jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (40 posts)

Time and quantum theory

  1. BakerRambles profile image84
    BakerRamblesposted 5 years ago via iphone

    Does cause really cause the effect, or does the effect create the cause?  Is time truly relevant, or do humans simply bash their heads from the questions of life that are truly over our heads theoretically speaking.

    1. lobobrandon profile image83
      lobobrandonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cause is an effect of another previous effect and causes its own effect. About time I have no idea smile

      1. BakerRambles profile image84
        BakerRamblesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But in quantum physics I do believe it can go backwards.

    2. wilmiers77 profile image61
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Time is from dynamics; there must be continual change for time to exist. If all stopped, frozen absolutely, there would be no time.

      Every effect has a cause. This is immutable unless you are talking about a superman movie; to every action there is a reaction.

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Quantum theory states that for time to be experienced, it needs an observer to make it a reality and that time honestly is a moment that is continuous in nature. It is neither here nor there, but a series of nows, perpetualy and that the future and the past are but dimensions only perceptible by now.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That cannot be true; if it were C14 dating would not work.  It depends on time and radioactive decay over that time, but not on an observer watching either time or the decay.

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is what I understood it to be, for without the observer, none of this be here to observe. Time has to have an observer or else the word time would be meaningless.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Incorrect.  Time does not need an observer, and it would not be meaningless without such observer.

              The universe existed for millions of years (note the reference to time) without (human) observers. 

              Certain elements decay over time, with no observer watching them; the rate of decay (note reference to time) is still constant and meaningful.

              The planets moved, the galaxy turned and asteroids slammed into the moon are high speed (note reference to time; meters per second) without any observer.  Tell the dinosaurs that the speed of the Yucatan asteroid was meaningless.

              1. Seek-n-Find profile image87
                Seek-n-Findposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What if the observer is outside of time and sees all?

                1. profile image61
                  WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is exactly the reason the Atheistic scienctists in the fielde dispise that theory. It infers a God, or unlitimate observer.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "What if the observer is outside of time and sees all?" 



                    It would interesting to know which "Atheistic scientists" believe that, could you provide a link?

                    The question can be in answered in two parts.

                    An observer can't be "outside of time" as this represents a meaningless concept in our universe due to the fact time is one the essential dimensions required for anything to exist. If only three dimensions were present, the universe would essentially be "frozen" with no cause and no effect, nothing would be able to evolve past the first state.

                    The other issue is the fact that time is not absolute, it is as relative to the observer and the events of cause and effect as are the other dimensions. In order for an observer to observe everything contained within the universe from some other reference point, time would have to be absolute in order for that observer to make measurable and valid observations equally across the entire universe and they would have to be at every point of the universe at the same time in order to do so.

                2. profile image0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What is time for the observer to be "outside" of it?

                  1. profile image61
                    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Time is an illusion, relative to perception.

                    A consequence of living within the "system" itself.

              2. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Without sentient life forms to observe the observable, there would be nothing to observe. It would probably still exist, but there would be no experimentation to test the theory. So that is the purpose of an observer, to observe. Without the observer, there would be no lights, no boats or motorcars, not a single luxury. No observer, nothing to observe. Absolute truth, even I can't deny. So then. How do we even know we're observing anything real, especialy if it's only perceptible right now? The observations of the past led to many great strydes forward, but they all happened in moments. That is the quantifiable universe as we know it, for it happens in quantas (very small fractions) of time.

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The earth, sun and stars exist irrespective of the observe. The absence of observer will not cause any of it to change(we may not get novels like quantum and relativity though).
                  Time is a concept, hence need an observer. Hence there is no time, once the observer goes. Time is the different locations of matter, and it need a sentient being with memory to remember the previous locations. For objects/matter there is only eternal present.

                2. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  As Jomine says, the absence of an observer does not negate existence. 

                  While you are correct that great strides happen in moments, the very term moment is a very large slice of time.  The time it takes one electron to flow from one brain cell to another is trillions upon trillions of time quanta - to declare that our own concept of a short moment somehow makes things unreal doesn't follow.

                  You seem to be saying that because no one hears a tree fall in the forest it didn't happen - not so.  While the presence of an observer can alter the quantum world, it does not bring it into existence.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    As I've said before, without the observer, this would probably still be here, there just wouldn't be any labels to tac on to it.

            2. BakerRambles profile image84
              BakerRamblesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              In a philosophers jargon, time if reversed could be the effect in act making the cause, such as a basketball reversed in time to touch from ground to hand instead of hand to ground.  And for carbon dating and radioactive decay, is it not so that particles act in a seemingly random flux, that is there is no set pattern of room to room similarities.  So in effect carbon if retested by machine in another room, would it not be off by the slightest amount, and why is that so?  I think we as humans perceive what the machine tells us as an interpretation, rather than factual hard evidence.

        2. kirstenblog profile image76
          kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As I understand it time and motion are connected. The faster you are moving through space, the slower you are moving through time since both have to be in balance. This would indicate that if you could sit completely still in space you would only be moving in time, and it would speed by. Since our planet moves round the sun, our sun moves round the galaxy and our galaxy itself is also moving, we are actually traveling at great speeds at all times and standing completely still would almost be impossible (forces would likely move you, things like gravity). I am not sure what an observer has to do with anything tho? I mean, when we have passed and no longer exist, who will know that there was ever an observer to observe anything anyway? Our *time* will have passed, will that mean we never where? or that time ceases to exist because its not being observed? Is time a celebrity that must be observed in order that it can be what it is? (metaphorically speaking)

        3. Sue Adams profile image93
          Sue Adamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          " the past are but dimensions only perceptible by now."

          I like that. So, what time is it in outer space?

          First Watch what Professor Brian Cox has to say about time (he knows his stuff):

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO93b8


          And then, watch this funny spoof on previous video for a real good laugh

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nptDP35Tb0

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That was pretty funny. What's funnier is that people think they can honestly explain Einstein. lol

        4. wilmiers77 profile image61
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Man can not observe absolute time; man observes relative time. Absolute time began at the beginning of creation. QM makes a statement regarding the measurement of time which is the observation. QM states that we can not observe reality which doesn't need an observer for it to affect us moment by moment.

          "All can not be counted, but all counts.", Einstein

    3. kess profile image60
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The end is predetermined from beginning...

      So what is predetermined is the both the cause and the effect.
      The middle work itself out to that one purpose.

      Most are in the middle, where it appears to work largely in a cause/effect mode. 
      Thus giving validation to such a question.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Every middle is also a beginning and an end, every action both a cause and an effect.  Which word is chosen is solely dependent on the position in time of the one naming it.

        Nor is predestination factual - in the quantum world are many actions that happen apparently purely from random chance.  If that is indeed true, those actions will affect the macro world and negate the possibility of predestination.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          When you speak from the 'if' position  and in at that place all 'facts' are questionable.

          That is the middle 'if' position and this is why you question the things I say.
          It that position you will also question the things you say...and it is expected that you would put it above mine.


          I do not speak from the if position...and you do not understands the things outside of it.

          So you question so as to promote your position instead of seeking to understand mine.

          If you were interested in understanding, then you cannot help but ask the right questions...

    4. LewSethics profile image59
      LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The way I understand it, the reason we don't have a 'unified theory of everything' is because of the problem reconciling the quantum world with the 'macrocosmic' world, which still follows Newtonian science.
      Nowhere does it say in quantum physics that an observer must be present for events to happen.  What quantum physics says is that subatomic particles exist in a state of 'statistical probablitity' with reference to their position and trajectory.  That subatomic particle has a probability quotient for every and anywhere in the universe.  But when we observe that particle the 'probability vector' collapses into the reality of either where the particle is, or how fast it is moving, but not both.
      The particle would have gone from point a to point b whether there was an observer or not.
      But the confusion, I think, arises from the fact that mathematical language can't always be fully interpreted into spoken language, just like some french phrases don't make sense in english. 
      The atom or electron or whatever is where it is and doing what it is supposed to be doing, it is the experimenters and the math people who are trying to put things together from evidence they don't understand.

  2. AshtonFirefly profile image82
    AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago

    I think "humans simply bash their heads from the questions of life that are truly over our heads theoretically speaking" as you said. smile

  3. dipless profile image86
    diplessposted 5 years ago

    Causality is fundamental to all natural sciences and especially physics. It has been well been well researched and there has been one area which questions causality, which is radioactive decay which according to standard quantum models, the decay was random, however new research has led us to believe that decay is caused by vacuum fluctuations otherwise known as virtual particles.

 
working