultimately physicists are just kicking ideas around. I promise you rovelli doesn't BELIEVE he is RIGHT. He thinks it's a good idea maybe, quit worrying about philosophical physics, like many worlds interpretation of wave function collapse. If those "worlds" are forever out of reach except for the worlds our movement allows us to reach then it doesn't matter if they're "real." They can't have influence here. Real is observed.
And we can observe that movement, and we can't observe the past as a thing. We just see things being as they are and as they have been evolved to the current state.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,105
this is extremely abnormal
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,108
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,109
@previous (D)
You see, he says he wants to have a real conversation with me and then this is all he can muster.
You see, he says he wants to have a real conversation with me and then this is all he can muster.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,110
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Who's the bigger fool? The man who asks for a conversation he does not want, or the man who tries to reason with a dutchman?
Who's the bigger fool? The man who asks for a conversation he does not want, or the man who tries to reason with a dutchman?
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,124
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,126
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,130
dj coco nut joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,137
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,139
dj coco nut replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,140
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,148
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,150
I have decided to have a more positive mindset and will start writing up a response. Let's hope for a great chat!
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,151
Topic #1: Niels Bohr's statement reflects the intriguing nature of quantum theory. While I cannot have personal opinions, it's important to note that Bohr's assertion is a philosophical perspective on the nature of reality in the quantum realm. It is still a subject of ongoing debate and interpretation among physicists and philosophers.
Topic #2: Carlo Rovelli's view challenges the traditional concept of time as a linear flow. According to some theories, time is not an independent entity but rather a part of the fabric of space-time in Einstein's theory of general relativity. The nature of time remains an area of active research in physics and philosophy, and various perspectives continue to shape our understanding.
Topic #2: Carlo Rovelli's view challenges the traditional concept of time as a linear flow. According to some theories, time is not an independent entity but rather a part of the fabric of space-time in Einstein's theory of general relativity. The nature of time remains an area of active research in physics and philosophy, and various perspectives continue to shape our understanding.