Niblik (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} niblik) wrote,@ 2009-03-18 11:29:00 |
|
Time
You know what is bad is that the way you've been describing how the universe is becomes proven mathmatically by physicists (finally).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1
They've discovered the two-dimensional dual-cone construct! (similar to what thye refer to as the "light cone" dual-cone construct)
In their model, all the trajectories get bundled up into two cones meeting at a point. It looks like one set of trajectories coming in from the past, passing through a point at the present, and heading out again into the future. Something equivalent to time has emerged.
In fact, this bundle of trajectories mimics the "light cone" of relativity, traced out by the paths in space-time of particles travelling up to and including the speed of light. The light cone also divides past from future.
In relativity, it is possible to conceive of tachyons, travelling outside the light cone. But in Wheeler and Spencer's model, that is inconceivable, since the cone is actually defined by the set of all possible trajectories.
I wonder if they will get to the 3 cone construct, the "one-point", and how all space-time is sort of illusionary and we actually exist at all points at all times. Now that they are getting step one of the logic chain established with math and physics, I might get to observe "one-point" definition in physics in my lifetime. I'm not getting my hopes up. They will likely be reluctant to want to prove these things. Mainly due to:
The consequences could be profound. The timeless space can't change, so that could mean that our universe is deterministic, with the future set in stone.
Wheeler suspects that our perceived "time" corresponds to the distance from a special point in the four-dimensional timeless space he modelled. If so, that point might mark the apparent beginning of time at the big bang.
Without some willingness to believe, the entire concept of "one-point" and cone-based future/past projections imposes limits on what we can do (mainly, we're on a vector path and have certain boundary limits -- kind of like driving on a road where we have to stay in the lanes.) That is not entirely correct, as that is why it is a cone instead of a flat plane. Most of our limits are "reality" defined and establish the external boundaries of the cone. That means we can go up, we can go down, sideways, off the road -- but we're always limited by the imposed limitations of "reality". In other words, it is deterministic on a large scale (planetary, over billions of years). On the small scale, it is limited in its deterministic properties.
Again, though -- people behave in what I refer to as the rule of momentum of personality. People will continue to do that which they feel is successful, even if more successful or less successful opportunities present themselves. I'm no exception to the rule. Once a behavior-set is established, people will continue to behave in that manner. Usually, an external catalyst/stimulus is required to change the momentum of personality. This is one reason why I tell people, "Don't just dream, dream bigger!" All in an attempt to change the direction the momentum will carry someone.
Still, I do think it is kind of neat that they got the first step mathematically modelled.
You know what is bad is that the way you've been describing how the universe is becomes proven mathmatically by physicists (finally).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1
They've discovered the two-dimensional dual-cone construct! (similar to what thye refer to as the "light cone" dual-cone construct)
In their model, all the trajectories get bundled up into two cones meeting at a point. It looks like one set of trajectories coming in from the past, passing through a point at the present, and heading out again into the future. Something equivalent to time has emerged.
In fact, this bundle of trajectories mimics the "light cone" of relativity, traced out by the paths in space-time of particles travelling up to and including the speed of light. The light cone also divides past from future.
In relativity, it is possible to conceive of tachyons, travelling outside the light cone. But in Wheeler and Spencer's model, that is inconceivable, since the cone is actually defined by the set of all possible trajectories.
I wonder if they will get to the 3 cone construct, the "one-point", and how all space-time is sort of illusionary and we actually exist at all points at all times. Now that they are getting step one of the logic chain established with math and physics, I might get to observe "one-point" definition in physics in my lifetime. I'm not getting my hopes up. They will likely be reluctant to want to prove these things. Mainly due to:
The consequences could be profound. The timeless space can't change, so that could mean that our universe is deterministic, with the future set in stone.
Wheeler suspects that our perceived "time" corresponds to the distance from a special point in the four-dimensional timeless space he modelled. If so, that point might mark the apparent beginning of time at the big bang.
Without some willingness to believe, the entire concept of "one-point" and cone-based future/past projections imposes limits on what we can do (mainly, we're on a vector path and have certain boundary limits -- kind of like driving on a road where we have to stay in the lanes.) That is not entirely correct, as that is why it is a cone instead of a flat plane. Most of our limits are "reality" defined and establish the external boundaries of the cone. That means we can go up, we can go down, sideways, off the road -- but we're always limited by the imposed limitations of "reality". In other words, it is deterministic on a large scale (planetary, over billions of years). On the small scale, it is limited in its deterministic properties.
Again, though -- people behave in what I refer to as the rule of momentum of personality. People will continue to do that which they feel is successful, even if more successful or less successful opportunities present themselves. I'm no exception to the rule. Once a behavior-set is established, people will continue to behave in that manner. Usually, an external catalyst/stimulus is required to change the momentum of personality. This is one reason why I tell people, "Don't just dream, dream bigger!" All in an attempt to change the direction the momentum will carry someone.
Still, I do think it is kind of neat that they got the first step mathematically modelled.
