/sci/ - Science & Math

Is it pulling from the future, or pushing from the past?

>>9940002
>Nothing can not not interact with time.
Photons and literally anything else traveling at .

>>9940002
It is a dimension.

Since gravity ~ geometry of spacetime, you could sort of just lump time in with gravity.

>>9940016
>Theory of retardity

go away

>>9940006
attraction, obviously, goes both ways.

time doesn't exert force you brainlet
>>9929447

>>9940002
Time doesn't even exist, you tard.

>>9940020
>It is a dimension.

And what is a dimension? Do you mean to say that time is a spacial dimension?

>>9940002
time is not a fundamental force because other physics can manipulate it, such as gravity and thermodynamics.

Time is just your perception of the running record of little bits of information about the expansion of the universe and increasing entropy around you, which you perceive as "events". As for the arrow of time, people like Stephen Hawking, Abhay Ashtekar, Andrei Linde, Max Tegmark and Lee Smolin have suggested explanations from the "block universe" (in other words that the universe is timeless and eternal) to the idea that at some point all events in the universe will rewind, and as the universe collapses back into a singularity and bounces back out, run forward again.

Since when did dimensions affect objects similarly to how gravity and electromagnetism do

>>9940057
Go back to school you retard

>>9940002
Because relativity's bullshit only works if time is somehow magically space-like. Don't ask questions.

>>9940002
Gravity isn't a force either, according to Einsteins theory.

Time is a direction we travel in, just like left and right. Gravity is when that time and space bends

>>9940002
Is your x coordinate a force too then?

>>9940810

Of course gravity is a force, the spacetime-curvature is caused by something, and that is mass/gravity caused by mass.

However, there is no force described what is causing us to move along the time axis, it is taken simply as being there, although we know that time is actually something that interacts with gravity.

>>9940583
>And what is a dimension?
A parameter needed to classify and differentiate a system.

Time is just a system of measurement and reference. Each moment in time is just that, 1 moment, technically unrelated to all the others. Your perception of continuing chemical reactions leads you to perceive causality where none exists. A sufficiently evolved being would simply use time, to determine when to travel to. And not believe time is capable of acting on matter. It's a dimension. Time can't be a fundamental force any more than up can be a force. Or left can be a force. Listen to some fucking Alan Watts and smoke a joint man.

>>9940023
retardivity would have made more sense given the number of syllables.

So what is the force carrier particle for time?

>>9942487
So what is making you move along the time axis?

>>9940002
>Why exactly is time not defined as a fundamental force like gravity and the others?
All things exist in spacetime. Only things with mass "experience" time from their "perspective", as the oscillation of massless self-bonding particle parings within them that create their local clock (and most of their mass). The "deeper" the well of spacetime these particles are in, the greater the oscillation of these particles, thus the relative time differential.

The designations of measurements for location we make (height/width/length/time) are arbitrary measurements, but each is linked to the other, so even if the objects are in the same relative "depth" of spacetime, they relate to one another as one transforms frames of distance between them, and, in the case of great speeds or distances, still have different relative clocks to the same degree they have different relative locations and velocities as described by the Lorentz transformation.

>>9940023
>Theory of retardity
Please do not ask questions on the science board if you do not intend accept scientific answers.

>>9942648
That is one of the great questions of our time. Might need a working theory of working quantum gravity to truly answer it. Not that there aren't other arrows of time you can reference (such as entropy), but due to time symmetry, they don't really explain why you are experiencing this particular moment of time.

>>9942648
my own will
I'm not like most other people though

>>9940002
Don't bother looking for a serious answer. Ask ten physicists and you'll get ten different responses. They can't even agree on the behaviour of time from a given frame of reference under light speed conditions.

>>9940852
Well, we know we're moving trough time. Unless some outside force stops us from doing so, we're not going to stop moving trough time anytime soon.

>>9940917
In this case, a direction in which you can move in spacetime

>>9942556
>particle
>implying time isn't a wave

>>9942648
>move along the time axis
>>9943272
>we're moving trough time
If you're using the 4D spacetime model then you're not moving in time, each moment of space and time is instead an unchanging frame lined up with all the other moments in existence and your life is an unchanging 4D worm with its ass end in your mother's womb and your head in the grave.
>>9942670
>they don't really explain why you are experiencing this particular moment of time
Every thought in every brain in every instance of space and time in existence operates with the assumption their moment is *the* one true present.
We know this isn't right though because simultaneity isn't absolute i.e. Different factors specific to an observer's frame of reference will result in different events happening simultaneously to one another as a consequence of light moving at the same speed in all frames of reference no matter how fast you're moving. There is no one privileged frame of reference.
The whole concept is pretty similar to how no matter what planet you're on you'll get the impression you're at the center of the universe and all the other celestial bodies are revolving around your planet. In reality, you aren't at a privileged central location in space and in reality your relative "now" isn't the one true present either. People thousands of years in the past from our "now" frame and people thousands of years in the future from our "now" frame all believe their "now" is the present, and none of us have a claim to being uniquely right about our own "now" being *the* one true "now." They're all equally valid as present moments relative to the people located there.

>>9940002
time is relative, its flow can be effected by other factors like gravity, unlike gravity which is constant. Ever heard of special relativity?

>>9942768
>Ask ten physicists and you'll get ten different responses. They can't even agree on the behaviour of time from a given frame of reference under light speed conditions.
I think you're confusing "physicists" with /sci/, as that's some fairly basic universally accepted shit there.

>>9943282
If it's one, it's the other. (Alluding to the fact that I think you're confused as to how particle-waves work.)

But in this case it's neither.

>>9943341
That's not compatible with the randomness in quantum mechanics

>>9943446
I guess that's one of the reasons physicists are trying to figure out a way to stick the two theories together.

>>9943446
>Quantum mechanics and relativity aren't compatible
You're learning this for the first time just now?
Also if you want one possible resolution there's superdeterminism which Bell himself acknowledged isn't technically ruled out.

>>9943473

There's no problem combining quantum mechanics and relativity. Standard model Lagrangians are Lorentz invariant. What is more difficult is including gravity.

>>9940583
Dimension in the sense of the dimension of a manifold. It is made distinct from the spacial dimensions due by equipping the manifold with a lorentizian metric as opposed to a riemannian one.

>>9943446
>>9943473
They are completely compatible, save when it comes to gravity. Block universe and time symmetry remains a thing, even with quantum "randomness".

>>9943513
>>9943527
How can all moments of spacetime exist as one unchanging block if randomness exists and isn't just due to our own lack of information?
How would this not be absolutely deterministic and non-random if it's all one unchanging 4D shape?

>>9943537
Because fundamentally indeterminable != fundamentally undetermined. Waves always collapse to the same particle.

Unless you get into multiverse theory, though even there, it's just a matter of pathing through a much more complex overlap of universes.

>>9943540
What's the difference between indeterminable and undetermined? If something's indeterminable by us but not undetermined isn't that just saying there's some hidden variable/s that make it deterministic?

>>9940002
I do my boy. It is gravity. Gravity stretches time.

>>9943537

In quantum field theory things could be seen as 'fixed in one unchanging block' in the sense that the thing describing the system - here a wave functional which gives you the probability of your fields having a particular configuration in space - evolves deterministically in time according to a functional Schrodinger equation.

May be most physicists don't think this is how this actually is in nature as the above picture does not include wave function(al) collapse.

>>9943574
As there's multiple probabilities, but one result. (Though the fact that you have a predictable range probabilities should also tell you something.)

>>9940002
well time is not a quality it is a relationship and a process.
see Peirce, Whitehead, Deleuze and Bergson.

>>9940006
>>9940023
>Is it pulling from the future, or pushing from the past?
>attraction, obviously, goes both ways.
it is moving towards the future by the affections of the past.
"attraction" only goes one way, towards the becoming of potential, relation goes "both ways", to the virtual openness of becoming and the closed actualities of being that set the boundaries of potential and thus the openness of becoming. There really aren't two ways to go, it is a continuous relation of animated wholes that are animated by there relationship to potential rather than the relationship to actual entities (relationship between actual entities, substance and systems) by which they're defined in quality and quantity. What you need to accept here is the ontological primacy of relation to that of the other categories. >>9940020
>>9940917
>a system.
>It is a dimension.
cringe
>>9942487
yikes!
>>9942664
close but you are still putting quality over relation.
>>9942768
thats why you ask me instead of a physicist >>9943282
>time is a wave
the form of the relation that is time may well be a wave but time is not a wave.
zomg im so much smarter than everyone else

>>9943742
>zomg im so much smarter than everyone else
Someday I will meet an Anon on /sci/ who realizes this is not the case, and isn't starting yet another "how to increase my brainlet IQ" shitpost thread.

>>9943742
>It is a dimension.

Yes that is how time is defined in physics. Anything else is pseudoscience of philosophical circlejerking.

>>9943809
Rational within the boundaries of the study of physical systems doesn't mean it will remain coherent outside of those boundaries, if it doesn't communicate with metaphysics and remain rational in general categories it is not complete or truth.
Sure time exist as a demintion in the model systems that represent it, this doesn't mean that time is a demintion generally outside the scope of abstraction.
You don't really disagree with me btw, I bet you just don't get the difference between quality and relation, because of brainlet physicist irrationalism and ignorance.

>>9943524
What pseud here is trying to say is >>9943905

>>9943905
Wait... What pesud here is trying to say is >>9943524

>>9943910
Think what the pseud is actually trying to say, is that physics is just a mathematical model of reality that tries to make predictions of reality, and not necessarily a full reflection of reality.

Which, given that OP did not ask a philosophical/metaphysical question, but a physics question, that this is /sci/ and not /lit/, /his/, nor /x/, in addition to that simple fact being immediately self-evident and intuitive, when not worded so clumsily, is what makes that guy a pseud.

>>9943905
I understand what your point is. I am just saying it's bullshit and you are a pseudo-intellectual faggot.

._.

>>9943809
So science doesn't care what is making things move through that dimension?

>>9940002
Because it's a measurement of entropy

>>9944295
Google "arrow of time".