PDA

View Full Version : Could this be how TWCB are talking to Desmond? (Spoiler)



Poodle_of_Doom
12-14-2011, 07:11 PM
I got to thinking about the Uncertainty Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principal) the other day. For those of you who don't know, a basic synaps follows:

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In layman's terms, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known.

That said, to me, this concept seems easily understood. If anyone needs further explination, let me know, as it's imperitive you understand that to understand everything else I am about to say.

That said, I had a bit of a thought the other day about space/time. We know that quantum mechanics deals with the building blocks of building blocks of matter, ie., atoms and their building blocks.

As I'm sure you all are well aware, all matter as we know it exists in 3D Time and Space. Time is often considered to be the fourth deminsion of our reality. But this fact on time is a reletively mute point on what I'm about to say.

As you have seen, you cannot know both the speed, and direction of an object on its fundemental level. And as I'm sure most of you are aware, time is the study of how things change. These two points bring up an interesting ponderment for me. That is, if you cannot know both the speed, and direction of an object, how can you adequately measure its level of change?

This may seem to be a bit of a lack luster thought, but there is more. If you cannot adequately encompass that level of change, what does this say about time, and the measurement thereof. To me, it makes sense that you also wouldn't be able to measure both the speed and direction of time, reletive to matter. This revelation has profound implications.

If you were to know the direction of an object, you would not know it's speed. This is also a measurement of time. In this regard, an item would not seem limited by time. If you knew an objects speed, you would understand how it operates according to time, but not in relationship with space. Space/Time becomes something where ones understanding leans more towards one, or the other.

At that, my thoughts while thinking about this at roughly 3am were that one would not find it possible to understand the direction, and speed of time. We know that it goes forward, so we can not know it's speed, though we clearly have seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years. If we knew it's speed, we wouldn't necessarily know it's direction, whether forward, backward, or repeating. Fundementally, if one were to understand the math involved, as TWCB may have, I imagine a time nexus could exist, and be munipulated.

I know there are a few holes in this, as I thought of a few last night. However, I'm curious to know what everyone else thinks....

LightRey
12-15-2011, 05:24 AM
Hmmm. It's a little more complicated than that. As time is not a particle and it cannot have a "speed" in such a sense.

however, there is an uncertainty relation between time and energy, similar to the one between position and momentum. This concept has lead to a very interesting point in quantum mechanics, stating that all possible histories that lead up to a certain event influence said event, which is interesting as it basically reverses the original interpretation of the superposition principle (which states that all possible outcomes of a system influence said system) in time. So to be more clear, it means that if you have certain information about the state of a system, then all possible histories that could have lead to that system and all possible outcomes that could come from that system, based on the information you have about it, are, in a sense, existent.

Maybe that helps. These concepts are often quite hard to wrap your head around, but

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 07:41 AM
I'm definitly going to do a little research on what you said. However, they way I'm trying to express time here is more in relationship to particles rather than as a particle. This would explain being able to go forward and backward in time with something, say energy, or light.

itsamea-mario
12-15-2011, 07:46 AM
Gravity makes things fall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LightRey
12-15-2011, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
I'm definitly going to do a little research on what you said. However, they way I'm trying to express time here is more in relationship to particles rather than as a particle. This would explain being able to go forward and backward in time with something, say energy, or light.
Hmmm. You mean in the sense that the way we measure time is through the periodical movement of particles? That does bring up a good point. I'll see if I can find something about that when I have the time. If I find anything about it I'll let you know. :P

pacmanate
12-15-2011, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
Gravity makes things fall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

THIS

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
I'm definitly going to do a little research on what you said. However, they way I'm trying to express time here is more in relationship to particles rather than as a particle. This would explain being able to go forward and backward in time with something, say energy, or light.
Hmmm. You mean in the sense that the way we measure time is through the periodical movement of particles? That does bring up a good point. I'll see if I can find something about that when I have the time. If I find anything about it I'll let you know. :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Time itself, on a most basic of levels, is the study, observance, and measurement of change. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, and weeks are all rates, through which we can express said change on particles, and matter. That said, if we know how something is changing, we could say we know how it's traveling (through time I guess, but that makes the point more confusing). If we know that it's changing, we can't know the rate of change (time it takes). The oppisite is also true. If we know the rate of change (time), we can't know how it'll change (or move through time). Does this help?

itsamea-mario
12-15-2011, 11:01 AM
Electricity causes a bulb to light up.

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Hmmm. It's a little more complicated than that. As time is not a particle and it cannot have a "speed" in such a sense.

however, there is an uncertainty relation between time and energy, similar to the one between position and momentum. This concept has lead to a very interesting point in quantum mechanics, stating that all possible histories that lead up to a certain event influence said event, which is interesting as it basically reverses the original interpretation of the superposition principle (which states that all possible outcomes of a system influence said system) in time. So to be more clear, it means that if you have certain information about the state of a system, then all possible histories that could have lead to that system and all possible outcomes that could come from that system, based on the information you have about it, are, in a sense, existent.

Maybe that helps. These concepts are often quite hard to wrap your head around, but

That's just the explanation of a state function. Energy, entropy etc.

Mr_Shade
12-15-2011, 11:27 AM
Let's not ander too far from the topic..

Some of the posts in here are pretty random..

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Hmmm. It's a little more complicated than that. As time is not a particle and it cannot have a "speed" in such a sense.

however, there is an uncertainty relation between time and energy, similar to the one between position and momentum. This concept has lead to a very interesting point in quantum mechanics, stating that all possible histories that lead up to a certain event influence said event, which is interesting as it basically reverses the original interpretation of the superposition principle (which states that all possible outcomes of a system influence said system) in time. So to be more clear, it means that if you have certain information about the state of a system, then all possible histories that could have lead to that system and all possible outcomes that could come from that system, based on the information you have about it, are, in a sense, existent.

Maybe that helps. These concepts are often quite hard to wrap your head around, but

That's just the explanation of a state function. Energy, entropy etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure that the theory of parallel universes started off this concept as well, or was it the other way around? None the less, it makes perfect sense what he's said. If we can't possibly know the extent of two pairs of physical properties, yet we use some of these to define time, which in turn, is used as a measurement of some of these physical properties, there would seem to be a bit of a redundancy. At that, if we were to apply the concept of time as a standard of measurement (as it's generally accepted), then this implies that matter, energy, and all things with mass have some unique properties at a quantum state.

With that in mind, it would seem as if we can know that things are changing, and how they're changing, and where they're going in this change. How do we express this change, and still understand the rate of change? Remember, time is a functional unit of measurement here. So, if we can understand the change, but not the rate, we lack an understanding of time, though it's clearly defined. It would seem to me that if you understood how to manipulate the change correctly, time would be irrelevant. Perhaps this is what Jupiter meant when he was talking about the calculations being hard for him?

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 11:36 AM
The uncertainty principle states that the pair of properties cannot be measured to an accuracy greater than ?/2. That doesn't really cover centuries...

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
The uncertainty principle states that the pair of properties cannot be measured to an accuracy greater than ?/2. That doesn't really cover centuries...

I'm more familar with the principal on a general level, than I am with the math. Could I ask you to explain that a little bit more to me?

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 12:47 PM
The uncertainty Principle only applies on the quantum level and is defined as ?x?p >= ?/2

That is, the errors of x and p must be greater than or equal to ?/2. this arises from the fact that matrices describing x (position) and p (momentum) do not commute, i.e. XP is NOT equal to PX. Therefor,e it is intrinsic at the mathematical level that there will always be an uncertainty in taking these measurements. I believe the ?/2 comes form the difference between the two matrix combinations.

YuurHeen
12-15-2011, 12:51 PM
So i am curious why you guys use QM to describe the accuracy of time while it is especially the relativity theory that describes time as being relative to the speed of light. meaning that one could bend time if they would be able to come close to the speed of light. QM is nice and all but only works on the atom scale.

itsamea-mario
12-15-2011, 12:58 PM
Hammertime?

No but seriously, I have some idea what your talking about, but I'm not sure how you think this helps the possibility of a time nexus?

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 01:02 PM
Sorry, I was being dumb. The most accuracy with which you can measure something is ?/2, not the maximum uncertainty (I was too into trying to remember how the non-commuting matrices work!)

Anyway, it's still only applicable on the quantum scale. YuurHeen is right about the time thing (it's essentially a pythagoras relationship. imagine velocity time and c being the three triangle's sides). However, you can only dilate time by getting close to the speed of light. You cannot go back in time! Getting closer to the speed of light only serves to accelerate the apparent passage of time to your perception.

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 01:23 PM
What I'm thinking is that if you were able to affect the particle of a peice of matter at a quantum scale, you could affect it's overall mass. And lets us remember that we're not talking about time travel, but a time nexus, as Jupiter explained it.

I'm looking at it as being an overall point where all things time related converge. If you were able to express how things at a quantum level were able to change, as they do in direction, and speed (as we're seemingly aware in a quantum state), while remaining unrelated to time, you may be able to affect the synch nexus in someway. Kind of like trying to find the point where all things converge.

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 01:37 PM
quantum scale doesn't really scale up to macroscopic; Newtonian mechanics apply to macroscopic scale, in which you can measure mass (extrapolated from momentum) and position to infinite accuracy.

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 03:41 PM
But the problem that I could see with operating on a Macroscopic scale would be the fact that it isn't necessarily tangible to excite a large amount of mass to the point of being able to reach the time nexus. The truth of the matter is, the larger the mass, the more energy is needy to excite it, up to the point of need an infinite amount of energy. This is why we haven't yet been able to excite anything to, or beyound the speed of light. However, with smaller particle, which are already traveling at, or near, the speed of light, I imagine that the energy levels needed to propel them to, or beyound, that point would be significantly less (And that's not even factoring in the most recent speculation) (http://news.yahoo.com/particles-move-faster-light-einstein-wrong-133600343.html). Point being, I imagine it would be easier to act on a smaller scale, than it would be to try to transport the whole of something. Not to mention, these particles already appear to blink in and out of existance, and for that reason, would already defy the space/time threading that exists.

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 04:44 PM
That is true. But obviously it's not as simple as that...or we'd have done it already! Maybe it's some form of quantum computing? :P

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 04:58 PM
It definitely could be quantum computing. I've heard there's a lot of potiential in that. None the less, I don't think it's simple at all either. To be quite honest, just because it takes less energy doesn't mean that it still doesn't require a lot of energy.

Inorganic9_2
12-15-2011, 05:07 PM
Off-topic but interesting thing I have recently learnt: you can enclose a nitrogen atom inside a C60 and use it for quantum computing, as the nitrogen atom is fixed and takes either spin up or spin down (i.e. 1 or 0) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LightRey
12-15-2011, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Hmmm. It's a little more complicated than that. As time is not a particle and it cannot have a "speed" in such a sense.

however, there is an uncertainty relation between time and energy, similar to the one between position and momentum. This concept has lead to a very interesting point in quantum mechanics, stating that all possible histories that lead up to a certain event influence said event, which is interesting as it basically reverses the original interpretation of the superposition principle (which states that all possible outcomes of a system influence said system) in time. So to be more clear, it means that if you have certain information about the state of a system, then all possible histories that could have lead to that system and all possible outcomes that could come from that system, based on the information you have about it, are, in a sense, existent.

Maybe that helps. These concepts are often quite hard to wrap your head around, but

That's just the explanation of a state function. Energy, entropy etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct, but it ties in with the uncertainty principle and quantum superpositions.

Poodle_of_Doom
12-15-2011, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
Off-topic but interesting thing I have recently learnt: you can enclose a nitrogen atom inside a C60 and use it for quantum computing, as the nitrogen atom is fixed and takes either spin up or spin down (i.e. 1 or 0) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This could be the technology contained within the apple...