Does time exist as we understand it? Is the "Big Bang" hypothesis wrong? James Webb Telescope is upsetting many held beliefs.

[Neonatal RRT]

I stumbled across this video today.

.

 

[AdamG]

In my opinion, physics lately has been more about "fitting in" and not actual new theories. I am not so sure why the "Big Bang" is held on to so tightly, when we don't even know what happens near a singularity with observable data.

 

[tazz]

we don't even know what happens near a singularity with observable data

Well...

We have directly observable data from when the universe was 400,000 years old.

And we have hard data about the physics that applied when the universe was a tenth of a trillionth of a second old.

Anyway...

The Kaku footage was from an interview about 5 years before JWST was launched, which was about multi-universe theory I think.

And I didn't know the confederate general Robert Lee had an interest in physics, and even more remarkable that he's still "shaking things up" 150 years after his death.

 

[AdamG]

I wasn't implying that the Big Bang is not one potential option for the 400,000 year old state. I'm just saying, it is not the only potential option. And ... any who say it might be is laughed out of academia. That's all.

 

[AdamG]

I do certainly understand that the splitting of forces (other than gravity) can be explained by the state of near-singularity as well. Which gives at least that much some real mathematical credence.

 

[Wolfnox]

Gentlemen and ladies. Allow me. Firstly time is a concept we derive from change and decay. It has multiple interpretations. Math being the latest to try to prove it exists. Humans and animals observe it on Earth with the seasons.
But, on Mars how would you tell? Or the moon?
Math can tell us it does exist. But, only experiencing it as sentience beings makes it a reality.

 

[tazz]

Yeah I know you said it has multiple interpretations, so maybe I'm not talking about the same interpretation as you, but isn't there at least some sense that time ticks by even if humans are not around. The universe is older than all life on the planet - time was ticking by before Earth formed.

 

[Judge]

I sometimes ponder whether time is inelastic and science empirically accurate only within the confines of this particular dimension. That outside this dimension, what we think we know simply doesn't apply.

But then how much has science bothered to elaborate on different possible planes of existence?

 

[AdamG]

Speaking about it from a physics point of view, time is measured by the relative movement between an object through 3d space to c. This is why time is relative from any non-c standpoint (as well as velocity, since it is dependent on time) between two objects. Technically, one second is defined as how long it takes an object (light in a vacuum) to move one light-second. Seems circular, but all timepieces used rely on this principle ... how long a measurable item moves in comparison to a known distance.

 

[Forest Cat]

All I know is that not long ago people believed the earth was flat. And that it was the center of the universe. So when someone makes claims now that we know something for sure, I take it with a grain of salt and assume we still know very little.

 

[tazz]

not long ago people believed the earth was flat

That argument is a little flawed. We used to think the earth was flat, then we looked at it, looked at it more closely, measured it a lot, in lots of different ways, travelled around it, sent things into space and took photos of it, took videos of it... now we're sure it is round.

Being sure about something is no indication that it's correct. Being sure about something after gathering mountains of data is.

 

[Forest Cat]

That argument is a little flawed. We used to think the earth was flat, then we looked at it, looked at it more closely, measured it a lot, in lots of different ways, travelled around it, sent things into space and took photos of it, took videos of it... now we're sure it is round.

Being sure about something is no indication that it's correct. Being sure about something after gathering mountains of data is.

Yes now we know for sure. Just as they did back when they tought it was flat... My point was just that we know very little overall about the universe and time and such things. We're guessing a lot. We don't even know where we are or what the universe is.

 

[tazz]

We're guessing a lot.

Oh absolutely - agreed. About so many things.

But we can be sure that the earth is round and that is not "just like they did back then when they thought it was flat..."

But anyway, another take on this... I quite like the idea that we can never be absolutely sure, but that doesn't matter because the measure of a theory is its usefulness, not whether it is correct.

If you stick to the idea that the earth is flat, you can't map it accurately and get places easily. But as you come across more information and work out it's round, and we find that using that model we can travel more easily, we can throw away the old idea because the new one is way more useful. We never need to say we're sure the earth is round or debate that point. We only need to say that if we assume it's round we'll be able to do all this cool stuff. Discovering the information is just a means to find useful explanations, not correct explanations. It just so happens that quite often, when we find something out that proves to be extremely useful, it is also extremely accurate.

 

[Forest Cat]

Oh absolutely - agreed. About so many things.

But we can be sure that the earth is round and that is not "just like they did back then when they thought it was flat..."

The flat earth thing was just an example of how people can be very sure of something. We know for sure, until we find out we are wrong. It seems to happen a lot with a lot of things. Humans have a tendency to know things for sure.

 

[AdamG]

Or incomplete. Newton is a good approximation for many things on Earth.

 

[Hypnalis]

If you assume time isn't a thing, you've also lost local sequence and local cause and effect.
So regardless of what the math or physicists say, at human scale we have to assume it's at least locally real.

Here's one of the planet's coolest Aspies (Sabine Hossenfelder) on the topic:

BTW - I haven't seen this one, but I've seen a lot of her videos, and enjoyed all of them, so even sight unseen I'm prepared to recommend it.
Searching youtube for "sabine hossenfelder time" displayed a few extra time-related videos from her.

 

[tazz]

The flat earth thing was just an example of how people can be very sure of something. We know for sure, until we find out we are wrong.

Yeah I understand it's just an example. I was also using it as an example. I get your wider point. But I think your wider point is flawed - with respect.

We know for sure, until we find out we are wrong. It seems to happen a lot with a lot of things.

I don't think that's true. It used to be, before the enlightenment and we refined the scientific method.

Or incomplete. Newton is a good approximation for many things on Earth.

I like the idea that the measure of a theory is its usefulness, not whether or not it is correct. Newton's theory of gravity is incomplete, but it's still extremely useful. So although a newspaper headline might say "Newton Proved Wrong", we still use his work. Whereas Aristotles theory of gravity proved to be as useful as a chocolate teapot, so we threw it out long ago.

Edit: Oops, I see I'm starting to repeat myself. That'll teach me to try doing six things at once. I'll stop now.

 

[tazz]

I've seen a lot of her videos, and enjoyed all of them

Even the one about autism in which she says that Autism Speaks is just a bit misunderstood?

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Sabine Hossenfelder actually did a decent job with her descriptions of "time" and how it is used within the context of physics vs. how most lay people understand it. In specific areas of theoretical work, the dimension of time is not needed in order to satisfy some spacial equations. It's sort of like the use of the word "theory". Within the realm of science, "theory" may be used more or less to describe a body of work that, within certain contexts, has mathematical and experimental proofs, whereas most lay people use the word within the context of "an idea", even "conjecture". Surely, all Nobel Prize winning theories also started out, initially, as no more than an "idea", but then had to be followed up with experimentation and mathematics to prove/disprove it.

I did follow up on some of Frank Wilczek's work (thanks, tazz ) on what he understands with regards to the universe and what it is made up of. I love his description of "space" as simply another "medium", like air, or water, or rock. It is has constituents, subatomic particles, gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces (for lack of a better name), furthermore, it is these constituents/ingredients that, when specific conditions are met, will create something larger or different.

I find all of this extremely interesting, especially considering what the James Webb Space Telescope images are suggesting, or not suggesting, as the case may be. It would "seem" as if the universe, as we know it, given its scale, has no boundaries. Logically, my mind would suggest that it does have boundaries, that there is no such thing as "infinity" when it comes to space, it's just from our minuscule perspective and our current mathematics, it appears that way.

Love this stuff.

 

[Crossbreed]

But, on Mars how would you tell? Or the moon?

By the way the overhead constellations change throughout their "years."