Support NeoGAF

[Legato.Reborn-]

The programmers don't want to confuse us so they freeze the atoms for us while they're being observed.

atom.freeze()

this is like cs101 people

 

[Prototype]

The universe is truly bizarre.

It makes you wonder what a universe without a single observer within would be like.

this is an interesting line of thought.

 

[ibyea]

Maybe? For example, many of the proofs given for "time dilation" seem to demonstrate that time flows differently depending on velocity, but couldn't it be true that clocks (and other phenomena that involve intervals, like waves, molecular transitions, etc.) are impacted by velocity and therefore behave in ways that simply suggest time dilation? How the hell are we supposed to distinguish between the two? Are we simply to take it for granted that time dilation is an observation of how time behaves, and not simply clocks, waves, molecules, etc.?

Likewise for other phenomena that behave in predictable ways, even predictable ways that extend beyond a few limited circumstances. Are we really measuring "time" (that is, a singular thing that exists independently of the phenomena we're observing) or are we simply measuring "intervals" (not singular overarching things, but individual to the objects being measured)? And if we're not measuring "time," wouldn't it be more useful/accurate/honest to say we're simply measuring "intervals" and that those intervals may vary depending on circumstances?

That's not to discount the value of refining these models, since they are useful and have great predictive power. But it's sort of interesting to see how the discoveries are framed, where observations of the behavior of clocks (even very sophisticated "clocks" that use intervals observed in the real world, or are themselves simply real world phenomena) are conflated with observations of the behavior of time.

In the case of the scenario in the OP, it really isn't at all the case that "continuous observation" is what causes the particles not to decay; there's no reason not to clarify this.

Two things. Firstly there is no difference between standing still and moving at constant velocity. Really! If you were enclosed in a box with no window to the outside, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between moving at constant speed and standing still. The only reason you know you are moving when at constant speed is because you see some other object moving in respect to you. Meaning standing still and movement at constant velocity is exactly the same, and since you can't tell the difference between the two, there is no absolute reference in which you can say yes, that object is standing still. There is no experiment that will enable you to tell the difference, not even the speed of light can be used as a reference because experiments have proven that no matter how fast you go relative to another object, the speed of light remains the same in your perspective. This leads us to the most profound statement in special relativity. As far as we can tell, the laws of physics are the same no matter how fast you are going relative to another object, and so there is no such thing as an absolute standing still frame of reference.

Secondly, it's not just clocks that confirm time dilation. There are particles called muons which decay extremely quickly. Their half life are known and normally when muons are created high up in the atmosphere, it shouldn't be able to reach the ground. But muons travel at relativistic speed, close to the speed of light in relation to the laboratory. Time dilation takes effect and so they survive a lot longer in our reference frame even though in the perspective of the muons they lasted the same amount of time as if they were measured standing still in the laboratory.

 

[brainchild]

BTW, here's a panel discussion with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Jim Gates that more directly addresses the question of us being in the Matrix, as some of the other posters were alluding to when talking about Jim Gates' comments about Supersymmetry.

https://youtu.be/GLvXaclRlHs

Personally, all I get from this is that math is the best way to describe the universe, and computer science follows the model already found in nature, not the other way around.

Two things. Firstly there is no difference between standing still and moving at constant velocity. Really! If you were enclosed in a box with no window to the outside, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between moving at constant speed and standing still. The only reason you know you are moving when at constant speed is because you see some other object moving in respect to you. Meaning standing still and movement at constant velocity is exactly the same, and since you can't tell the difference between the two, there is no absolute reference in which you can say yes, that object is standing still. There is no experiment that will enable you to tell the difference, not even the speed of light can be used as a reference because experiments have proven that no matter how fast you go relative to another object, the speed of light remains the same in your perspective. This leads us to the most profound statement in special relativity. As far as we can tell, the laws of physics are the same no matter how fast you are going relative to another object, and so there is no such thing as an absolute standing still frame of reference.

Secondly, it's not just clocks that confirm time dilation. There are particles called muons which decay extremely quickly. Their half life are known and normally when muons are created high up in the atmosphere, it shouldn't be able to reach the ground. But muons travel at relativistic speed, close to the speed of light in relation to the laboratory. Time dilation takes effect and so they survive a lot longer in our reference frame even though in the perspective of the muons they lasted the same amount of time as if they were measured standing still in the laboratory.

You're right, but his point has to do with potentially unknowable variables affecting our perception of reality, which is why I pointed him to the abstraction of math, which can separate itself from reality if need be.

 

[ibyea]

You're right, but his point has to do with potentially unknowable variables affecting our perception of reality, which is why I pointed him to the abstraction of math, which can separate itself from reality if need be.

He specifically talked about what if changing reference frames changed the laws of physics though. So I showed him that we know it doesn't. And while I like math I am not in favor of using just math to argue for how reality works. Math makes a great tool for both modeling and prediction, but it should not be confused with reality itself.

 

[brainchild]

He specifically talked about what if changing reference frames changed the laws of physics though. So I showed him that we know it doesn't.

Right, that's fine. He used a poor example but I believe his main point seemed to be about us not been able to know for sure that what we're observing is really what we're observing. I think it's a pointless supposition because it gets us nowhere in science, but I was just pointing that out.

 

[ibyea]

Right, that's fine. He used a poor example but I'm believe his main point seemed to be about us not been able to know for sure that what we're observing is really what we're observing. I think it's a pointless supposition because it gets is nowhere in science, but I was just pointing that out.

Gotcha. Yeah I do agree with you it's pointless supposition.

 

[peakish]

A note about time dilation in particular is that it works both ways. It's not just the clocks on a fast spaceship that slows down to us, the people on that space ship observe that our clocks also slow down by the exact same amount. There's no simple scrambling variable that would account for that.

But do mind that between the math of theoretical physics and the experiments needed to support it, physicists are more than a bit concerned about how one actually observes without disturbing. Apart from string theory it isn't just theoretical wank (well, not for everyone at least). People have been gunning for quantum mechanics and general relativity for almost a century now. So far they've held. Just a week ago an experiment was published which just about shuts down remaining loopholes of tests designed specifically to target one of the pillars of QM. It held, as it always does.

https://youtu.be/6Dp27XYjHuk

 

[brainchild]

And while I like math I am not in favor of using just math to argue for how reality works. Math makes a great tool for both modeling and prediction, but it should not be confused with reality itself.

I should clarify that using math as an example in that context was purely to explain to him that theories didn't just come from real world observations; many of them started as mathematical equations which were later confirmed by reality.

As for how math relates to reality in general, I'd argue that math is the best way to describe how reality works. It's a universal language that even aliens could understand, and its internal consistency is very reliable.

I agree with you that our understanding of math should not be confused with reality itself, as sometimes reality can show us things that our previous understanding of math did not. However, math itself is not the problem, rather, our understanding of math as it relates to reality. As long as we can understand how reality works, we can use math to describe it.

Now, when we use math to predict things, it can get pretty murky. I'd say we have to be careful about claiming to describe reality by using math without having actually confirmed the equations in real world tests.

 

[Who]

We are all one.

 

[brainchild]

A note about time dilation in particular is that it works both ways. It's not just the clocks on a fast spaceship that slows down to us, the people on that space ship observe that our clocks also slow down by the exact same amount. There's no simple scrambling variable that would account for that.

But do mind that between the math of theoretical physics and the experiments needed to support it, physicists are more than a bit concerned about how one actually observes without disturbing. Apart from string theory it isn't just theoretical wank (well, not for everyone at least). People have been gunning for quantum mechanics and general relativity for almost a century now. So far they've held. Just a week ago an experiment was published which just about shuts down remaining loopholes of tests designed specifically to target one of the pillars of QM. It held, as it always does.

https://youtu.be/6Dp27XYjHuk

Yep. Many of the theories in quantum mechanics are very solid and it's only a matter of time before most of them are confirmed in real world tests.

Sorry, Einstein, but the spook is real.