vue - Why does time advance?: Richard Muller's new theory
A simple question from his wife – Does physics really allow people to travel back in time? – propelled physicist Richard Muller on a quest to resolve a fundamental problem that had puzzled him throughout his 45-year career: Why does the arrow of time flow inexorably toward the future, constantly creating new "nows"? That quest resulted in a book to be published Sept. 20, NOW: The Physics of Time (W. W. Norton), that delves into the history of philosophers' and scientists' concepts of time, uncovers a tendency physicists have to be vague about time's passage, demolishes the popular explanation for the arrow of time and proposes a totally new theory."Time has been a stumbling block to our understanding of the universe," said Muller, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus who for many years taught a popular introductory course, "Physics for Future Presidents," which he turned into a 2008 book of the same name. "Over my career, I've seen a lot of nonsense published about time, and I started thinking about it and realized I had a lot to say from having taught the subject over many decades, having thought about it, having been annoyed by it, having some really interesting ways of presenting it, and some whole new ideas that have never appeared in the literature." In commenting on the theory and Muller's new book, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the 2014 TV miniseries “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” wrote, "Maybe it's right. Maybe it's wrong. But along the way he's given you a master class in what time is and how and why we perceive it the way we do." Muller’s new idea: Time is expanding because space is expanding. "The new physics principle is that space and time are linked; when you create new space, you will create new time," Muller said. Time kicked off by Big Bang Ever since the Big Bang explosively set off the expansion of the universe 13.8 billion years ago, the cosmos has been growing, something physicists can measure as the Hubble expansion. They don't think of it as stars flying away from one another, however, but as stars embedded in space and space continually expanding. Muller takes his lead from Albert Einstein, who built his theory of general relativity – the theory that explains everything from black holes to cosmic evolution – on the idea of a four-dimensional spacetime. Space is not the only thing expanding, Muller says; spacetime is expanding. And we are surfing the crest of that wave, what we call “now.” "Every moment, the universe gets a little bigger, and there is a little more time, and it is this leading edge of time that we refer to as now," he writes. "The future does not yet exist ... it is being created. Now is at the boundary, the shock front, the new time that is coming from nothing, the leading edge of time." Because the future doesn't yet exist, we can't travel into the future, he asserts. He argues, too, that going back in time is equally improbable, since to reverse time you would have to decrease, at least locally, the amount of space in the universe. That does happen, such as when a star explodes or a black hole evaporates. But these reduce time so infinitesimally that the effect would be hidden in the quantum uncertainty of measurement – an instance of what physicists call cosmic censorship. "The only example I could come up with is black hole evaporation, and in that case it turns out to be censored. So I couldn't come up with any way to reverse time, and my basic conclusion is that time travel is not possible," he said. Muller's theory explaining the flow of time led to a collaboration with Caltech theoretician Shaun Maguire and a paper posted online June 25 that explains the theory in more detail – using mathematics – and proposes a way to test it using LIGO, an experiment that detects gravitational waves created by merging black holes. If Muller and Maguire are right, then when two black holes merge and create new space, they should also create new time, which would delay the gravitational wave signal LIGO observes from Earth. FOR THE FULL STORY: http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/09/20/new-book-links-flow-of-time-with-big-bang/ Video by Stephen McNally Additional video provided by: LIGO-SXS-R. Hurt-T. Pyle LIGO NASA LIGO-T. Pyle SXS Music: "Oxygen Garden" and "Out of the Skies Under the Earth" by Chris Zabriskie http://www.news.berkeley.edu/ http://www.facebook.com/UCBerkeley http://twitter.com/UCBerkeley http://instagram.com/ucberkeleyofficial https://plus.google.com/+berkeley
Commentaires
-
YES THZE ONLY TIME IS NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDpRKy-O96g
-
when will we see some physicist who has atleast attempted to study Advaita Vedanta (besides Schrodinger) to understand the nature of reality.
-
What a hack.
-
Fascinating concept, I look forward to the experimental support suggested in the interview.
-
Theoretically general relativity would allow you to go backwards in time via a closed gravitational time loop near a massive black hole.
Quantum particles are not prohibited from traveling both ways in the arrow of time.
Unfortunately, humans will never ever be allowed to experience or observe these phenomena because we are bound by the arrow of time and cause and effect. -
I wish we could go back in time, all the atheist and evolutionist would get a rude awaking. I'd love to see there faces when they go back a million years and nothing was here but God.
-
i love his modesty and adherence to actually testing his theory :D
-
the presumption of time--got i hate this. can these people not begin by defining what the fuck it is that they're talking about when they refer to 'time'. to me, all it is that time seems to be is the movement of matter or the change of relationships between things. that said, if planets, stars, black holes, and what have you are constantly changing spatially in relation to one another or even themselves, time will be experience-able (that's a brand new word!).
-
Interesting concept, but curious about the accuracy of the phrase "this leading edge of time that we refer to as now" in the article http://futurism.com/the-physics-of-time-why-time-travel-may-be-impossible/
From my understanding of special relativity, the moment "now" is not the same for everyone. Your "Now" is not my "Now" and what is "now" at the other end of the galaxy (or universe) could be in my future or my past here on earth. As the moment "Now" is relative to one another, how can the expansion on the leading edge of the universe uniformly increase everyone's now? I am not here to criticize Muller, but would love to hear his explanation. -
That was a fairy tail for those who do not use their head. the believers of new religion called science. their dogma is e=mc2, black hole, dark matter ect. for those with functioning brain
Correct version of mass / energy equivalence is E=m4/3pi(C+G)CUBED
There is no such a thing as time. time was created by man for man. physical world reference is event. ” Ferydoon Shirazi”
Event always move in one direction: future. You got conceived, you were born, you live & die. it is impossible to reveres that because one is consequence of other. matter can appear to be reversed from one element to another because of it's structure. it is achieved by substituting the photons and electron with others. the GNs time travail by use of memory bank. similar to our video of past, but mentally. MG1 -
Richard, the word Time has two core meanings... firstly the abstract framework that we use to reference, index, calibrate, measure change events ; and secondly a non-specific collective term for events (like the word TRAFFIC is a non-specific collective term for vehicles - i.e. a mass noun).
In both meanings of the word Time - the abstract framework and the mass noun - it is ABSTRACT. In other words, you can't 'create' Time (other than in your mind); (btw spacetime is an abstract framework too).
Which meaning of the word TIME were you referring to throughout?? You do know, presumably? Hopefully??
Fundamentally it is NOT a flow of time we observe, it is a flow of events (like fundamentally traffic is a flow of vehicles). Time doesn't 'advance' - rather, events happen.
"Over my career, I've seen a lot of nonsense published about time..." I'm afraid you've only added to the heap - sorry. -
Richard Muller: "The future does not yet exist ... it is being created."
Einsteinians deduce a different conclusion from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."
So if, as Muller believes, "the future does not yet exist", either Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, or the jumping into the future described by Damour is not a deductive consequence of this postulate. Muller should have solved this problem before offering his new theory. -
It occurred to me that both Special Relativity (in the Minkowski formulation anyway) and the Schrodinger equation introduce an i into the time coordinate. Until those theories became accepted, I'm not aware that any complex variables or imaginary terms had been used in physics (as part of the theory, that is, rather than just as a convenience to avoid having to constantly write ... a sin ... + b cos ...) .
So when these i factors got into the picture, naturally things started to feel confusing and paradoxical. In both theories, I think the i factor understandably scrambles our intuitions about time and space. Anyway, the i factors certainly confuse me.
130Évaluation