this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024

195 points (92.2% liked)

science

14360 readers

390 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

195

New theory suggests time is an illusion created by quantum entanglement (bgr.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

I would suggest, instead, that "Classical Physics" is created by entanglement:

the non-quantum reality at our scale is just what happens, when everything is entangled, to the point of clogging-up-the-works of quantumness, as it were..

.: you get things like .. as you scale up from quantum-level .. the everything-is-discontinuous/everything-is-turbulence .. turns into, once enough entanglement is happening, "laminar flow" in fluid-dynamics, even-though NOTHING in QM is laminar-flow, so there's simply no basis for "laminar flow" at the lower-level...

I wonder how significant this is, really..

_ /\ _

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

   zfs snapshot create universe@0
   zfs mount universe

Do I have that right ?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

next up: coordinate systems don't exist

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

"What the hell, Jenson?!? This is our firms biggest case in 20 years and you show up two hours late?!?"

"Oh, haven't you heard?"

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Lol, well, seeing as time or change is a dimension and direction, like any other, tthat's like saying width or height is an illusion.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would be careful of confusing "reality" (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It's not perfect, though, and it doesn't fit well with some other observations. That's how we know that it doesn't fully match reality, and why we're looking for a new model.

Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What effect does the distinction between that and "the best way we have for our minds to think about it" have on it?

Also, unless i remember it wrong, I thought it was relativity that showed the flaws explanation quantum physics' had for time and not the other way round. I mean, I might be but that's my understanding of it right now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.

A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.

A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)

The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it's just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. "Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong." That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.

That is how you get statements like your first one. "Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions ." That is mixing analogies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Interesting, I appreciate it thanks. I see what you're saying and I think you're right. Its not right to the exclusion of something else. That was too far. I must have gotten way too excited lol.

You know what it is? I just straight up dont like it. Its about time people started calling out time on its bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Width doesn't change based on the warping of space

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

It absolutely does depend on your reference frame. I remember one of my physics 3 test problems was a ship in it's own reference frame was a standard 3 4 5 right triangle. We had to calculate what the observed lengths and angles from a reference frame where it was moving at .96c.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Can't even read it.

We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.

"evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems"

Interesting. Is this related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) ? (Block Time)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

Bare with me here because I am not an expert. I think what they're getting is the same as how gravity doesn't exist. Vsauce did a great video on that, but the general notion is that because space time is curved, objects traveling in streight lines will appear to be drawn closer to one another. "Gravity" isn't fundamental, warping spacetime is. Nothing changed but our understanding of it, which does matter for some more complicated areas.

I think this is similar. Just like gravity "doesn't exisit", it's just an emergent phenomenon: they're saying so is time. They're saying time isn't fundemental, except that it's an expected phenomenon that would arise from other factors, those factors being proposed to be some entanglement crap I have zero ability to talk about.

And I'm putting some words in their mouth with "time isn't fundemental". What they're really doing is proposing a new definition that better fits observed phenomenon/models.

And still, none of this explains why we still have daylights savings time.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Summary: time is entangled with a clock and appears static from the outside. Why, the article doesnt explain.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Just as I always suspected

load more comments