Some Science Many Get Wrong

Dear fellow members, the work in the lab was not bad. I had the opportunity to work with a plethora of physicists, and it's become a hobby of mine. There's a popular saying, 'We are living in the moment.' But in reality, we are not. No one truly does. Let me break it down: think of a grandfather clock as it ticks off the

seconds. A sound we all know is the clock's Ticktock as it runs. However, for the specific purposes that are significant to particle physicists, there is the most minuscule pause between the tick and the tock. It is within this tiny space that an actual moment, a crucial concept in particle physics, exists. The progression is as follows.

(Tick) [Moment] (Tock = 1 second.
I will show a progression of the first three seconds of a lab procedure.

1st second (Tick) {Moment} (Tock) | 2n second (Tick) [Moment} (Second) | Third Second (Tick) [Moment] (Tock.

So, there were three moments in just three seconds. For many applications, one must look at them individually. As linear time progresses, we are just moving past these moments. By the time you think of the word moment, a coupe has gone by, and we individualistically have little notion of them. Most would never notice this, but when they generate a collision at C.E.R.N. or Fermilab, it becomes

very important. The phrase living in the or by the moment doesn't really mean anything to the passage of time. It would be more accurate to say living day by day, or minute by minute. It may not seem like much, but it means a great deal in many scientific applications to understand this. Gosh I hate no longer being able to teach.

But aren't the tick and took just physical manifestations created by a man made device? For that matter aren't seconds a made defined construct? Isn't time a continum?

Interest topic. Thanks for posting.

For me, to live in the moment means for me to listen to that impulse that flashes in my mind for just an instant like a firefly and follow it where it leads me, rather than quash it, squash it, or mull it over til the life of the inspiration dies.

Oh, at first I thought you were going to explain the Zero Source Field, or whatever that non-thing is called.

Consider this: without a method to measure time, we'd be left with nothing but primitive sundials. Even in the realm of supercolliders, when an impact occurs, they break down in a similar fashion. What would happen if the software isn't designed to account for this? Everything is in motion, and superposition by every element of the passage of time is very important. Moment is a word created by man in all languages. That pause is there, and it is a moment in that continuum.

I think what lizardlady is referring to is the division of time seems a little arbitrary. Say we start with the premise a year is the time the Earth travels around the sun. Also during that time it takes more or less 365 rotations of the earth, so it makes sense to break the year down into 365 days.

Then consider that each day is a 360 degree rotation of the Earth. Why they chose to split that 360 into 24 hours I have no clue. Maybe making their sundials they found points every 15 degrees going around most practical, and 360/15=24? During equinox, there is more or less half of that rotation at the equator being day/the other half night. So splitting that 24 evenly into the 12 hours we have on today's clocks is more obvious.

Beyond that, they probably just used base60 math and split an hour into 60 minutes, and a minute into 60 seconds.

So basically 60s=1min, 60min=1hour, 1hour=15degree rotation, 1 day=360degree rotation, 360degree rotation/15degree rotation=24 evenly spaced points on a circle (24hr clock)=24hours=1day, 365rotations of the Earth or 365 days=1 year=one rotation around the Sun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 16PennyNail Consider this: without a method to measure time, we'd be left with nothing but primitive sundials. Even in the realm of supercolliders, when an impact occurs, they break down in a similar fashion. What would happen if the software isn't designed to account for this? Everything is in motion, and superposition by every element of the passage of time is very important. Moment is a word created by man in all languages. That pause is there, and it is a moment in that continuum.

Man, I am tired tonight so my poor ole brain may not be firing on all cylinders. Are you saying there is an actual pause in time? It's been a loooong time since I took physics classes, but I thought time was viewed as a continum?

Time is pretty much just a way to measure motion. There really is no "pause" as the universe is in continuous motion, but there are very precise moments in time. Say you're moving a point down a line in one direction continuously. The point doesn't stop, but at all time that point is in one spot, but it is only at that exact location at one infinitely small measurement of time/one moment.

I don't know how much you know about limits, but basically the time between spots, the size of the spot, and the distance between spots all approach zero, but never reach it. There is no integer to represent this quantity (it'd be 0.000000...(infinite 0's)....1).

If motion did actually reach zero, time would reach zero, and that would be a pause.

We could get into motion relative to the speed of light, but that's probably a moot point because anything with mass can't get that far. The closer to the speed of light you go, the slower time is. But time does move slower around a black hole because of the tremendously increased gravity causing significant increases in acceleration (closer to the speed of light).

Of course this is all going based off of what we know going more with the science route than the God exists and He can do whatever the hell He wants and is tricking us into solving into a task He made impossible. To each their own, I guess.

Thanks @MuddyBoots. The dot on a line analogy makes sense to me.

It isn't a pause; it is an interval in supercolliders and particle accelerators; this is how the sequence is timed from the moment of the collision. 1s [Moment 1], 2s [Moment 2], 3s {Moment 3], I have written software software to track this so I would know.. You are trying to apply common sense to something much more driven by mathematics and quantum physics. This is why it is one of the majors that has changed in the collegiate world. I worked with many physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab, where we have a particle accelerator. Using your logic, you could never have a sequence like 1s, 2s, 3s, etc. Because it would all be a gigantic blurb together. Time is a continuum that operates sequentially ever moving forward. If you don't believe me, then check out some

of Einstein's work. This is why so many falter at Quantum Mechanics and Physics. When you drill down into that, time and reality are not as we perceive them to be. These are not my assertions or misunderstandings of a book. PhD-level physicists will tell you. I spent many lunch breaks at our particle accelerator and talked with them for years to gain this understanding. Common sense is useless in the Quantum Realm. Learning takes a lot of effort, but when you see how it works, you understand. The reference between the Tick and the Tock is just an analogy. A

hierarchical system subdivides almost all things. If what I am saying is incorrect, why, when one observes something around 0.75c or higher from a fixed point, is the passage of time different between them and the object? But it can't be. It's a continuum. It has rules, some quite complex so thank the 16PennyNai. Because yes, it not only can be, but it is.

Does that mean time only exists in particle accelerators? Does that mean things jump around (from 1s to 2s to 3s with instead of moving continuously?)? You're kinda confusing me saying time is on a continuum, meaning there is no perceptible difference as it flows (like what I described trying to explain the dot moving along a line at intervals of limx->0), but you're also saying you can't apply logic, and logically there is no sequence. I don't get how the idea of "no sequence to time" is logical, as time doesn't move backwards (, and it kinda does go in the order of 0s to 1s to 2s and so on unless somehow you travel faster than a photon.

Pretty sure the idea of time being continuous is a relativity idea (the logical thought applied to larger than molecules) while in quantum theory (atoms and smaller) there are jumps aka quantum leaps. With special relativity vs quantum mechanics, is "physics" not a legitimate, whole, cohesive subject where we pick and choose which kind of math we use depending on what we're looking at (because, trust me, I've tried applying quantum equations on cosmic levels during my stint at a math major/physics minor studies, and the math got fccked . I don't know, you're the one with the PhD so I'm assuming you're smart enough to explain this how I can understand it, which you're not doing)? Do you think we really need to use entirely different math applications based on how microscopic or macroscopic we're looking, or is there something we're missing entirely? I've read a bit about quantum field theory's work in combining the two, but I'd like to understand it's weaknesses and therefore why classic quantum mechanics is still being used on particles and relativity on compounds.

Like I said, only attempted a major in math/minor in physics so the only formal classes I've taken are calc through III, linear algebra, DE, and physics I and II (which my prof just had us take a gander at quantum mech, and just a bit of field theory). I learn quickly though, so if you want to message me telling me where I'm wrong and EXPLAINING THINGS better that'd be cool. Applicable equations so I can work things out for myself would be good too (please copy & paste any non-roman alphabet symbols so I don't freak haha. Had a professor use an "O" for theta once and we all were like wtf?).

16PennyNail, I get the sense you think I am arguing with you. I'm not. I'm trying to wrap my brain around what you are saying. What little physics (two semesters) I had as an undergrad was when dinosaurs roamed the planet. I realize there have been a lot of change since then.

My husband was a physics major so I had some exposure beyond the classes I took. I do know that advanced physics and mathematics looks kind magic to the rest of us. Hubby had a cartoon I think represents it. In the cartoon a person is standing in front of a blackboard that is covered with an equation. At the end of the equation it says "then a miracle occurs."

I've heard the term "dipole moment" used in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (aka, NMR, upon which MRI is based). So the term "moment" can relate to molecular motion.

But I'm guessing that doesn't apply in a collider, where particles are subatomic. Quantum mechanics takes over. And 1s, 2s and 3s are energy states.

Am I close?

Aw shyt man, thought he meant seconds with s because it wouldn't go 1s 2s 3s, and he didn't specify 1s2, 2s2, etc.. although that part should've been obvious to me if that was what he meant. After 2s2 the electrons are in p-orbitals, so the lack of a 2p6 kinda made me think we weren't talking electron configurations since an entirely filled p-orbital was left out.

If that's what was meant, I'd like to learn how the position/movement of electrons (and resulting actions of photons) affects the difference between fixed time in quantum mechanics vs fluid time in relativity. Is the fact that all photons/electrons(protons&neutrons) weigh the same whereas atoms differ between elements?

Boy howdy! I am now in waaaay over my head. Going to bow out now...

Over my head too, haha. Relying on stuff I've learned almost ten years ago and have looked more into more so out of curiosity without any sort of rigor, so I'm just trying to figure out what the initial post was supposed to mean (I got that moments make up time, and that seems like something many would get right, so I guess if it's "some science many get wrong" I'm not understanding how Pennynail is explaining it).

Me too; my reply was just a "SWAG." And he'd be counting in picoseconds or femto seconds after a particle collision.

Deconstructing idioms??? There's a sport!