Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

Does matter take up time?

Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jitro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 589

16 Jan 2013, 4:38 pm

If matter takes up space, and space and time are linked, does that mean the matter also takes up time?



physicsnut42
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 346

16 Jan 2013, 5:48 pm

Yes, if you think that 2D planes don't take up space. In the beginning of The Time Machine there's a great description of precisely this phenomenon. If you imagine a 2D plane, with absolutely no thickness whatsoever, then you can see that it cannot really exist in our world. Similarly, a 3D cube that exists for no time at all will not really exist.

Two objects can exist at the same point, on say, the x axis, as long as they do not overlap on the y or z axis. Similarly, many objects can exist at the same time, as long as they don't exist in the same point in space. The Time Machine explores this concept as well. It's a very short, very good book, and you should read if you haven't already, especially if you're interested in this kind of thing.


_________________
Feel free to PM me. I don't bite!


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jan 2013, 5:53 pm

physicsnut42 wrote:
Yes, if you think that 2D planes don't take up space. In the beginning of The Time Machine there's a great description of precisely this phenomenon. If you imagine a 2D plane, with absolutely no thickness whatsoever, then you can see that it cannot really exist in our world. Similarly, a 3D cube that exists for no time at all will not really exist.

Two objects can exist at the same point, on say, the x axis, as long as they do not overlap on the y or z axis. Similarly, many objects can exist at the same time, as long as they don't exist in the same point in space. The Time Machine explores this concept as well. It's a very short, very good book, and you should read if you haven't already, especially if you're interested in this kind of thing.


All entities exist in four dimensions (time being one of them).

ruveyn



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

17 Jan 2013, 8:12 pm

Jitro wrote:
If matter takes up space, and space and time are linked, does that mean the matter also takes up time?


Does matter take up time?
Matter is made of energy within space-time.
In our current understanding all matter must exist within some point in time.
Whether this translates as 'taking up time' I don't know.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Jan 2013, 8:48 pm

ripped wrote:
Jitro wrote:
If matter takes up space, and space and time are linked, does that mean the matter also takes up time?


Does matter take up time?
Matter is made of energy within space-time.
In our current understanding all matter must exist within some point in time.
Whether this translates as 'taking up time' I don't know.


There does not exist any material entity that has zero duration.

ruveyn



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

17 Jan 2013, 10:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:
There does not exist any material entity that has zero duration.

ruveyn

This, or at least its something that'll either never be of note to us or won't be for hundreds even thousands of years.

To the OP, you probably need to think of time and space both existing in three dimensions, which is why if something exists in time that other things can exist along side it in time.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

17 Jan 2013, 11:43 pm

ruveyn wrote:
There does not exist any material entity that has zero duration.

ruveyn



My social life definitely qualifies.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

18 Jan 2013, 2:36 am

ruveyn wrote:
ripped wrote:
Jitro wrote:
If matter takes up space, and space and time are linked, does that mean the matter also takes up time?


Does matter take up time?
Matter is made of energy within space-time.
In our current understanding all matter must exist within some point in time.
Whether this translates as 'taking up time' I don't know.


There does not exist any material entity that has zero duration.

ruveyn


Allow me to correct you my learned and prolific friend.

You are aware of the subject of quantum entanglement where two separate particles communicate instantaneously over arbitrarily great distances. This exchange occurs in zero time, and it is a material exchange.



Kenjuudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,552
Location: Norway

18 Jan 2013, 5:38 am

ripped wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ripped wrote:
Jitro wrote:
If matter takes up space, and space and time are linked, does that mean the matter also takes up time?


Does matter take up time?
Matter is made of energy within space-time.
In our current understanding all matter must exist within some point in time.
Whether this translates as 'taking up time' I don't know.


There does not exist any material entity that has zero duration.

ruveyn


Allow me to correct you my learned and prolific friend.

You are aware of the subject of quantum entanglement where two separate particles communicate instantaneously over arbitrarily great distances. This exchange occurs in zero time, and it is a material exchange.
Do they actually exchange information, or could they simply be two appearances of the same item?


_________________
When superficiality reigns your reality, you are already lost in the sea of normality.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Jan 2013, 9:19 am

ripped wrote:
[

Allow me to correct you my learned and prolific friend.

You are aware of the subject of quantum entanglement where two separate particles communicate instantaneously over arbitrarily great distances. This exchange occurs in zero time, and it is a material exchange.


1. There is no hard evidence that information is transmitted faster than light. The hard evidence is that Bell's Inequalities are violated somehow. No one has ever, ever transmitted a message superluminaly using a Bell Inequality Morse Lamp. All we know is that one kind of random crap is correlated with another kind of random crap in such a way the Bell's Inequality is violated

2. The entities which are entangled exist in a four dimensional space-time manifold so they do have duration.

ruveyn



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

18 Jan 2013, 4:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ripped wrote:
[

Allow me to correct you my learned and prolific friend.

You are aware of the subject of quantum entanglement where two separate particles communicate instantaneously over arbitrarily great distances. This exchange occurs in zero time, and it is a material exchange.


1. There is no hard evidence that information is transmitted faster than light. The hard evidence is that Bell's Inequalities are violated somehow. No one has ever, ever transmitted a message superluminaly using a Bell Inequality Morse Lamp. All we know is that one kind of random crap is correlated with another kind of random crap in such a way the Bell's Inequality is violated

2. The entities which are entangled exist in a four dimensional space-time manifold so they do have duration.

ruveyn


Have I got you on the ropes brother?

The simultaneous reaction of the other entangled particle happens without time lag. So arguing against the empirically proved occurrence of entanglement is contradicting the basis of science itself.
When the facts don't fit your theory, do you change the theory or do you throw out the facts?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Jan 2013, 5:58 pm

ripped wrote:

The simultaneous reaction of the other entangled particle happens without time lag. So arguing against the empirically proved occurrence of entanglement is contradicting the basis of science itself.
When the facts don't fit your theory, do you change the theory or do you throw out the facts?


all the experiments proved is the Bell's Inequality if violated and the results are consistent with quantum theory. No one, I repeat no one as ever transmitted a message from Here to There at greater than light speed using entanglement. What has been established pretty well is that there are no Hidden Variables determining the states of particles and fields. The is no indication that either information or energy has been exchanged.

If J.S.Bell could see how his work has been misinterpreted he would no doubt roll over in his grave.

I'll tell you what. When someone transmits a message at greater than light speed using a Morse Lamp predicated on entanglement, I trust you will post the result here.

ruveyn



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

18 Jan 2013, 7:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ripped wrote:

The simultaneous reaction of the other entangled particle happens without time lag. So arguing against the empirically proved occurrence of entanglement is contradicting the basis of science itself.
When the facts don't fit your theory, do you change the theory or do you throw out the facts?


all the experiments proved is the Bell's Inequality if violated and the results are consistent with quantum theory. No one, I repeat no one as ever transmitted a message from Here to There at greater than light speed using entanglement. What has been established pretty well is that there are no Hidden Variables determining the states of particles and fields. The is no indication that either information or energy has been exchanged.

If J.S.Bell could see how his work has been misinterpreted he would no doubt roll over in his grave.

I'll tell you what. When someone transmits a message at greater than light speed using a Morse Lamp predicated on entanglement, I trust you will post the result here.

ruveyn


It is the phenomena of entanglement itself which demonstrates instantaneous transmission of energy over arbitrarily great distances.



physicsnut42
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 346

19 Jan 2013, 8:41 am

ripped wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ripped wrote:

The simultaneous reaction of the other entangled particle happens without time lag. So arguing against the empirically proved occurrence of entanglement is contradicting the basis of science itself.
When the facts don't fit your theory, do you change the theory or do you throw out the facts?


all the experiments proved is the Bell's Inequality if violated and the results are consistent with quantum theory. No one, I repeat no one as ever transmitted a message from Here to There at greater than light speed using entanglement. What has been established pretty well is that there are no Hidden Variables determining the states of particles and fields. The is no indication that either information or energy has been exchanged.

If J.S.Bell could see how his work has been misinterpreted he would no doubt roll over in his grave.

I'll tell you what. When someone transmits a message at greater than light speed using a Morse Lamp predicated on entanglement, I trust you will post the result here.

ruveyn


It is the phenomena of entanglement itself which demonstrates instantaneous transmission of energy over arbitrarily great distances.


Entanglement is certainly a recorded phenomenon proven again and again, but it is highly unlikely we will ever find a way to send useful information with entanglement. I read somewhere that if you wave a strong laser pointer on the face of the moon (from earth) the laser spot will have moved faster than light. However, the laser point did not carry any "useful information" (or something like that), so it doesn't violate special relativity. So it is with entanglement, the book said. It makes sense to me, anyway. And how is the transmission via entanglement a material transfer?


_________________
Feel free to PM me. I don't bite!


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

19 Jan 2013, 10:22 am

physicsnut42 wrote:
I read somewhere that if you wave a strong laser pointer on the face of the moon (from earth) the laser spot will have moved faster than light. However, the laser point did not carry any "useful information" (or something like that), so it doesn't violate special relativity.

Err...a laser is light isn't it?



physicsnut42
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 346

19 Jan 2013, 11:15 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
physicsnut42 wrote:
I read somewhere that if you wave a strong laser pointer on the face of the moon (from earth) the laser spot will have moved faster than light. However, the laser point did not carry any "useful information" (or something like that), so it doesn't violate special relativity.

Err...a laser is light isn't it?


It is, but apparently the dot on the moon was going faster than light would normally go, and even light can't go that fast. Here, I found a video that explains it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR4tJr7sMPM[/youtube]

Nothing material is moving, so you don't break the speed limit.


_________________
Feel free to PM me. I don't bite!