Question for Astrono-geeks (time; matter/energy)

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

I have an astronomy question I was wondering if you could answer, or could point me in the right direction to getting the answer.

Hypothetically, if the past still exists and the future already exists – what would that say about matter/energy?

Scenario A:

The matter/energy of the past stays in the past, the matter/energy of the future is already there, and there is unique matter/energy in every moment. The matter/energy of each moment is not created in the “present” if the future already exists. Each moment (the universe, from beginning to end) must be created from beyond time.

Scenario B:

If the matter/energy of the past is the same matter/energy of the present and future, and the past/future exists (but outside the present) – then the past/future is empty of matter/energy (doesn’t that mean it doesn’t exist?)…. so then, the past/future doesn’t exist outside the present, or the matter/energy of the past is not the same matter/energy of the present/future (see scenario A).

But:

If prophets genuinely receive the future, then doesn’t that mean the future already exists? And being that prophets exist in the past of the foreseen future… doesn’t that mean the past still exists? If so, then scenario A must be true, or it must be possible for there to be a past/future (concept?) in God’s mind that is empty of matter/energy.

Do you see any kinks in my thinking?

“Now,” if scenario A is right, from God’s perspective, includes the whole universe from beginning to end. Say you represent that with a line. To us, we see one dot on the line at a time, moving from left (beginning) to right (end) ('cause that’s how we read our books…). God sees all the dots at the same time – He sees the line. His “now” is a line, our “now” is a dot.

My question is – is matter/energy preserved in the line (scenario B, where the past/future is an immaterial concept in God’s mind), or in the dot (scenario A)? If B, time travel is impossible. If A – time travel is possible. You just switch some matter/energy between dots. But, that’s a major tangent, now, isn’t it? Makes me want to write sci-fi, haha. But, in the case of prophecy, no matter/energy switches around – God just makes the necessary impressions on the prophet’s brain so that s/he experiences the past/future as if it were present (that’s one way of God’s communication… He also just “tells” them Himself or through an angel).

I may have been (was in fact) wrong about that part in bold (or… right for the wrong reasons). If the past still exists, and the future already exists, then the dots are unchangeable (besides the fact that we co-created/-create them in the present, thanks to God), and any mixing between dots is preserved in the line (but, that mixing may not involve the exchange of matter/energy between dots, it could just be the communication of the future to the mind of a prophet, from beyond time). This means time-travel is impossible unless it is designed into the line from beyond time (God’s perspective) (it could be either scenario A, where matter-energy is switched between dots, or scenario B, where there is no switching of matter-energy between dots, because only the present is material… but then that would mean that traveling out of the present is traveling into a mere concept of past/future, rather than into the material reality of past/future… and what would that be like?).

I was thinking… how do you switch matter/energy between dots (scenario A)… you’d have to have cooperation between people (or instances of your mad-scientist self) from two different dots. Simply, Sam Monday would have to switch places with Sam Friday (but it isn’t that simple, because by the time Friday roles around, Sam’s matter-energy is no longer identical to Sam Monday, and the switch wouldn’t work). But, ultimately, it would take God’s cooperation, for the reasons mentioned above. Maybe you wouldn’t even need any scientific equipment to perform this. And… maybe… just maybe… you’re doing this right now, and you just don’t know it! Hahahahahaha! :lol: Reminds me of K-Pax.

To me, the universe could be “not deterministic” because it is “predetermined” (and so scenario A would fit, or it would fit that God has a concept of the past and future that are not ‘material’ – a concept which includes emotions, reactions, experience, etcetera) – have you read my “predestination and free will” thread?

For anyone wondering what this (the future already being predetermined by God) all might imply about free will…

The past has already happened and yet you had free will before it had already happened, right?

Why not apply the same reasoning to the future?

Whether or not it has already happened (scenario A), or God already knows how it is going to happen (modified scenario B), we still have free will, because He creates with our free choices in mind from beyond time.

2

Where God’s involved, consevation of energy does not apply.

3

Hmm intersting question.

I guess it depends what you mean by matter/energy.

The Energy of the universe is conserved. That much is true. But this doesn’t really answer your question.

I think that the question doesn’t really have an answer in modern physics because there is no concept of a ‘now’ in physics.

I see two possibilities:

A) The concept of a ‘Now’ is a human invention. So I guess that would mean our concept of ‘time’ as an ever evoloving now is also just an ideal.

B) Physics isn’t complete and a complete theory of spacetime (or its replacement theory) would give us a mathematical interpretation of ‘Now’. Of course its possible that this complete theory isn’t really possible to right down as an equation.

If you ignore quantum physics I think A) is the most obvious answer. From A) I would also conclude that both the past and future exist and will always exist. S my A) would be the same as your A). This Is largly because classical physics is deterministic so as you say ‘Each moment (the universe, from beginning to end) must be created from beyond time.’

But Quantum physics blows your Scenerio A) out of the water because we find that the universe isn’t deterministic! But we could perhaps say that although the future is yet to be determined that the past is set in stone and therfore contiues to exist. Not sure I like that Idea though.

So now we consider B) I think this is probably the truth and also the more philosophically interesting option. I think the idea that only the now exists and that the past and future are just useful abstract terms that we have gotten use to using is far closer to the truth. But we can’t escape the fact that this idea of spacetime is very useful and allows us to give meaning to the present.

I think, as with many things in physics/philosophy, it is a strange entanglement of ideas that we see as totally seperate but which are in actual fact seperately incomplete ideas and only when we can uniite them in a way that defies common sense will we realise ‘the truth’ e.g. space/time energy/matter wave/particle mind/body.

I think those examples are much more than analogies to the combination of the concept of an ever evoloving now and a fully determined past, present and future.

Hopefully I’m not losing anyone who reads this.

I’ll try to explain. In quantum physics we have wave equations which are deterministic. So if we watch the wave equation of the universe from ‘begining to end’ its totally determined by the equation. But this wave equation really only gives us the probablity of finding the universe in any one of infinte states. So its only when we actually measure the position or momentum of a particle that we can say what it is the particle is doing.

This probabilistic measurement is what gives quatum physics all its bizzare qualities. But then we also get this inherent uncertainty in our measursements. What I think this signifies is that we never extually get rid of the wave nature of matter we just refine the picture of what is going on to a more ‘particle like’ picture.

So in conclusion: Senerio A) is wrong from the point of view of you being able to predict the future of any events in the future. But it has some truth in that the wave function remains determined.

I think there may be holes in your Senerio B) becuase matter energy is a worldline in spacetime and hence can exist at all points in space time past and present. But theres no satisfactory answer to your question only more and more interesting twists. But thats alot more interesting anyway.

4

Thanks for your replies. I wish I knew all that quantum math… I think it would be cool to dig into it if I ever get around to it. I wonder what all it would require.

This is from my astronomy professor (nice that we keep in touch)…

I am still needing to go over that theory he mentioned. I never did get into it very deeply. It’s kinda funny he’s still explaining it to me like I’m in kindergarten. His reply (regarding the God part) is very encouraging. I’ll be telling him that I treat the past/future as locations (half metaphorically) for the same reason space and time are treated together in “space-time”.

–fin

“Now,” if scenario A is right, from God’s perspective, includes the whole universe from beginning to end. Say you represent that with a line. To us, we see one dot on the line at a time, moving from left (beginning) to right (end) ('cause that’s how we read our books…). God sees all the dots at the same time – He sees the line. His “now” is a line, our “now” is a dot.

My question is – is matter/energy preserved in the line (scenario B, where the past/future is an immaterial concept in God’s mind), or in the dot (scenario A)? If B, time travel is impossible. If A – time travel is possible. You just switch some matter/energy between dots. But, that’s a major tangent, now, isn’t it? Makes me want to write sci-fi, haha. But, in the case of prophecy, no matter/energy switches around – God just makes the necessary impressions on the prophet’s brain so that s/he experiences the past/future as if it were present (that’s one way of God’s communication… He also just “tells” them Himself or through an angel).

To me, the universe could be “not deterministic” because it is “predetermined” (and so scenario A would fit, or it would fit that God has a concept of the past and future that are not ‘material’ – a concept which includes emotions, reactions, experience, etcetera) – have you read my “predestination and free will” thread in the Religion forum?

I have no clue what you mean by “worldline”.

5

A world line is like the line god ‘sees’ as a line going through every human now. Far from not understanding you seem to have come up with it on your own!

6

Fin, well… it’s pretty much common sense, I guess.

– fin

Was that not replied to sufficiently with this:

For anyone wondering what this (the future already being predetermined by God) all might imply about free will…

The past has already happened and yet you had free will before it had already happened, right?

Why not apply the same reasoning to the future?

Whether or not it has already happened (scenario A), or God already knows how it is going to happen (modified scenario B), we still have free will, because He creates with our free choices in mind from beyond time.

7

There is a “matter” that we shall call a star. Ten light years that “matter” desintegrated. But Right Now you see a star. It is as if you are seeing the past.
A person ten light years away from will see the star as you see it 'now"; while you see the star implosion.
So there can not be a past and a future at the same time - only a wave of some sort.

8

Capslockf9 – Do you know how far away ten lightyears (this is a measurement of distance) is?

It seems to me that events in “now” can be ordered differently per observation, and all observations can be true (I’m not talking about eye witness testimony, of course), and if you put all the observations together, you get “now”. It is not logically or mathematically contradictory to put events in different order relative to different observers. The observer does not make reality, so different observations do not equate to reality contradicting itself.

But, like I said previously, I still need to go into the theory of relativity.

And every time I said “dot” up there in one of my previous posts… I meant “point” – lol, I frequently create “connect the dots” scenarios at work. The “dots” below are also “points” – forgive me.

I may have been (was in fact) wrong about that (or… right for the wrong reasons). If the past still exists, and the future already exists, then the dots are unchangeable (besides the fact that we co-created/-create them in the present, thanks to God), and any mixing between dots is preserved in the line (but, that mixing may not involve the exchange of matter/energy between dots, it could just be the communication of the future to the mind of a prophet, from beyond time). This means time-travel is impossible unless it is designed into the line from beyond time (God’s perspective) (it could be either scenario A, where matter-energy is switched between dots, or scenario B, where there is no switching of matter-energy between dots, because only the present is material… but then that would mean that traveling out of the present is traveling into a mere concept of past/future, rather than into the material reality of past/future… and what would that be like?).

I was thinking… how do you switch matter/energy between dots (scenario A)… you’d have to have cooperation between people (or instances of your mad-scientist self) from two different dots. Simply, Sam Monday would have to switch places with Sam Friday (but it isn’t that simple, because by the time Friday roles around, Sam’s matter-energy is no longer identical to Sam Monday, and the switch wouldn’t work). But, ultimately, it would take God’s cooperation, for the reasons mentioned above. Maybe you wouldn’t even need any scientific equipment to perform this. And… maybe… just maybe… you’re doing this right now, and you just don’t know it! Hahahahahaha! :lol: Reminds me of K-Pax.

9

Yes it is a very long distance.
You on this planet will see the star as it was( before; the light that broadcast it’s demise arrives). You do not see the implosion because that light has not arrived yet.

That bit of light that you noticed will travel another light years. Upon reaching another planet another person there, he will now see the same star you saw. He is seeing the star while the new light arriving to your planet is announcing the implosion.

So there you have it; at the same instant over long distance he see what is basicly a past event of yours ; and meanwhile you think you are seeing the present.
Is the past and the present happening at the same time, or is time an illusion

10

Capslockf9 – okay, I understand what you’re saying now. Some key words were missing from your initial reply.

In your most recent reply, the key words there are “the same instant”. That instant is the “objective now”… for those imbedded in time. To observe events in a different order is not to say that the ‘objective now’ is happening in different orders. Both observations are true in the ‘objective now’.

Unless I’m wrong… and I don’t see how I can be wrong at this point. I do really need to dig into that theory (Einstein’s).

Merry Christmas.

11

Do you know the kill-zone of an exploding or imploding star, by any chance? It would probably depend on the size of the star, but… do you think 10 light years is outside any star’s kill zone?

This is interesting:

“General relativity predicts that in creating a black hole, matter compresses into infinite density (and zero value), a state called a singularity. However, general relativity and other theories of physics are known to be invalid in such a situation. A more comprehensive theory of nature must be developed to explain the state of matter in a black hole’s singularity,” (381, Discovering the Universe; Comins, Kauffman; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2005).

Apparently time slows down because of the density of the matter, according to that theory. I really don’t get this. So… I’ll be looking into it until I do, or until I can explain why it is wrong.

Getting off-line.

12

The problem is believing in time as a reality. Those that see or think time will try to disect time into it’s most minute point. Consequently even the point can be further divide. And that divide infinitly. They will never reach “the now”.

Matter is the phenomena. Matter is a reaction to stimuli on our senses. A wave, or flux, or some kind of vibration in "space"cause us to percieve matter. One could find “the Now”; by looking for that crest or ebb.

[quote= “ichthus”]
the matter/energy of the past is not the same matter/energy of the present/future (see scenario A).

[quote]
And ; if we could go to the future the “matter”(relatives, pets etc…) that one sees there is the same ''matter" that one left in the past. Because in actuality there is no matter but some kind of perturbation. The “wave” that stimulated you to see the matter back home is also causing you to see matter again.

13

I dunno… I kind of don’t think I have anything to say in reply. I think you’re making stuff up, really. And that’s okay. Have fun.

One thing I do know… if I ever understand all this, it’ll be a miracle. I spent Christmas with my parents and had the most interesting discussion with my father about this, but… I still don’t get it.

God is enormously awesome. I can’t believe I actually said “mere concept” up there. I was thinkin’… maybe God’s concreta is the present, and His abstracta is the past/future (modified scenario B). Only God knows… What I’m saying probably sounds really dumb when compared with the truth. sigh He’s so amazing.

14

Why yes, “hypothetically” you can say anything you want.

Anyone can demonstrate this for themselves using “sound.” When I was a kid, I briefly worked one summer as a caddy. On the first hole, we caddies stood on a hill and the Golphers used to shoot towards us. The sound of the shot would arrive AFTER the ball was hit. A very odd experieince. But in a small way, simulates the example you post of a star, and our ability to see the light. Obviously the sound was generated at the moment of contact - But to us, a few hundred yards away, we could only see the moment of contact, but the sound arrived later.

Dave

15

I’ve been trying to understand relativity. I imagine a clock in my left hand and and a clock in my right hand, one clock slower than the other (hence, the other faster) … just because of differing masses effecting the rate of motion (again, using imagination) (I have reeeeally long arms, and reeeeally big hands)… this seems to equate “rate of motion” with “rate of passage of time”. Relativity wants to say that the clock on the left has a different ‘now’ than the clock on the right, whereas to me, I am holding both clocks in my hands “right now”. If there were no “right now” there would be no way to synchronize the clocks so as to be able to tell one is slower and one is faster (both relative to eachother). A clock ticking slowly and a clock ticking quickly are still ticking together… and that’s now!

Chato’s golf example… the sound and the thwack of club and ball seemed simultaneous to the golfer, but not the caddies… thus the conclusion that there is no simultaneity … no objective now… but this is silly. One point of reference does not constitute a “now”. “Now” is the sum total of all points of reference (all observations of the various orders of events).

Maybe I still don’t get it.

I have more questions.

How is it possible, how does it make any sense that the universe is expanding? Perhaps it is just rearranging. Then again, the text says that in its expansion, more space-time is created – I would ask how that is possible, but then we could ask that about the very first instance of space-time (God created it all, ahem). How can space-time be curved when it seems pretty invisible – maybe the force of gravity just gives the illusion of space-time. Maybe light doesn’t travel through space… just along gravitational paths. Maybe it isn’t space that is curved… maybe it is just gravitational paths that are curvy… 'cause everything else is curvy. Somehow this is going backwards to Newton. I give up.

16

Maybe, I don’t get it, but my analogy was simply to show that simultanious events, may not be Observed simultaniously. Since light travels faster than sound, I SAW the golf ball being hit, but only heard the sound later. But even light has speed, so the previous example of watching a star, ten “light years” away. We see a normal star, even though the actual star just blew up - we will not see the “light” until ten years later. Ten light years being the amount of time that it will take light to reach us.

When the universe was “born,” it’s size was that of a baseball (basketball? Really small) So the explosion that created our universe led to it’s “expansion.” The force of that explosion is still working, and the universe is still expanding.

What I find really interesting about the theoery of relativity is that of the relationship between speed and time. Einsteins theory states that if you were going fast enough, time for YOU would be different than time for someone on the stationary object that you left. This was confirmed when the first astronauts experienced time differently than those on earth. They were traveling around 25,000 miles per hour, and over the course of a day or so, they gained two seconds of time. This experiment has been repeated numerous times with the same result. Relativeity tells us, that if you are going at a speed close to the speed of light, the change would be signifigant. If I recall, you, the treaveler might age a year, while those on earth might age scores of years. There is a formula to describe this. In some way “alien to me,” you could, if you reached the speed of light, hardly age at all, while those on the stationary object could be aging thousands of years.

It’s diffucult to understand without the math - I don’t have the math - Bertrand Russel wrote an excellent book on the subject called, “One, two, three, relativity.”

There are other peculiar aspects of releativity, for example, gravity affects time as well as speed. If it wasn’t for the fact that all of this stuff was proved by expermiment, I would call them all nuts and go about my life… :frowning:

Plus of course, there’s plenty of work that remains undone.

Go figure.

Dave

17

I’ve been trying to conceive of the relativity theory (still) (the time weirdness). I am trying to think of it like two different identical movies playing at two different speeds, but when you are in either of the videos, it feels like it is playing at normal speed, whereas if you are outside the videos it looks like the videos are playing too fast or too slow (depending on the whole mass and motion thing). I don’t know why it is like that, though, which makes me wish I knew the math. It sort of makes me think of the universe as a multiverse of differing time bubbles all interlinked by gravity.

But relativity theory would say that since the apparently simultaneous events can be observed as not simultaneous, they were never objectively simultaneous, and were instead only apparently simultaneous – there never was simultaneity (unless I misunderstand it). What I actually think is the case is that there is simultaneity along with all the other ways to slice it up (the order of events).

I thought a singularity is infinitely small? Then I watched this thing on the history channel or something that said it was the size of a … crud I forgot what they called it. Something-atom. Super atom? I can’t remember. Really small. I don’t see how anything can expand if there is nothing in which to expand.

That is totally awesome.

Seriously? The title sounds kind of “elementary school”. One can only hope! lol! I don’t find Russell’s writing too difficult to follow, anyway.

18

Time dilation in special relativity is pretty easy to understand.
All you got to remember is that the speed of light is always the same no matter what speed your traveling relative to the source of the light. All of relativity comes from that one principle or rather the full principle that the laws of physics sgould be the same for all observers.

So time dilation. speed = distance/time. So if the speed of light is always the same we can say the time it takes light to travel along a distance is only depend on the distance not your speed relative to the source of light.

basically:

distance = time

So if we’re stotionary relative to the light source(say in a space ship) and a wall the light bounces off before comeing back to the source we get this:

But if the source is moving away from us(watchig the spaceship from earth) we get this:

In the statioary case the distance travelled by the light is just h.
But in the moving case the distance travelled is greater than h.

So as distance = time the time is greater when the mirrors are moving. Time dilation.

19

Thanks, fin. Your signature is weird.

My text starts out saying that the length of an object decreases as its speed increases. If you’re on the train, the length doesn’t change, but if it moves past you, it is shorter. We’re talking about one train. That train cannot both be “a certain length” and “shorter than a certain length” at the same time/instant/moment (A doesn’t equal A). So – what gives?

Same deal with moving clocks. A clock seems to tick more slowly passing by you than if you are in motion with it. The same clock is ticking at normal speed and at a slower speed at the same time/instant/moment (A doesn’t equal A). What gives? Say we’re all in the U.S.A. – from our perspective, everyone in China is upside-down. That statement is silly. Now – why does the ticking clock’s time seem to slow down when it passes us (China upside down)… why isn’t it instead that our time seems to slow down relative to the ticking clock (U.S.A. upside down)? Maybe nobody’s time is slowing down, maybe nobody is upside down? Maybe everybody’s time is slowing down, maybe everybody is upside down? Which ‘maybe’ is correct and why?

Same deal with mass increasing as the object moves faster, even though it does not acquire more matter. The same object has normal mass and greater mass in the same time/instant/moment (A does not equal A). What gives?

If time is slower when there is a greater concentration of matter, that means time is slower on earth than on the moon. Do these differing times link together like the mixing of salt and fresh water?

For a train passing by you – mass increases, length decreases, time slows. If you’re on the train – mass, length, and time remain the same. So, the very same train remains the same AND changes mass, length, and time. What gives?

If all of this is accurate… then why do things break apart when entering a black hole? “All of the above” (my text) says the person on the object that is in motion doesn’t notice time slowing, doesn’t notice length decreasing or mass increasing – nothing seems to change for them. Are people wrong about things being destroyed when they enter a black hole?

Does anyone see where I am going wrong in my thought process… what missing piece of the puzzle will help it all come into view?

20

Its not silly its true relative to you people in china are upside down. Thats just a fact. The same is true of time dilation or length contraction. Time and space are relative.

It would.

Common sense.

length and time aren’t absolute. The only absolutes are spacetime and the speed of light.