Thursday, February 7, 2013

Time and Physics, descriptions of...

I think it is good, when dealing with the subject of time and physics, to only speak of a single unit of time. A single moment constructed out of two very different constituent parts.  I call the two-sides of the moment 'happening' (you can think of this in linguistic terms as 'verb-like', it is the action, so to speak in the present moment) and the other side of the moment the 'going to happen' . This does not (yet) mean a prophetic deterministic view of the matter contained in the universe's first 3 dimensions, rather a set of inferences that are safe to make about the behavior and nature of time because of the nature of experience itself. In other words the second half of the moment is a set of things that are guaranteed to happen, given the fact that we are describing something about an experience that is expected to continue.
To reiterate: The second half of the moment is constructed of inferences such as, the reliability of there being a moment after the current moment we are experiencing. Barring notions of death, experience is continuous, even when it is interrupted, interruptions are  experienced as instantaneous transitions to another singular moment of 'happening' time. 

We do not really need the past to describe anything being observed. I say this because in terms of observation the current moment is either an 100% accurate historian or our observation and measurement of it is meaningless. If the current moment can be "tampered with" in a way that makes the history contained within the current moment meaningless, any measurement taken, ever, is immediately rendered unreliable and thus unworthy of scientific endeavor.

I have stated in other papers, and I state again here that the importance of describing things 'as-they-exist' such as defining ideas in terms of how the phenomenon they describe is experienced. Experience is the pillar of existence. I am referencing my past works when I say this, because it may further help to understand why I have said that only one moment is considered.

How it relates to the speed of light and matter.
This concept of a dual-sided, singular moment is important to understand a fundamental aspect of light and in fact, all matter, as all matter contains massless particle constituents that travel ~C, the speed of light, though they are never described as lone particles with velocity, except in a couple cases. Particularly I am interested, in this paper, in the appearance of its speed between two observers, one of them travelling at or very near light speed. 

Since we have only 1 moment, I have prepared an illustration of two observations of the current moment experienced, taken at two different speeds.

The first illustration is of a slower object moving at the speed of an average human being on earth.

The second illustration is of an observation taken at or near the speed of light. 

At higher speeds, there is still only one moment worth thinking about, because of what I have said about experience and existence, 'happening' and 'going to happen', but in effect the barrier between momentary halves shifts as speed increases towards the speed of light. It is important to think of these moments as being equal in "length" at all times because our experience of time is moment-to-moment. We really only ever experience 1 single moment that shifts in 3-dimensional along time, a fourth dimension (In my humble opinion, thinking of time as even having length is a big part of "The Problem", but we tend to need some sort of language to describe things, so for now the word stands) 
This effect is illustrated in a slightly incorrect way, in the show Star Trek, every time Starship Enterprise jumps to lightspeed. To an observer who is still in the frame of reference we can relate to (the first diagram above) the Enterprise is travelling at speeds that cause it to seem stretched out. What this observer is seeing, is actually the area shaded in red in the diagram, which for the starship is a compression of 3-dimensional space along the dimension of time.   In terms of raw experience the singularity of moment still holds true. In one instance of experience for both objects, more has obviously happened, in terms of measuring distance only, for the existence of the lightspeed object than the slower object. 

 Our tendency to measure time with circles is a bit of a confusion inducer, albeit it also turns out to be incredibly useful to describe matter particles travelling through 4-dimensions.

 Imagine 2 identical clocks. One is on Earth. The other is on the Starship Enteprise. The clock only has 1 hand and it circles the clock in 1 moment exactly. The clocks start when the ship reaches light speed. One moment passes and both clocks have completed one rotation.

The crux of the issue lies, not in the time measured, but in the fact that while the clocks are identical and have identical circumferences, (and thus measure the same block of time to each person experiencing), the hand of our clocks have traveled different distances along another dimension, namely, one of the three dimensions of space.
This next illustration (Which happens to be the correct way to view our solar system, NOT the way it is taught in school mind you) could clarify this dilemma a little bit.

 In a way this illustration is important, because it shows how in the example, the moment length can stay constant, while the effective "total distance traveled through all dimensions" changes for each object. In fact, this is why Physicists say (a physical clock made of matter) would run slower the faster you go, because some of the energy is expended along this new distance traveled because of a fundamental law of nature, the conservation of energy.

Part II
When I was younger, I was lucky enough to encounter a collection of Russian Matryoshka dolls. These are very lame as toys, but to illustrate philosophical and physical principles, it doesn't get much better.

Each of these dolls fits inside the bigger one next to it so that when you crack open the largest one, the next largest is inside, then the next largest, and so on. What I find cool when using these as an example is that the dolls do not fit perfectly and in fact have a little wiggle room that they can rattle about in. This will be important in a moment. (that is a very "meta" thing to say as we continue to talk about a moment of time)

It is useful to think about  the moment as being quite like the dolls in a remarkable way. The structure of the second half of the moment can be thought of as a smear of hollow dolls ending at some very small hollow doll that will, in 1 moment, define and give a small set of rules to the current moment. The current moment can be thought of as the doll that is actually solid. This is because the future is uncertain in terms of measurability, but still constrained in particular ways by the rules of time-experienced. 

Most people who have read this far will be familiar with Young's Double Slit Diffraction experiment seen in the next two illustrations. 

In this illustration we see the probability field of a single slit diffraction (the dotted line) juxtaposed over the probability field of double slit diffraction (the solid pink area). 

What I have proposed in this paper is that the second half of the moment, represented by hollow matryoshka dolls, actually has a shape that is a little bit decipherable. This shape can be thought of as similar to the probability fields in Young's experiment, except that we are not speaking about where a particle occurs and how fast it is going anymore, but instead, what it is doing now and what it may do next given the constraints of it being something worth experiencing.

This is important because there ends up being an overlap between the probability wave of light particles described in Young's experiment and the existence of this sort of what I would call a "spectre of a moment" in the future. 
The dual nature of light, as it is spoken of by participants in this experiment, is hypothetically due to the presence of this aberration in the shape of time caused by the objects in question travelling at the speed of light and the existence of relativity. Relativity, which is more of a concept about experience than something cold and scientific. I hope I have illustrated this in a way that is different and accurate. 

The hypothesis I am making is: 
The word time describes something that is dependent also on one's definition of experience itself,
 we can safely infer based on logic applied to the nature of experience that time has a shape, 
time has a shape not only along a 4th dimension or timeline-esque topology, but a metaphysical unit topology, the topology of each moment of time. 
While observations and measurements taken in the current moment can not give us a tool to predict the future due to uncertainty, the topology of the metaphysical-unit-side of time is constant. 
While this topological shape can not predict the future locations or velocities of particles,
it can determine the behavior of light as either particle or wave.

The evidence of this is found within Young's double slit experiment and my illustration of relativity as two singular moments experienced at different speeds. 
The hidden switch, so to speak, between whether an observation is made of a wave behavior or particle behavior is contained within a fundamental element of time as I have described it in my first illustration, but did not elaborate on until now. 
The observer described by the slower (top) object in my example can see the faster object (bottom) as a particle or a wave  based on whether or not the area represented by the red line is included in the measurement. 
To return to our spaceship example, the Starship Enterprise appears as an oblong stretched object when it goes light speed because the slower observer can see the red area, whereas the passengers on board the enterprise have no access to that information. To them time appears identical to the people in the top graphic, experiencing it.
Time is only visible as distance in this way, when light speed is reached. Just as light  is visible as a wave that creates diffraction fields only when the area represented in red, a distance in the fourth dimension is included in our observation of it.
 Any measurements taken will cause this red area to be excluded in our description (experience) of the current moment. a more particle-like situation arises.
Again returning to the starship example, this measurement would be like later looking at a photograph or "snapshot" taken by a passenger on board the enterprise. From this perspective, a false perspective of being inside the enterprise, the ship itself no longer looks distorted and stretched along the fourth dimension.

I hope this has been interesting at the very least, and I'm optimistic that it is somewhat enlightening as well to those dedicated enough to slog through my writing. It was difficult, but fun to write this.

No comments:

Post a Comment