Space-time. Rookie question I'm afraid.

[Radar]

Hello all. This is my first real post. Feel free to enlighten me rookie that I am.

I want to ask a fundamental question about time and its cosmological importance. This is not thread about events following events or what the nature of time is, just the importance of time as a description in cosmology.

So here is a position I would like start from, that is, that time is of no cosmological importance or significance in the origin of the universe or any processes involving the beginning of the universe to its now current state. For example, a neutron undergoing a beta decay with half life of 1.277×10^9 years is oblivious to this period of decay. At neutron level the emission either occurs or it doesn’t.

Here time gives us only a means to predict beta decay; it plays no part in process. Thus, if we remove the observer and the need for predictive science the period for beta decay has no importance or meaning at all. Time does not help us determine the process.

On the cosmic scale the period between the proposed Big Bang to now is an observer’s psychological construct with which to measure out events. To the cosmological processes it has no relevance as the only things of importance are the processes themselves regardless of how long it takes to occur.

Since time is no consequence it cannot be included in any model use to derive the origin of the universe, its properties or processes. Time is a descriptive tool only.

For example, if we take speed as distance over time we have a constructed description only as it does not involve the process of movement. Where E=MC^2 we also have the same construct with regard to the speed of light (squared), however here it is used to derive the energy of a mass in motion.

So here is the question. Can time as a psychological construct have any bearing on the true nature of cosmological properties etc? In which case is space-time real or is it just all in our heads?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Radar

So here is the question. Can time as a psychological construct have any bearing on the true nature of cosmological properties etc? In which case is space-time real or is it just all in our heads?

I'm afraid those are philosophical questions, not cosmological ones.

As science is empirical, it works only on that which we can observe and relate to. If I look through my telescope and see a distant galaxy and tell you where exactly to find it, you could look for it, find it, and we would agree that we are seeing the same thing.

So as far as science in general goes (not just cosmology), the question of "what is real" has no meaning (with perhaps the exception of quantum mechanics and such).

So here is a position I would like start from, that is, that time is of no cosmological importance or significance in the origin of the universe or any processes involving the beginning of the universe to its now current state.

That's a rather bold position to start from. Since modern Cosmology has terms like Planck time, space-time, time dilation, etc. it seems a bit silly to state that time is of "no cosmological importance or significance", don't you think.

For example, a neutron undergoing a beta decay with half life of 1.277×10^9 years is oblivious to this period of decay. At neutron level the emission either occurs or it doesn’t.

Here time gives us only a means to predict beta decay; it plays no part in process. Thus, if we remove the observer and the need for predictive science the period for beta decay has no importance or meaning at all. Time does not help us determine the process.

Time definitely "plays a part in the process" of beta decay.
Remove time, and terms such as "half-life" become meaningless.

[snoopy]

Originally Posted by Radar

Hello all. This is my first real post. Feel free to enlighten me rookie that I am.

I want to ask a fundamental question about time and its cosmological importance. This is not thread about events following events or what the nature of time is, just the importance of time as a description in cosmology.

So here is a position I would like start from, that is, that time is of no cosmological importance or significance in the origin of the universe or any processes involving the beginning of the universe to its now current state. For example, a neutron undergoing a beta decay with half life of 1.277×10^9 years is oblivious to this period of decay. At neutron level the emission either occurs or it doesn’t.

Here time gives us only a means to predict beta decay; it plays no part in process. Thus, if we remove the observer and the need for predictive science the period for beta decay has no importance or meaning at all. Time does not help us determine the process.

On the cosmic scale the period between the proposed Big Bang to now is an observer’s psychological construct with which to measure out events. To the cosmological processes it has no relevance as the only things of importance are the processes themselves regardless of how long it takes to occur.

Since time is no consequence it cannot be included in any model use to derive the origin of the universe, its properties or processes. Time is a descriptive tool only.

For example, if we take speed as distance over time we have a constructed description only as it does not involve the process of movement. Where E=MC^2 we also have the same construct with regard to the speed of light (squared), however here it is used to derive the energy of a mass in motion.

So here is the question. Can time as a psychological construct have any bearing on the true nature of cosmological properties etc? In which case is space-time real or is it just all in our heads?

Again in any physics you could invent you would have to have time and space as fundamental constructs on which to base your equations.

The idea that these constructs might not objectively exist, is highly unlikely as the eqautions work so well based on these constructs you would have to form some math proof on why these contructs are illusionary to take the science community with you on this one.

I am afraid you are stuck with time and space as basic concepts like velocity are based on them these basic concepts lead on mathematically to higher concepts. All these concepts are experimentally verifiable as being correct or as approximations to the truth.

If you are looking for ultimate truths physics wont provide you with answers but will let you glimpse if you learn enough physics how the universe really works.

Peace

[Radar]

Originally Posted by snoopy

If you are looking for ultimate truths physics wont provide you with answers but will let you glimpse if you learn enough physics how the universe really works.

I am almost dismayed that physics wont provide the ultimate truths

I accept that much of what is observed in relation to space and time is experimentally verifiable. Mathimatically brilliant minds are capable of many high level concepts of which many find repeatable evidence for the concept being a reality/true.

However, the same brilliant minds construct concepts of space-time that inhabit multi-dimensional universes. Mathimatically doable but never observed! Why would I need a mathematic proof to disprove an illusion/concept that has not yet been concretely proven or even accepted as true by the community that helped created it.

I am not stating that time does not exist as a definable property of physics. I am mearly asking if it plays any crucial role in cosmological processes and as such if space-time is a construct of vital importance or an unprovable mathematical exercise.

Freeztar:
Time definitely "plays a part in the process" of beta decay.

Sorry Freeztar, I'm probably being a bit thick about how I'm phrasing my question and if you could explain to me the role of time in beta decay process I would be very happy to humbly take it onboard.

Sorry to all for causing confusion in my question. Please bear in mind I am a physics rookie trying to understand without unintentionally starting a fight.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Radar

I am not stating that time does not exist as a definable property of physics. I am mearly asking if it plays any crucial role in cosmological processes and as such if space-time is a construct of vital importance or an unprovable mathematical exercise.

Space-time is a construct of vital importance to Relativity theory. It doesn't mean it is set in law, but it is a solid theory because it has avoided ever being disproven, so far. (well, it doesn't exactly work at quantum levels, but we have a different theory for that; probably the biggest challenge in modern physics is to unify the two theories)

Sorry Freeztar, I'm probably being a bit thick about how I'm phrasing my question and if you could explain to me the role of time in beta decay process I would be very happy to humbly take it onboard.

Well, I'm no nuclear physicist, but take a look at this Feynman diagram below. The "t" at the top of the vector arrow represents time:

Image:Beta Negative Decay.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Sorry to all for causing confusion in my question. Please bear in mind I am a physics rookie trying to understand without unintentionally starting a fight.

No worries!
That's what this place is for. We're all hear to learn and share ideas. No need to feel weird about asking questions.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Well, I'm no nuclear physicist, but take a look at this Feynman diagram below. The "t" at the top of the vector arrow represents time:

Image:Beta Negative Decay.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Hi Freeztar,

So we have scientific proof of time travel?

Incidentally the diagram is similar to the paths taken in the FTL experiment with the two prisms.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

So we have scientific proof of time travel?

If we do, I'm not aware of it.

Incidentally the diagram is similar to the paths taken in the FTL experiment with the two prisms.

Any semblance is coincidental.

[snoopy]

Originally Posted by Radar

I am not stating that time does not exist as a definable property of physics. I am mearly asking if it plays any crucial role in cosmological processes and as such if space-time is a construct of vital importance or an unprovable mathematical exercise.

Yes I know you are not but as I stated before space and time raise their heads in every physics equation either directly or indirectly.

The same is true in cosmology which is largley based on Einsteins ideas now, in which space and time are joined in a 4d spacetime block.

For example it is almost impossible to correctly predict the age of a star without mentioning time at some point in your equations.

Peace

[LaurieAG]

Hi Freeztar,

Originally Posted by freeztar

If we do, I'm not aware of it.

What do you call it when you have a dimension of time and your plotted path goes back in time? It's probably why Wiki doesn't have a definition for Feynman diagrams (many of the other example diagrams don't have a time dimension).

Originally Posted by freeztar

Any semblance is coincidental.

Have you read about Photon Transistors and the FTL experiment? They share much in common with the diagram you referred to.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Hi Freeztar,

What do you call it when you have a dimension of time and your plotted path goes back in time?

Time travel, but that is not what is happening in the diagram.

It's probably why Wiki doesn't have a definition for Feynman diagrams (many of the other example diagrams don't have a time dimension).

Huh?
Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by wiki

Feynman diagrams are merely graphs; there is no concept of position or space in a Feynman diagram, and there is no concept of time aside from the distinction between incoming and outgoing lines.

That certainly does not make my example a strong one, but it shows that the process is not "instantaneous" at least.

Perhaps a better example is to point out the time component in decay equations. All of these equations implement time in some way.
Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you read about Photon Transistors and the FTL experiment? They share much in common with the diagram you referred to.

Yes, and it's a great read.
As a matter of fact, we both replied to the original thread on it here and then Turtle started this thread which goes more in depth:
http://hypography.com/forums/physics...t=faster+light


But I digress...
I feel were getting a bit off-track here. Any comments/questions Radar?