/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't know about you, but I am travel through time as we speak.

I don't know about you, but I am traveling through time as we speak.

>>4749618
holy shit how?

are you using some kind of time machine?

better question, will we ever stop time from traveling

>>4749624
Yes, it is a very large machine called the universe and one of the intrinsic characteristics is the existence of space and time and the mandatory traversal through both at all times simultaneously.

no, because time does not exist. only experiences do.
experiences, however are poor at judging how fast or slow something actually happened (because of our brains) so we created a measurement called "time" and we constructed "clocks" to more efficiently measure these experiences and phenomena.

>>4749634
tell me more about these "clocks" you speak of

What would a wormhole look like?

>>4749634
How can brains be proven to exist and be the limiting factor in a paradigm where only experience exists? It makes more sense that brains are what exists and experience is the illusory manifestation since you yourself said that experience is flawed.

Backward? I'd say no.

You time travel every second OP. Intact, right now, this very second, you are traveling 1 second per second into the future.

You did it bro!

>>4749665
But that is only in his reference frame, from other frames he may be currently traveling faster or slower.

Op here. Will traveling backwards in time ever be possible?

>>4749615
Forwards certainly, it's been done. Meet Sergei Avdeyev (picture) he spent a total (not consecutive) of apx 748 days in space. Due to relativistic effects he is 20 milliseconds younger than he would have been if he was earthbound. Therefore, he is 20 milliseconds in the future.

>>4749672
OP watch this NOVA (PBS) show about space/time hosted by Brian Greene.

>inb4 Brian Greene string theorist lol

>>4749634
A reference point for time?

>>4749677
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-of-cosmos

Does time stop when I'm travelling at speed of light?

>>4749674
Very nice. Although this does not imply he's added 20 milliseconds to his lifespan, correct? Because the time he spent time-traveling still contributed to his wear-and-tear of his body and still subtracted from his "biological time," correct. So he's only 20 milliseconds younger according to time but not according to his biology. Or am I wrong?

>>4749683
You cannot travel at the speed of light.

>>4749687
Photon here, get fucked.

>>4749685
Correct, in his reference point the aging process will be the same. However because space and time are intertwined i.e. space/time and not separate (as it would seem intuitively) you can think of it as the faster you travel in space the slower in time you travel in time. Look up the twin paradox.

>>4749691
You aren't the type of photon that can travel the speed of light because you have enough mass to type.

if something could travel at the speed of light, yes time would stop for it, not for us. and if it went faster than light (not gonna get into wether thats possible or not) it would go back in time, as to travel into the future if you go at the speed of light, half the time spend going that speed for you is 1/2 of what it is for everything else so say you go at the speed of light for 1 year youd come back to a 2 years older place

>>4749728
Don't you go telling me how massive I am. I am infinite in mass.

question: why would something go back to the past if it exceeds the speed of light?

>>4749735
I completely fail to understand this. Travelling extremely fast shouldn't stop biological processes from happening as they do. If, say, I'd travel at 0.5c for a year and then go back to my home planet, they would have been there for a year aswell. How is it possible that they would be older than me?
There is no way to really travel into the future, right? If FTL travel was possible, you could, for example, see the sun explode being near to, then quickly travel to Earth and say the sun is going to explode soon?

>>4749766
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

>>4749766
Time is "relative". Yes, you have your own "clock", but so does everyone else.

Your "clock" will always tick at the same rate relative to you. Your biological processes will revolve around your clock.

However, the clocks of others don't always tick at the same rate as your clock. The difference in the tick rates has to do with the relative velocity between your clock and another clock. The faster the clocks are moving, the more out of sync the clocks get. And the more fucked up shit becomes.

Shit can get so fucked up that it causes an "apparent time travel situation". Example: say "5 year" went by on your clock, but is was moving at some great speed away from the earth so "100 years" has gone by on the "earths clock". Hence, it will appear to you as if you time travel to the "future of earth". It will appear to the earth as if you were going in slow motion for 100 years, then suddenly returned to normal speed.

Get it?

Time isn't a dimension. Particles move, and the macroscopic movement is recorded on your biocomputer as frames. Then your biocomputer re-reads the frames while lagging horribly, and constructs a moving image in your mind's eye.

So no.

Can time dilation also happen when I'm, for example, orbiting earth with speeds approaching the speed of light in earths atmosphere?
Does more time dilation happen when Im moving away from earth or towards earth if equal (relative) speeds are to be assumed?
Is the concept all there is to time dilation or could a layman such as myself go into questions like why does time dilation happen and the backround to it?

This is so exciting, I hope you do not mind my plebeian questions.

>>4749834
>Time isn't a dimension

Reality would like a word with you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

>>4749841
>Can time dilation also happen when I'm, for example, orbiting earth with speeds approaching the speed of light in earths atmosphere?

Yes

>Does more time dilation happen when Im moving away from earth or towards earth if equal (relative) speeds are to be assumed?

It depends on alot of factors.

>Is the concept all there is to time dilation

Nope. Also, you don't know the concept. To actually grasp the concept of time dilation you need to know alot of math/physics.

>could a layman such as myself go into questions like why does time dilation happen and the backround to it

Nope. You are not capable of such a task. To understand the "why" of time dilation takes a lot of physics knowledge. You are not even capable of fully understand the questions, let alone understanding the answers.

>I hope you do not mind my plebeian questions

Nope, don't mind. I am glad you are interested in science.

>>4749685
>Very nice. Although this does not imply he's added 20 milliseconds to his lifespan, correct? Because the time he spent time-traveling still contributed to his wear-and-tear of his body and still subtracted from his "biological time," correct. So he's only 20 milliseconds younger according to time but not according to his biology. Or am I wrong?

Well, I don't know whether this is a very good source or not, but in Carl Sagan's cosmos there is a kid who motorcycles and he.... Just see it for yourself. It seems like he adds a lot of time to his lifespan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPoGVP-wZv8

>>4749841
time dilation could happen wherever you are, wherever youre going

>>4749685
>So he's only 20 milliseconds younger according to time but not according to his biology. Or am I wrong?

YOU ARE VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY WRONG!

>>4749842
Spacetime is the first 4 dimensions, how do I string theory, retard.

>>4749864
>thinking string theory is a scientific theory

>not actually understanding the difference between a mathematical model and a scientific theory

ISHYGDDT

>>4749874
You are not funny, and you seem incapable of understanding the definition of "theory". String theory is more than a mathematical model.

>>4749864
No, it is not. Although the spacetime metric can be seen an emergent property of string theory, it encompasses both extended and compactified dimensions.

>>4749841
Time dilation results from the conservation of the space-time interval. This is a distance on a 4D ruler, with three real dimensions and 1 imaginary dimension.

If you measure the difference between to points in space and time with this "ruler", you should always get the same answer, regardless of where you are, how you move, or how you observe the event. The interesting thing is the the ruler itself depends on your motion though. Hence, you get a quantity which relates your local notion of time and space, to some crazy universal notion of 4D space-time.

Since the 4D space-time is always the same though (for some specific event), you get a way to relate your local notion of space and time, to someone else local notion of space and time.

What you end up with is an equation with two different kinds of time, ticking at different rates, depending on the orientation and speed of those actually making the measurements.

Questions?

>>4749893
>String theory is more than a mathematical model.

Does string theory have any experimental evidence to back up its basic premise? YOu know, SCIENCE?

NOPE. You incredibly stupid or trolling?

"String theory" is a proper name, it is not actually a "scientific theory", because it lack experimental verification of its basic premise.

Until string theory gets some evidence it might as well be fucking magic or religion, just another bunch of bullshit with no known tie to actual reality!

>>4749893
>2012
>string theory

>>4749913
Your logic is hilarious.

>Does string theory have any experimental evidence to back up its basic premise? YOu know, SCIENCE?
>"String theory" is a proper name, it is not actually a "scientific theory"
>Until string theory gets some evidence it might as well be fucking magic or religion, just another bunch of bullshit with no known tie to actual reality!
All elements of string theory which can currently be experimentally accountable are verified. It lives up to all experimental predictions. I don't think you understand how physics works. It builds upon older concrete data.

For a trivial example of your logic, consider evolution. Many hard core Christians would present the same fallacy you have. Although we clearly have both the geographic proof, the transition fossils, and much much more to support evolution, we have never "seen" a species evolve into another (obviously due to time constraints).

We have something known as Occam's razor. Nature is seen to take in every practical instance the simplest possible physical means of accomplishing some phenomena. For evolution, it's natural selection and changes in DNA, both empirical and accountable portents, or the unexplained "god did it". In this case, both perturbative/nonperturbative solutions to quantum gravity can be obtained by simply extending the length of the intended fundamental object of study to a single dimension. You have clearly never examined field theory.

>because it lack experimental verification of its basic premise.
What "basic premise"?

>>4749921
I'd love to know what alternatives you have that are simpler and predict less than String theory. Many very accomplished minds have tried over the past 80 or so years, none have triumphed.

>>4749937
The obligatory:
>String theory
>predictions
>mfw

>>4749937
>>4749934
>>4749934
Please read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Testability_and_experimental_predictions

>>4749934

>>4749934
Are you 12? 14?

It is cute that you are interested in science, but you should really try to learn, instead of just posting nonsense.

>>4749937
Hey guize....
I have a theory. I will call it string theory. It is an exact copy of all known physics, incoperated with shit that cannot be disproven or proven.

NOBEL PRIZE PLEASE!
D

>>4749950
>implying you knew modern science from birth

>>4749946
There's nothing contradictory in that article. I've contributed to some sections. It agrees with that we do not currently have sufficient empirical evidence (based on collider lumonosities) to replace the SM with string theory.
Note
>On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[22] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[23] Therefore, to falsify[24] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[22] or general relativity.[25]

>>4749944
>>4749947
The samefag is strong in this one. How much group theory/QFT do you know? I'd love to give you an introduction.

>>4749952
No no. He's implying that he wasn't an asshat at 14 claiming to know all about String Theory. Being ignorant is one thing. Claiming to know while having no fucking clue is another.

>>4749952
>implying I was ever stupid enough to confuse science with magic

>>4749950
I'm not sure how I am "posting nonsense". Please elaborate.

>>4749953
So how would you like to leave off your understand of modern cosmology and physics during your life time? String theory offers a gateway mathematically to potentially the closest we can get to our understanding of contemporary physics.

>>4749954
I'm not sure if this is aimed against me as the post you seem to be referencing is, but I never stated I have a godsend of a background in strings. I am a graduate student.

>>4749955
Are you telling me that the addition of "unprovable claims" to known scientific theories is still considered scientific theory?

This is what you really think?

Are you fucking retarded? Seriously? You have a mental disease of some sort? I am starting to feel really bad for you.

>>4749959

>>4749806
>>4749806
Then is it possible that we are actually experience time because we are actually moving ? If we were in the center of the universe, our galaxies and solar systems didn't spin as much, we would experience time much less ?

>>4749959
>All elements of string theory which can currently be experimentally accountable are verified. It lives up to all experimental predictions. I don't think you understand how physics works. It builds upon older concrete data.
[citation needed]

>I am a graduate student.
open the floodgates...

>>4749959
>grad student
>doesn't understand what a scientific theory is

Are you some sort of liberal arts major?

>>4749959
How "IQ fundie" does science:

1) Take all well established scientific theories

2) Say that unprovable magic made it all possible

3) Pat yourself on the back

>>4749961
>Are you telling me that the addition of "unprovable claims" to known scientific theories is still considered scientific theory?
I never stated this. It is not a "mathematical model", as I have originally stated. It is formally considered a "mathematical theory". By the minimal standard of falsifiability string theory passes as a "theory". Do not confuse terminology.

>>4749964
It has already been linked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Testability_and_experimental_predictions

>>4749965
No. Time is not a property of motion (as far as we know). Motion does not "generate" time.

I see where you are going though. It is a common mistake/idea kids often come up with.
.

>>4749968
>>4749972
I suggest you both take a look at this.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

There are experiments that can at least be imagined that would test the predictions and constraints of the large family of equations that string theory now encompasses, but insofar we do not have collider luminosities to run these experiments. it is a matter of ignorance. The time will come.

>>4749973
>doesn't know the difference between a mathematical theory and a scientific theory

>>4749979
Where am I going though. Which is a common mistake/idea kids often come up with ?

ITT: Scientist vs Ameritards

>>4749980
I don't think you understand basic science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

or math for that matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

>>4749980

>>4749976
... the fact that ST is consistent with QM, general relativity etc. etc. isn't evidence that it is true. And, as the Wikipedia page points out, "finding a way to experimentally verify string theory via unique predictions remains a major challenge." And the "unique predictions" is pretty important, isn't it? When deciding which of several theories is most likely to be true, for example, making a correct prediction means nothing if all the other theories also make the same prediction.

Consistency =/= evidence.

The flurry of anti-String sentiment here is remarkable. There are certain degrees of certainty on everything in science, claiming that string theory is "religion" or "magic" is blasphemy if you do not understand the field theoretic roots, objecting String theory purely on the grounds that it has not yet produced a testable prediction is an insult. The entire point of TOEs (as of standing) are to incorporate as little of theoretical baggage as possible.

>>4749983
I do, care to point out an example of my misunderstanding?

Again, to clarify, String theory is a mathematical theory, not a scientific one.

>>4749985
Time does not arise because of motion. That is your mistake.

>>4749996
>String theory is a mathematical theory, not a scientific one

WOW. How fucking long did it take you to finally piece that shit together. Jesus fucking christ! There is no fucking way you are a grad student in any sort of STEM field!

>>4749994 <span class="math">[/spoiler] again
I'd just like to add that I'm not a physicist and I don't know much (anything) about a string theory (I read a book once).

>>4749987
You result to this quite often - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

>>4749996
>String theory is a mathematical theory, not a scientific one

DURRRRRRR

>>4749996

>theory

the word you are looking for is theorem (not a guess)

>>4749994
If there existed evidence out in the scientific community that String theory will NEVER produce a testable prediction then I would completely agree with your critique. This is simply a false assertion. Again, if evidence from future collider data (with higher luminosities probing the GUT) were discovered to put large constraints on String theory, it could be wiped out of the ballpark. As of now, the energy scales we have cannot falsify or test string theory.

Try reading this:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

>>4750005
The entire argument that began this bullshit was the use of referring to string theory as a "mathematical model". It extends to a physical basis, and then can be considered a "mathematical theory". There's a difference between what's not practically testable and what's truly unfalsifiable. As long as it's conceptually possible to come up with a falsifying experiment, even if it's wildly impractical under today's standards, it's still of scientific descent.

>>4750004
Implying you should refresh yourself on the scientific method and mathematics would only be a non-sequitar if in fact you appeared to know about the scientific method and mathematics...WHICH YOU FUCKING DIDNT!

YOU LITERALLY TOOK OVER A FUCKING HOUR TO REALIZE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE A THEORY IN SCIENCE AND A THEORY IN MATH!

>>4750010
You are a cunt. A big smelly gaping vagina full of disease and semen.

Case closed

\thread

>>4750011
No, again, String theory is not a "model", it is a "theory".

>>4749994
If there existed evidence out in the scientific community that String theory will NEVER produce a testable prediction then I would completely agree with your critique. This is simply a false assertion. Again, if evidence from future collider data (with higher luminosities probing the GUT scale) were discovered to put large constraints on String theory, it could be wiped out of the ballpark. As of now, the energy scales we have cannot falsify or help confirm the predictions of String theory.

Try reading this:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

>>4750005
The entire argument that began this bullshit was the use of referring to string theory as a "mathematical model". It extends to a physical basis, and thus can be considered a "mathematical theory". There's a difference between what's not practically testable and what's truly unfalsifiable. As long as it's conceptually possible to come up with a falsifying experiment, even if it's wildly impractical under today's standards, it's still of scientific descent.

>>4750013
It makes me sad that people exist like you.

Are qualia a theory?

>>4750017
>can't read

>>4750017
Your whore of a mother should have swallowed you.

String theory does actually have predictive power.

If string theory is scientifically useful then at least one nobel prize will be awarded for work on string theory.

If string theory is not useful then it won't.

Thus we can falsify string theory by observing Sweden.

>>4750017
>"IQ Fundie"

More like "Retarded Homo"

>>4750024
No, qualia are not a theory, there is no empirical basis of qualia. They are a subjective actualization of conscious experience that may have a basis in QM.

>>4750029
Christianity does actually have predictive power.

If christianity is scientifically useful then Jesus will appear

If christianity is not useful then he won't.

Thus we can falsify christianity by waiting for christ

So christianity should be considered a valid scientific theory!

>>4750029
There have been many useful/practical applications of String theory.

For example, AdS/CFT has had tremendous uses in the field of condensed matter, and Strings in and of themselves haven been a source of massive advancements in mathematics.

>>4750037
>implying fundie isn't also a troll

ITT: IQ fundie has an argument with two-three people who are actually posing counter arguments and 5 other people who are trolling relentlessly.

>>4750041
This is not a valid comparison to String theory. Jesus will not and cannot appear. It would violate many conservation laws in physics, and would defy our modern conceptual understanding in science that the universe has order and follows a logical basis.

>>4750042
I finally understand why everyone hates you.

>>4750046
3/10

>>4750046
>conceptual understanding in science that the universe has order and follows a logical basis
Is this generally considered to be true?

>>4750045
The only people who hate me here are those who are too incompetent to understand the rationale behind science, or insist Occam's razor is fallacious when applied to empiricism, which it is not.

>>4750046
Do your parents accept your homosexual lifestyle?

>>4750043
I am not a troll.

>>4750053

>>4750051
We would not be able to model the universe with mathematics (and hence logic) if it were not.

>>4750042
>not a scientific theory
>applicable

pick one

anyway, the whole thread is silly

parts of string theory are predictive and falsifiable, but not at energies we have access to. and other parts like AdS/CFT are strong interaction subsets of string theory, and more a part of QCD couched in the math of string theory

>>4750048
I am not a troll.

>>4750054
I am not homosexual, and you are now resorting to petty ad hominem attacks.

>>4750056
>We

Also, if we excluded "shit that doesn't make sense to us/shit our theories don't apply to", we could probably state that the universe is based on order, while it shows signs of chaos.

Sorry, I can't put this into fancy words.

>>4750057
It is debatable to consider String theory a "scientific theory". Mathematics may or may not be scientific in some fashion, but it has countless applications to physical phenomena.

>>4750055
I am not a troll.

I find it funny how the guy who believes qualia is not just some bullshit philosophical faggotry also believes in String theory

>>4750065
>It is debatable to consider String theory a "scientific theory".

>>4749996
>String theory is not a scientific one.

>>>4750065
>I am not a troll.

>>4750068
Firstly, "quale" is the singular of "qualia" Secondly, you do not understand what qualia are.

http://www.emotion.caltech.edu/~naotsu/Naotsugu_Tsuchiyas_homepage/links_to_papers_files/Kanai2012Cu
rrent%20Biology.pdf

You do not "believe" in something which has a mathematical or scientific basis. It is simply there to either disprove or credit.

>>4750066
It's sort of an ad-hoc assumption to imply that the universe is chaotic. Perhaps at the statistical scale, but surely not at the fundamental.

For example, the uncertainty principle was originally deemed an axiom of QM due to our ignorance of measurement, it was quickly realized that it was something more fundamental and intrinsic to reality, then Feynman came along and realized it was just a result of the behavior of particles.

I'll quote:

“I would like to put the uncertainty principle in its historical place: when the revolutionary ideas of quantum physics were first coming out, people still tried to understand them in terms of old-fashioned ideas … But at a certain point the old fashioned ideas would begin to fail, so a warning was developed that said, in effect, ‘Your old-fashioned ideas are no damn good when …’. If you get rid of ALL the old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I’m explaining in these lectures – adding arrows [arrows = phase amplitudes in the path integral] for all the ways an event can happen – there is no NEED for an uncertainty principle! … on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is so small that there is no main path, no ‘orbit’; there are all sorts of ways the electron could go, each with an amplitude. The phenomenon of interference [of on-shell particles by off-shell field quanta] becomes very important …”

Indeed, it can be seen that the path integral is the source for this "uncertainty", although it still does not resolve the problems associated with the chaotic and necessarily random nature of perturbative expansions, or "quantum fluctuations". This can be resolved by assuming there exists a universe for each and every possibility in the path integral, hence every individual universe is still deterministic.

>>4750075
I personally, based on the definition of "scientific theory", believe it is not scientific. It is mathematical. Still a theory, but not scientific.

This is of course debatable, as with concern to anything in the realm of semantics, definitions, and vocabulary.

>>4750088
and part of your trolling shtick is to make statements of fact, which cause argument, and which when challenged admit are in fact a matter of opinion/definition/semantics.

anyway, thank god i have to go out and won't get sucked into a new line of meta trolling.

>>4750085
Thank you for your elaborate response.

Still, it's either our shit, or the shit "out there". There has to be a "chaotic" factor, or the entirety of our theories would hold true in any environment. There are a lot of things that we can't explain (yet) with the methods we apply (currently). I'm sure you already know where I'm going with this.

The concept of universal order just seems a bit shaky and unreliable to me.

op check out a movie called "primer", it's friction but you'll probably like it.

>>4750095
This is the essence of philosophy.

>>4750096
Definitely, it is impossible to denote universal order purely from our observational perspective. Even if we assume there was such a thing of universal order (and it is interesting to consider based on what we've seen in physics thus far), it would still be inconceivable to "know everything" thanks to nonlocality and the obvious fact that we cannot know the exact starting conditions of the universe.

And I agree, there are realms left for science still to explore, else "science" would be known as "history". Very limited realms now, of course (especially with our technological barriers), but they are still present.

>>4750112
Okay, cool. We basically agree then. It was nice talking to you.

Why people call you a troll is beyond me. You seem pleasant enough.

Brb making some images for thought experiments.

>>4749753
any answer to this one yet?

I don´t know about time travel, but time dilation is kinda like that and it happens for example every time you take a plane, a few microseconds but it's still something.
And it's not just a theory.
If anyone cares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

8 hours into the future

>>4749842

You're not posting anything in support for your argument other then the fact that 'time' is in the word.

I may be wrong, but I think the entire point of relativity is that time and space are the exact same thing. So if they're the same thing, and we reject time, our ability to predict things shouldn't be diminished.

If time travel backwards will someday be possible then how come nobody has come back from the future to any time in recorded human history?

>>4750995
>implying time is linear

ＮＯ ＯＮＥ ＣＡＮ ＳＥＥ ＴＨＥ ＢＥＧＩＮＮＩＮＧ ＯＦ ＴＩＭＥ． ＩＴ＇Ｓ Ａ ＵＮＩＶＥＲＳＡＬ ＬＡＷ！