Need some help with time and universe (this may be quantum physics or something...I don't know)

Mears

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2000
2,095
1
81
Someone was telling me that if something exists outside of the universe, it exists outside of time and therefore, everything including our entire concept of time would all go by at once for it. Is there some known theory on this?
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Look up Michio Kaku
He has several books out that go over such concepts. His books are intresting and easy to understand.
 

Mears

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2000
2,095
1
81
Well does this have something to do with it:
Our universe is for sure 4-dimensional x,y,z and time
Therefore, if you exist outside of the universe there is no time?

However, I still don't see why that would make all of time visible at once.
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,646
1
76
do you mean spacetime?

it borders on astrophysics, or is that cosmology...

or is it relativisitics?

damn physics, english makes no sense =P

the theory is pretty well known, i know of it too.

basically (very) it means you can't make assumptions on things that you can't perceive...

spacetime (one word) is 4 dimensional, hyperbolic, see minkowski (sp) diagrams. there are 10 dimensions =) =P damn string theory.
 

amnesiac

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
15,781
1
71
unless, of course, you're from the school of thought that the universe wraps around itself so there is no actual "outside" of the universe. On a side note, did anyone see that article where they clocked an accelerated electron moving faster than light?
 

Farbio

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2000
3,855
0
0
ok, its 3 am...this is not the time to be asking questions like this!
 

Smbu

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2000
2,403
0
0
He is trying to stimulate our tired brains w/these questions.
 

YayYay

Senior member
Oct 31, 2000
256
0
0
First, define time. Can space exist without time can time exist without space? This might sound like it has nothing to do with the topic but think about it.

On the real someone try and anwser this.
 

Mears

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2000
2,095
1
81
Can space exist without time: Well I once heard of some theory Einstein worked on that stated if you travelled a certain speed(forget how fast) time stops moving for you. So according to that yes.

10 dimensions is a theory, four is a fact.

Anyways does anyone have any ideas on the original question?
 

Windogg

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,241
0
0
The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time is to you. I've read that it works any time you "speed up" SR-71 pilots flying constantly at mach 3 "lose" a little time each time they fly. (Was that confusing of what?)

Windogg
 

Sohcan

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,127
0
0
Okay, here we go....(BTW, I'm close to finishing an undergrad physics major, so shoot off any questions you have....I'll vainly attempt to answer them :))

1. The term "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer...it implies an explosion. It is really an expansion out of nothing, forming all matter, energy and forces. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing....no matter, no energy, no time, no forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force). Initially, the four forces were combined into a theoretical Higgs field (some recent developments at CERN point to evidence of its existence)...after a tiny fraction of a second, gravitation and electromagnetism broke off into distinct forces, followed by the division of the strong and weak forces. Anyway, all of these aspects would not exist beyond the "edge" of the universe...though it's hard to say if an edge exists, because some physicists believe that a Big Crunch (the possible eventual collapse of the universe) will cause another Big Bang...this process may have been repeating itself for an infinite amount of time. But all observations seem to point that the total mass of the universe is not enough to cause a Big Crunch (even accounting for 10:1 ratio of dark to normal matter). Of course, a lot of this stuff is highly theoretical, and cannot be taken for fact.

2. Some of Einstein's developments:
- Photoelectric effect (he actually won the Nobel prize for this one, not Relativity). Included with his first paper on Special Relativity, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, in which an energetic UV light can cause electrons to eject from the surface of a metal. Previous classical explanations, assuming that the energy of the emitted electrons would be proportional to the intensity of the light, ran into problems. Einstein showed that the energy of the electrons was proportional to the frequency of the light by the relation E = hf (h = Planck's constant of 6.626 *10^-34 Js).


- Special Relativity: Einstein's first paper on relativity re-wrote Galilean relativity. It is based on the transformations between different frames of reference. As I sit here, I am in one frame of reference; a person sitting in a plane passing overhead is in another frame.

If I were to transform the coordinates of my frame to another frame, they are related by y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-.5, where v is my velocity (as a fraction of the speed of light) and c is the speed of light. Many of the results are based on the fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of the velocity of the source (see below about my feelings about the supposed faster-than-light signal). This is because light is composed of an oscilating electric field and an oscillating magnetic field moving perpendicular to each other. The changing electric field creates the changing magnetic field, which creates a changing electric field, and so on. The velocity of this propogation is (e*u) ^-.5, where e is the fundamental constant of electric fields and u is the constant of magnetic fields. Based on this relation, the effects of travelling near the speed of light are as follows:

t = t' * y
This is called time dilation. Since it is impossible to tell if you are moving when you are in a non-accelerating frame of reference, you will always think time is passing normally. But if I was actually in a rocket moving at .9c, time for me would pass 2.3 times slower with respect to a person in a constant frame. Thus, if I travelled for one year in the rocket, when I return to Earth I would find that I was gone for 2.3 years.

L = Lp/y (Lp is proper length, L is apparent length)
This is length contraction. If an object 2.3 meters long were travelling towards me at .9c, I would perceive it to be 1 meter long. The object doesn't actually shrink, it just looks that way.

p = y * mv (p is momentum, m is mass, v is velocity)
E = y * mc^2
(mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 (invariant mass)
These equations are the modifications of momentum and energy in a relativistic frame. They are important in subatomic particle collisions, where the resultant particles are moving in different frames with repect to each other and the initial particles.


- General Relativity: This redefined Newtonian gravitional with the results from Special Relativity. It states that near a gravitional source, time slows and length contracts.



About the discovery that occurred over the summer showing a light pulse moving faster than light: many people may think that this complete invalidates Einsteinian Relativity, and that physicists are scared by this prospect, but both ideas are false. The analogy can be made with the transition from classical physics to modern quantum and relativistic physics. At the end of the 19th century, physists thought they knew everything they could know about physics. But Planck, Einstein, Shroedinger, and others showed that Newtonian physics is wrong. But in no way does this make everything Newton did obsolete; in most real world senarios, it is much easier to use Newtonian physics for motion, even though it isn't completely inaccurate. Eisteinian Relativity has been proven countless times, and is used in GPS systems, particle accelerators, nuclear power and devices, and in many other applications. Even if it is ultimately shown that something can travel faster than light, it has been shown that Einsteinian physics works in a vast majority of cases. It will still be used a lot, even though it might not be complete...the more complete form of relativity that might be developed will have to be used in the special cases. For me, the prospect of a new form of relativity is exciting.
 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
Mears;

<...Someone was telling me that if something exists outside of the universe, it exists outside of time...>

&quot;If&quot; denotes a hypothetical, something based on assumption.

No one of us actually knows the true nature/character/form of the Universe. Not one of us knows if anything can be external to the Universe. Not one of us knows if the concept of 'outside the Universe' has any intrinsic meaning.

Wedesdo;

<...probably so, but our brains cannot/will not comprehend this...>

You do not know, so 'probably' is qualifier non grata.

As to who's brain can do what, well, that's person-specific, isn't it?

Mears;

<...if you travelled a certain speed(forget how fast) time stops moving for you. So according to that yes...>

No. The faster you move relative to others not moving with you, the slower they see time passing for you. Your own estimation of the rate of time's passage will not change (will remain constant), no matter what speed you actually travel.

The only thing that will change is someone else's estimation of the rate of time's passage for you when compared to their own rate.

Windogg;

<...The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time is to you...>

See my previous response to Mears.

Sohcan;

<... Before the Big Bang, there was nothing...>

Before the Big Bang = Time < 0 = Divide-by-Zero = Undefined = Meaningless after the Big Bang.

<...it's hard to say if an edge exists...>

it's easy to say we don't know if an edge exists.

<...showed that Newtonian physics is wrong...>

Showed that Newtonian physics ultimately is an inadequate descriptor of gravity, though in most common circumstances it is quite adequate.

<...Eisteinian Relativity has been proven countless times...>

No, significant numbers of predictions made by Einsteinian Relativity have been confirmed.

 

e_mc_2

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
424
0
0
I never understood how time could leave us no matter what since we carry within us a biological clock. How could we ever be in a place where this human time ever stoped, without us being destroyed in the process. Say we did travel at faster than the speed of light then sure I will buy that conceptual time based on the universe will change, but will it change us based on this or will we just continue on our own clock that we have within us. If there was a way a person could travel outside the universe, then sure the rules of time based on the universe would not apply, but there may be other rules of time that might apply that we have not thought of or aware of. AS well this depends on the definition of the term universe.

Side note some think there are mutiple &quot;universes&quot; that exsist outside what we deem our current universe, but with no way to prove this at this time whether they exsist or follow the laws that our current known universe follows, it's really just a matter of how you want to look at it. Because no one could actually prove you wrong without proving themselves wrong.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
To clarify slightly better:

<<Even if it is ultimately shown that something can travel faster than light, it has been shown that Einsteinian physics works in a vast majority of cases.>>

Basically what is being said here is that if Einstein is ultimatly shown to be incorrect, it will more than likely be a minor correction to his equation because it does explain a certain amount of data that must be explained by the new theory. For example using the equation given as:

V = 1/2*a*t (where a is accel and t is time, this is the neutoniun equation), Eistein simply added a correction factor to this equation to correct it for the minor differences observed experimentally. If in the future Einstein is shown to be wrong it would probably come in the form of a more complicated correction factor applied to the original equation, because otherwise it wouldn't explain all the data currently amassed supporting it.

<<No one of us actually knows the true nature/character/form of the Universe. Not one of us knows if anything can be external to the Universe. Not one of us knows if the concept of 'outside the Universe' has any intrinsic meaning.>>

This is a very important statment. If you could, imagine &quot;somewhere&quot; that has no length, width, height or time. To be outside the universe would require you to be outside space-time. Myself I cannot imagine something that has no space or time. Space does not exist outside the universe, we cannot even speculate what lies beyond the boundary to the universe, it could be rice pudding for all we know.
 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
<...it could be rice pudding for all we know....>

Which is why I find silly the thought of people praying to cereal grass. ;)

 

Sohcan

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,127
0
0


<< <...showed that Newtonian physics is wrong...>
Showed that Newtonian physics ultimately is an inadequate descriptor of gravity, though in most common circumstances it is quite adequate.
>>

...Ummm...that was my entire point in the analogy to the development of modern physics...why else would I still be taking multiple classes in Newtonian physics as well as Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics? (both classical descriptions, but using different techniques to solve for the motion equations).



<< <...Eisteinian Relativity has been proven countless times...>
No, significant numbers of predictions made by Einsteinian Relativity have been confirmed.
>>

Again, is there any particular reason you're nitpicking the semantics? I know that a theory cannot be proven beyond a doubt.
In no way do I think Einsteinian Relativity is the end-all of modern physics, but it has proven to be a very adequate description.

A short list of instances supporting Einsteinian Relativity:
- Deflection of light in a gravitational field: the path deflected was correctly calculated in 1919 when the sun moved near several stars during a solar eclipse.
- Doppler effect of light due to a gravitational field: Doppler effects must be taken into account by GPS satellites.
- Time dilation: Atomic clocks in satellites at different orbits have shown the effects of time dilation due to both gravitation and relative velocity.
- Length contraction: Muons are particles formed in the upper atmosphere during collisions between air molecules and cosmic rays. Given their lifespan, they should not be able to reach the earth's surface. But due to length contraction and time dilation, muons regularly reach the surface.
- E = mc^2: particle accelerators, nuclear weapons, etc, etc...



<< it could be rice pudding for all we know. >>

It's actually plum pudding (JJ Thompson was right! :))
 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
<...is there any particular reason you're nitpicking the semantics?..>

Yes, the obvious one.
 

I'm Typing

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,208
0
0
Sohcan: Remember what Hawking said about publishing equations in articles for public consumption. And you never answered the original question, anyway. But the reason why that question cannot be answered is that the answer cannot exist outside a mathematical expression devoid of spacetime constraints.

The speed of light IN A VACUUM cannot be surpassed...but in theory, you can alter SPACE to achieve superluminal travel. Too bad we cannot figure out how to do that without expending more energy than we know how to create...
 

Teatowel

Senior member
Sep 22, 2000
496
1
81

Another vote for Michio Kaku.. easy to understand quantum physics. Shows that religion, the big bang theory and Darwin can all coexist in the same universe ;)
 

Sohcan

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,127
0
0


<< And you never answered the original question, anyway >>

Sorry, Mears PM'd me about it...and I answered that I couldn't answer it. :)

You're not going to get any definitive answers to questions like these...one physicist will tell you one thing, another will tell you another...
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
no, our existance would not &quot;all go by at once for it&quot;. If it were to be outside of the space-time continuum, it would be able to move around our existance, over it, under it, and through it. Time would not apply, neither would speed/acceloration (sp?), distance, etc. Basically, anything outside of our existance would not be subject to our standard laws of physics or subject to limits by the space-time continuum.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY