PDA

View Full Version : Time



eyeoneblack
23rd January 2014, 10:13 PM
If you are interested in physics you might like this:

http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/haunted-by-his-brother-he-revolutionized-physics

I was going to pm it to CFT as I didn't think it would be of general interest, but what the heck. Brian Cox touched on the subject in his The Quantum Universe - but the article is easier to follow I think.

CFTraveler
23rd January 2014, 11:03 PM
Thank you! That was a great article.

eyeoneblack
27th January 2014, 07:33 AM
Recently Stephen Hawking has abandoned the black hole hypothesis. The man that practically brought the black hole to mainstream cosmology is now changing his mind. Instead of the singularity he now proposes that the black hole is a mishmash of time-space - a spaghetti and goulash - perhaps of another dimension.

I'll look for the link. http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

ButterflyWoman
27th January 2014, 03:19 PM
I think we can sum it up with a quote from Dr Who, who described time thusly:


People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to affect, but actually, from a non-linier, non subjective point of view it is more like a big ball of wibbily wobbly timey wimey...stuff.

If only Stephen Hawking watched more Dr Who....

eyeoneblack
27th January 2014, 05:42 PM
:lol:
If only Stephen Hawking watched more Dr Who....

I think my fav take-away is the Tardis - bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. I'm a smallish guy and I like to think that. :)

ButterflyWoman
28th January 2014, 07:47 AM
The whole "inside" and "outside" thing is an illusion. That's they key. ;)

GRANT
4th February 2014, 10:36 PM
The key to Hawking's change of idea of the Black Hole was to prevent the loss of information.

Grant

CFTraveler
5th February 2014, 01:22 PM
I don't know why this is a big deal- Hawking has been saying this since 1974, when he proposed (and later proved) that radiation does escape black holes, (as in, Hawking effect.) which meant that black holes could be stable, and not the eating-everything forever monsters that they were at first believed to be. At the time it was thought that energy could escape the 'event horizon', in the form of Xrays and other high-frequency waves. The only difference that makes this "new" is that now they're saying that it's not only energy, but information, that can escape black holes. And only because Quantum conservation of matter theory says so.
So the only change (in my opinion) is the change in nomenclature.
:lol2:
Which begs the question, if everything is made of energy and information, what exactly is information (in the physics sense?)

eyeoneblack
5th February 2014, 06:53 PM
I've always understood that information is data of any sort. For example, an electron is information. It has qualities, spin up, spin down. It has probabilities described by a wave function. It has momentum and location. It has a 'history'.

That's the way I've understood it, anyway.

ButterflyWoman
5th February 2014, 11:25 PM
what exactly is information (in the physics sense?)
I asked Mr Scientist (i.e., my very smart and very non-mystical husband). He said, and I quote, "Ah." And then proceeded to explain by quoting Wikipedia. :D


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information#Quantifying_classical_physica l_information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information#Quantifying_classical_physica l_information)<- This is the tehcnically accurate answer, at least for classical physics. There's also a quantum version, which is similar.

But it's harder to understand because it's based on probability, and quantum probability is one of those things that's not hard to understand if you know a little maths, but it's so hard to believe that none of your intuition about it works.

:)

CFTraveler
6th February 2014, 12:55 PM
Yep. So wasn't the information (or, what the variable can and can't do) inherent in the variable in the first place? I promise you I'm getting at something, I'm not sure if it will make any sense, though.

eyeoneblack
6th February 2014, 06:48 PM
By 'inherent' are you saying that information can't be lost? That's the key issue of the debate. But say, an electron falls 'in' a black hole and then is re-emitted as x-rays. Can the electron be reconstituted from the x-rays? Seems it's info is lost at that point.

You're on to something, I know. I'll try to follow along, best I can. :)

I have another brain teaser for you in a bit.

[Hawking argued (years ago) that info escapes by quantum effects and thereby info is not lost as via Hawking radiation the black hole ultimately evaporates. I think now his perspective has taken the nature of Time into account - the illusion/reality of Time.]

CFTraveler
6th February 2014, 07:11 PM
are you saying that information can't be lost? That's the key issue of the debate. But say, an electron falls 'in' a black hole and then is re-emitted as x-rays. Can the electron be reconstituted from the x-rays? Seems it's info is lost at that point. So where did it go? :angelic:

eyeoneblack
6th February 2014, 08:32 PM
So where did it go? :angelic:

I think that's what Hawking is dealing with, abandoning thermo-dynamics (no loss) in favor of what amounts to another or other dimensions; i.e. Time. What if info simply left or is confused with a scrambled space-time. It is not lost, it is simply lost to our universe in space-time.

Cue "Twilight Zone" theme.

CFTraveler
6th February 2014, 09:15 PM
Bingo! Maybe even modulated in some way.

GRANT
9th February 2014, 05:08 PM
Hi,
I'm just going to ramble.
Robert Monroe said every thing begins with a thought--no matter what it is. (I may get a little wacky here) Our Hermetic book of Magic and the Kauai Ministry (Hindu) says that thoughts may not originate in our mind, but may be "picked" up as our own.
Ok X-rays and other info does escape a black hole----however that matter never actually fell into the black hole and never reached the "event" horizon, it was released before it fell in because of tidal forces..

Hawkings was uncomfortable with the idea if something fell into a black hole it was lost. Ok Black hole increase in mass--so something must actually get inside. Maybe its not matter creating the actual mass increase ----ok tangent here maybe its thought.

Now Robert Bruce talks about our Chakras and the "ganglia"; I believe our ganglia "grabs this infomation and somehow brings it to our mund thus creating the thought of something--and therefore the though of something can either create or recreate an object, real or abstract.

I saw the Discovery channel's program about Hawkings theory.

The above makes sense to me using Bruce's, Monroes, Kauai's, and Bardon's writings.

I may have a little trouble trying to say what I mean but I tried to put it together.

In any case the Akashic records keep it all.

Granted this is my hypothesis and can't prove any of what I said except for my Astral Projection travels and revelations. I'm sure all of our gang has similar or other hypothesis-----and that's all it is for me at this point.

Have a good afternoon gang.

Grant

eyeoneblack
10th February 2014, 01:23 PM
These people may be thinking along the same lines we are, C. - space/time

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/02/dark-gravity-dark-matter-might-not-exist-todays-most-popular.html