Can someone please explain to me where time 'goes'?

[Scottish_Girl]

Having just read a book called, the Langoliers, my brain is now completely fuddled by the notion of what happens to a place once time has moved through it.

I can't even get it straight in my own head what I am trying to work out...but I guess it is this...

Barring major catastrophe, I am pretty sure the next second, minute, five minutes etc will happen. In other words, I know my kitchen is in the future, just as I know it is in the past - I sat here in it having coffee ten minutes ago.

So as I sit here in my kitchen now, is the kitchen that I will be in in the next five minutes hovering, empty in time somewhere, and equally, is the 'old' kitchen from a second ago disappearing into a black hole or something?

Perhaps I am confused by trying to find a common ground between the physical and the non physical? I just cant seem to make sense though, of the idea that we are just moving through time as if we were on a conveyor belt, and this second is the only relevant time.

You lot are all so good at explaining woo, I hope someone can give me a good slap and tell me how to get a grip of myself. :cheesy:

PS

[Melanie]

Reading too much Stephen King will do that to you!

[Muttley]

Yes, just keep telling yourself that the story is not real, and then try to forget that you ever read it.:smiley:

M.

[MischiefMonkey]

Yes, just keep telling yourself that the story is not real, and then try to forget that you ever read it.:smiley:

M.

And don't watch the truly awful TV adaptation. That's four or five hours of your time you won't get back.

[Scottish_Girl]

And don't watch the truly awful TV adaptation. That's four or five hours of your time you won't get back.

Didn't know there was a TV adaptation....have to say it was a great read though! :smiley:

[vbloke]

Time (as far as we currently understand it) is a dimension of the universe, as much as "up" and "left" is.

Whenever you move, you move through one of the accepted 3 dimensions of space, however, you also move through the 4th "time" dimension.

The curious thing is, on a quantum scale, all reactions are not time sensitive - that is, they can be run as easily backwards as they can forwards. Nobody quite understands why we only appear to perceive time as running in a one directional way.

The only exceptions to this are the Second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy must increase over time; the cosmological arrow of time, which points away from the Big Bang, and the radiative arrow of time, caused by light only travelling forwards in time.

[Mojo]

Can someone please explain to me where time 'goes'?

Bulletin boards.

[Melanie]

;D;D;D

[wooo_oops]

^ I do believe he's quite good looking as well...


:wnw::eek3:;D




Vbloke I mean. Tut

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Having just read a book called, the Langoliers, my brain is now completely fuddled by the notion of what happens to a place once time has moved through it.



Barring major catastrophe, I am pretty sure the next second, minute, five minutes etc will happen. In other words, I know my kitchen is in the future, just as I know it is in the past - I sat here in it having coffee ten minutes ago.


You lot are all so good at explaining woo, I hope someone can give me a good slap and tell me how to get a grip of myself. :cheesy:

PS


[ i] Yoda mode ON [ /i]

Study old Zen koan you must:

"Too much month at the end of the money, there is."

[ i] Yoda mode OFF[ /i]

[Cuddles]

The problem is that we really don't understand time at all. It seems to be a dimension similar to spacial dimensions, but it is also different. It seems to progress only in one direction, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for this. As vbloke says, particle interactions should be exactly the same forwards and backwards in time, yet they only seem to go forwards. Even the "cosmological arrow" is just an illusion. It would be caused by light only traveling forwards in time, but there seems no good reason why this should be the case. In fact, certain "big crunch" hypotheses speculate that if the mass of the universe were big enough to reverse the expansion, time would reverse as well, which would mean we can't actually tell the difference between an expanding and contracting universe, since it would always appear to be going forwards in time from our point of view.

The only thing that seems to give any objective direction to time is entropy. A simple explanation would be to think of fission. Take an unstable atom and hit it with a neutron and it splits into, say, two smaller nuclei and three neutrons. This is fairly easy to do, since two things hitting each other is fairly common. Now imagine the reverse. We now have five particles all needing to hit each other at exactly the same time, which is incredibly unlikely to happen. Therefore, entropy always increases and time appears to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. However, while this gives a nice qualitative explanation, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered from the physics point of view.

One nice attempt to solve this lies with phase space. This is a mathematical space where the points on a graph represent the state of a particle. For one particle, a two dimensional space can be drawn with position on one axis and momentum on the other. Whatever it's state, it can be represented by a single point on the graph. If you add another particle, you now need a four dimensional graph, but one point still represents the state of the whole system. If you keep adding particles, you end up with billions of dimensions to the graph, but now the state of the entire universe can be represented by a single point on it. The progress of time is now represented by the movement of that point around the phase space.

The initial problem with this idea was that it still doesn't actually explain time. The point can move around phase space, but there is no reason for it to travel in one direction rather than the reverse. This is where quantum physics comes in. It is not actually possible to know the momentum and position exactly at the same time, so the point for one particle becomes a fuzzy blob spread out a bit, representing the probability of the point actually being in any particular place. Scale this up to the whole universe and you get a really big, fuzzy blob that gives the probability of the universe being in any particular state. Time is now no longer the movement of the point in phase space, it is simply the probability that any particular state occurs. From a philosophical point of view this isn't especially satisfying, but from a physical point of view it is very possible that it explains pretty much everything.

As for the actual question in the OP, it depends how you actually look at time. If you look at it in the usual way of just another dimension that we move through then no, things only exist at one point in time. There isn't another room floating around 5 minutes into the future, the room will only be there once it has travelled through those 5 minutes, in the same way that your car isn't 5 miles ahead of you, it will only be there once it has travelled 5 miles. However, from the phase space point of view, all points in phase space potentially exist, so it isn't completely wrong to say that your room is hanging around in the future, waiting for its turn to be "reality".

Of course, there are many other ways of looking at time, and most of them end up with slightly different ways of looking at the past and the future. The most accurate thing to say is that we really don't know. However, as far as we can tell, it doesn't actually matter anyway. Time appears to be something that just proceeds from the past to the future, and so we may as well act as if that is the truth.

[Melanie]

Scottish Girl - have you read The Time Traveller's Wife yet? Now there's a book which will mess up your head. Henry is 'chronologically-challenged' and finds it hard to stay in the 'present'. It's a glorious read.

If you haven't read it, here's a link to the book on Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Travelers-Wife-Audrey-Niffenegger/dp/0099464462/ref=pd_bbs_1/026-8377330-9969243?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192700985&sr=8-1

but you can always note the isbn and order it by linking to amazon via UKS' bookstore.

And trust me, it's not just a chick-lit book. Boys like it too - and some have been known to cry at the ending...

[Melanie]

Cuddles - is there any truth in the idea that an atomic clock flying round the planet in a jet will 'lose' time?

If so, how does this happen?

[Cuddles]

Cuddles - is there any truth in the idea that an atomic clock flying round the planet in a jet will 'lose' time?

If so, how does this happen?

The Wiki acticle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity) probably explains it better than I ever could.

[MRT]

According to Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, there isn't just one dimension of time, there are two. In his model of the universe there is one extra space and one extra time dimension. Oddly, this makes understanding the universe easier. It is a consequence of the inability to pin down the position and momentum of a particle at once. He says these two are actually linked in a guage symmetry (which is WHY you can only get one or the other). The result is a possible solution to the infamous problem of linking quantum mechanics and relativity.

Just thought you'd like to know ... :smiley:

[Mojo]

Vbloke I mean. :'(

[wooo_oops]

Mojo> Well, I saw Vbloke on Youtube once, so it was fair comment.

But judging by your incredibly witty comment, I can deduce that you must therefore, be a terribly gorgeous person too.

There.;)

[Julia]

Oooh, is it Recommend a Book time? :smiley:

You might like to wrap your brain around Time's Arrow by Martin Amis and Replay by Ken Grimwood.

[vbloke]

^ I do believe he's quite good looking as well...


:wnw::eek3:;D




Vbloke I mean. Tut


Mojo> Well, I saw Vbloke on Youtube once, so it was fair comment.

But judging by your incredibly witty comment, I can deduce that you must therefore, be a terribly gorgeous person too.

There.;):hammock:

[Scottish_Girl]

Thanks for the replies folks.

As if my poor mind wasn't boggling enough BEFORE....^-^

[SKIRRID5]

Is the kitchen (or anything) like a sausage, where the width and height are equivalent to "our" three dimensions, and the length is time? We are in the position of Flatlanders living in a transverse section of the sausage, trying to imagine what the length is like. I have a vague idea I read that description of a 4 dimensional universe somewhere. Very many years ago, Fritz Leiber wrote a story called "The Man Who Never Grew Young". Some huge event (World War II seems to be suggested) caused time to stop and reverse.
Doctor, my brain hurts.

[hodgy]

Is the kitchen (or anything) like a sausage, where the width and height are equivalent to "our" three dimensions, and the length is time? We are in the position of Flatlanders living in a transverse section of the sausage, trying to imagine what the length is like.

When I need to visualise it that's kind of how I imagine it. I imagine a sort of 'super-shape' which for convenience of imagery I generally make 3 dimensional but understanding that there are further dimensions that I choose to filter out of my mental image. For example you can leave the time axis in and temporarily remove up-down.

[dalriada]

Time goes to Liverpool- Bold Street to be exact-and it stays there forever.

Allegedly...

Liverpool Echo Article (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0300whatson/0800events/2003/10/30/let-s-do-time-warp-again-50061-13572570/)



"Runcorn Bridge is a giant metal structure that acts as a huge magnetic conductor, and there time has been reported running forward."

"Essentially, these strong magnetic fields can affect the human mind and can affect time itself. Einstein said that time is dependent on the viewer and it can go in any direction."

[Cuddles]

time has been reported running forward

Wow. "Time is still working." That really puts "Dog bites man" into perspective. I didn't know it was possible to have such a slow news day.

[Mulder]

Steve Parsons! Hmm!

[fallible]

Oooh, is it Recommend a Book time? :smiley:

You might like to wrap your brain around Time's Arrow by Martin Amis and Replay by Ken Grimwood.


You know, I think I'm the only person in Britain who does NOT like The Time Traveller's Wife. I thought it was sickly and urgh.

As for the Runcorn Bridge, it lies en route between my house and my mother-in-law's house. I always wondered why time went so quickly on our way there. I thought it was something to do with having better things to do with my Sunday lunch time, but now I know.

[Nudles]

I'll try and avoid concepts such as "dimension" where it wont serve a purpose but to confuse and create tautologies.


I've always struggled somewhat to get a cohesive mental construct of what time is, so bear with me!

A lot of people seem to view time as a physical thing that may be able to be used to control and manipulate matter, or as a supernatural agent in itself that can bypass matter, in unknown, romantic and mystical ways. It is merely a measurement, not something you measure.

The movement and transfer of energy is velocity, and you cannot reverse velocity, just as you can't make a round square. (and you cant have "free will" without a soul(get out clause) ;), that is if you except a deterministic universe, which would be a good start :P)

This is why it would not be possible to "go back" in time, as that concept itself is meaningless. To go back in time we would have to reverse physics (which when thinking through brings up many many flaws and contradictions)... which is a meaningless statement.

At the moment, the most concrete explanation I can muster is as follows; Time is basically how we measure movement and the transfer of energy in a series of consecutive (limiting language for practical purposes only) instances or, one moment to the next. Time is not a physical thing, but just a way to measure the change of matter, the position in the spacial dimension and transfer of energy.

In conclusion, time does not "go" anywhere, because it is not anywhere, in the first place. Asking where does time go is like rolling a ball down a hill, and asking "where did that moment go when the ball was only halfway down the hill?"

[Cuddles]

A lot of people seem to view time as a physical thing that may be able to be used to control and manipulate matter, or as a supernatural agent in itself that can bypass matter, in unknown, romantic and mystical ways. It is merely a measurement, not something you measure.
The movement and transfer of energy is velocity, and you cannot reverse velocity, just as you can't make a round square. (and you cant have "free will" without a soul(get out clause) ;), that is if you except a deterministic universe, which would be a good start :P)

This is why it would not be possible to "go back" in time, as that concept itself is meaningless. To go back in time we would have to reverse physics (which when thinking through brings up many many flaws and contradictions)... which is a meaningless statement.

The trouble with this is that it's quite possibly wrong. According to all the evidence we have, time really is just another dimension, and there seem no good reason why we shouldn't be able to travel through it as such. Elementary particles may do it all the time. As for reversing physics, not only is that not at all meaningless, but it appears that the laws of physics are almost entirely reversible, with just a couple of interactions that may break the symmetry, although even that is by no means certain. Of course, if the symmetry is broken, that could provide a reason for time travel not being possible, but even then it is by no means certain.

[Nudles]

The trouble with this is that it's quite possibly wrong. According to all the evidence we have, time really is just another dimension, and there seem no good reason why we shouldn't be able to travel through it as such. Elementary particles may do it all the time. As for reversing physics, not only is that not at all meaningless, but it appears that the laws of physics are almost entirely reversible, with just a couple of interactions that may break the symmetry, although even that is by no means certain. Of course, if the symmetry is broken, that could provide a reason for time travel not being possible, but even then it is by no means certain.

Yes time is referred to as a dimension, that I am not disputing. It is not the same kind of dimension as space. Spatial dimensions being three, the forth being time. As far as we know (which I agree could change), time only has one dimension when talking atomic, and not sub-atomic. Time in simplicity is the measurement of physical change within these 3 dimensions of space (as far as the understanding is at the moment), but I would like to be corrected on that if wrong, as I don't like being wrong :tongue:.

I am also talking about time from a human, not a theoretical sub-atomic perspective, of how it affects us, as I think that is what the original poster was looking for.

I am not sure I know what you mean when you say "there seem no good reason why we shouldn't be able to travel through it [time] as such", could you rephrase that, maybe in terms of humans travelling through time(if that is what you meant), since we are but prone to the same effects of time as everything else not in the sub-atomic scale, what does travelling through time actually mean?

(I am not claiming I am right, just that is my understanding of it at the moment)

[hunter]

Perhaps its a perspective thing, similar to looking at a simple line drawing of a sphere. And not being certain weather its concave or convex. Or when, if you close one eye, you can't quite tell how far away the wall is. Perhaps it is not us moving through time, it could be time moving through us.

[koolg]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

[Sarama]

I am not absolutely certain where my own time goes, but suspect too much of it goes into being a skeptic! ;) If you Google "where does time go", they suggest you spend time here www.ucc.vt.edu/stdysk/TMInteractive.html (http://www.ucc.vt.edu/stdysk/TMInteractive.html) filling out an "inventory"!

Personally I would not waste my time.

To suggest that we can not go back in time, suggests that we are going forward.

Are we?

[Janot]

but it appears that the laws of physics are almost entirely reversible, with just a couple of interactions that may break the symmetry, although even that is by no means certain. Entropy? :undecided:

[tkingdoll]

I don't know where time goes, but I do know where the dark goes every morning. Under my bed! It's always dark there...

[Cuddles]

Entropy? :undecided:

I'd missed this. Entropy is a funny one because it's not actually a physical law at all, it's simply a consequence of other laws. It's really entropy that causes all the problems in the first place, since entropy appears to only increase, but when you look at all the fundamental laws there doesn't seem to be any good reason for this. As I mentioned earlier, we have probably found a couple of interactions that break symmetry, but even they don't seem to explain why time has a direction.

[dalriada]

Interesting article here from Discover magazine:

Time May Not Exist (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time)

[Sarama]

Ah entropy...

So we are going from order to chaos or disorder?

[Mongrel]

Entropy doesn't mean randomness or chaos,

In physics, entropy (from Greek εντροπία "a turning toward," from εν- "in" + τροπή "a turning"), symbolized by S, is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work. (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)).

A stream of sand will form an ordered cone whilst at the same time increasing entropy by an unbelievably small fraction (on cosmic terms).

[Cuddles]

Also, chaos and disorder are not the same thing. Chaos is actually very ordered, but it has some interesting properties that make it look disordered. Disorder, or actual randomness, is something that may not even exist, although we can get close enough to it for all practical purposes.

[hunter]

Disorder, or actual randomness, is something that may not even exist, although we can get close enough to it for all practical purposes.

In concordance with this statement, a truely random event would negate the concept of cause and effect, where all events are the direct and obligatory result of the preceding events or cause.

Therefore any percieved ramdomness would be, at the least, in part be the result of the limitation of ones sensory perception.

[Cuddles]

In concordance with this statement, a truely random event would negate the concept of cause and effect, where all events are the direct and obligatory result of the preceding events or cause.

Therefore any percieved ramdomness would be, at the least, in part be the result of the limitation of ones sensory perception.

No. For example, radioactive decay, appears to be completely random. There is no problem with cause and effect though. The cause is the creation of an unstable nucleus, the effect is the decay. The time of decay can be random, but the decay will always come after the creation, and therefore there is no violation of causality.

[hunter]

Cuddles;33155]No. For example, radioactive decay, appears to be completely random.
Then why quallify it with the word 'appears' when citing evidence against the idea of randomness being a failure of perception.
By not stating it 'is' completely random, are you not leaving room for the possibility that the apparent randomness of radioactive decay could be due to the limits of observation.
I'm not suggesting that randomness dissappears under close inspection.

[ZERO]

I don't follow either.
A single atom may decay at a random moment but billions of them decay in a predictable way.
Are there not dating techniques using radioactive decay?

[Janot]

I don't follow either.
A single atom may decay at a random moment but billions of them decay in a predictable way.
Are there not dating techniques using radioactive decay?When I studied physics (it might have moved on sice then), we learned that radioactive decay was an example of something happening without involving cause and effect. Nothing caused the effect of decay of a particular atom, it just happened. But given a large enough sample, you knew that statistically in a particular time interval, half the radioactive atoms will have decayed, so the radioactivity of any observed group of atoms will decrease exponentially. Carbon 14 dating is based on this observation (as are a few other dating techniques using decay of other atoms).

[Cuddles]

Then why quallify it with the word 'appears' when citing evidence against the idea of randomness being a failure of perception.
By not stating it 'is' completely random, are you not leaving room for the possibility that the apparent randomness of radioactive decay could be due to the limits of observation.
I'm not suggesting that randomness dissappears under close inspection.

Clearly you have no idea how science works. I don't say we are absolutely certain it is random because we can never be absolutely certain about anything. There is always the possibility that tomorrow we will make a new discovery that changes things completely. However, right at this moment, radioactivity appears to be an example of true randomness.


I don't follow either.
A single atom may decay at a random moment but billions of them decay in a predictable way.
Are there not dating techniques using radioactive decay?

It's all about probability. It is entirely possible to know that after a certain time, half of the atoms in a sample will have decayed without having any idea when any particular atom will decay. It's similar to thermodynamics. It's impossible to predict the motion of all the particles individually, but when you look at them as a group, probability lets you calculate things extremely accurately.


When I studied physics (it might have moved on sice then), we learned that radioactive decay was an example of something happening without involving cause and effect. Nothing caused the effect of decay of a particular atom, it just happened. But given a large enough sample, you knew that statistically in a particular time interval, half the radioactive atoms will have decayed, so the radioactivity of any observed group of atoms will decrease exponentially. Carbon 14 dating is based on this observation (as are a few other dating techniques using decay of other atoms).

It's not that there's no cause and effect. There certainly is a cause - nucleii being excited to an energy state higher than their ground state. What we can't do is tell exactly when the effect will follow the cause, only that it will eventually.

[Janot]

It's not that there's no cause and effect. There certainly is a cause - nucleii being excited to an energy state higher than their ground state. It was postulated at the time (1960s) that there was no cause for the effect. What excites the nucleii to a higher energy state? (off-topic, sorry)

[Cuddles]

It was postulated at the time (1960s) that there was no cause for the effect. What excites the nucleii to a higher energy state? (off-topic, sorry)

Nuclear fusion. All unstable nucleii are created either inside stars, in supernoave or, for a few very light ones, when matter first condensed some time after the big bang.

I wouldn't worry about being off topic, I'm not even sure what the topic was supposed to be anymore.:smiley:

[ZERO]

Here is a question for you Cuddles.

Humans are creating elements that don't occur naturally, is there any theoretical limit on the size that can be reached?
ie, number of particles, mass and physical size?

[Cuddles]

Humans are creating elements that don't occur naturally,

Who says they don't occur naturally? First, there is the obvious point that humans are natural, and therefore so is anything we do. Ignoring that, we can't even come close to producing the kind of conditions that are produced in extreme events like supernovae, so there is no reason to assume that anything we do does not happen all the time without any human intervention.


is there any theoretical limit on the size that can be reached?
ie, number of particles, mass and physical size?

It really depends how you define an element. In the sense that most people think of them, we really don't know. We have pretty much reached the limit of stable elements you can get by adding small numbers of nucleons to existing elements, but theory says that there are stable regions of much larger nucleii, and while experiments haven't reached them yet, they have got close and suggest that this is probably the case.

In the technical sense, however, there is no limit at all. A neutron star, for example, is just a huge collection of neutrons. If there is a single proton in it, it is technically an isotope of hydrogen.

[Janot]

Humans are creating elements that don't occur naturally, is there any theoretical limit on the size that can be reached?
You can learn a lot from Tom Leherer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsxEfErKbpQ). One he doesn't mention, because it was discovered later, was Darmstatium, where they managed to create a few atoms for a millionth of a second, in Darmstadt. It might give you an idea of the uphill struggle...

[ZERO]

Who says they don't occur naturally? First, there is the obvious point that humans are natural, and therefore so is anything we do.
It is common usage to divide human/non-human events. Printed Circuit Boards are not considered natural.
I understand your point but I think it irrelevent. ???


Ignoring that, we can't even come close to producing the kind of conditions that are produced in extreme events like supernovae, so there is no reason to assume that anything we do does not happen all the time without any human intervention.

It really depends how you define an element. In the sense that most people think of them, we really don't know. We have pretty much reached the limit of stable elements you can get by adding small numbers of nucleons to existing elements, but theory says that there are stable regions of much larger nucleii, and while experiments haven't reached them yet, they have got close and suggest that this is probably the case.

In the technical sense, however, there is no limit at all. A neutron star, for example, is just a huge collection of neutrons. If there is a single proton in it, it is technically an isotope of hydrogen.
Thank you for your answer.
What range of Atomic numbers are these stable regions? 150? 300?


You can learn a lot from Tom Leherer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsxEfErKbpQ). One he doesn't mention, because it was discovered later, was Darmstatium, where they managed to create a few atoms for a millionth of a second, in Darmstadt. It might give you an idea of the uphill struggle...
Years ago I could write out the whole table of elements from memory. (Not anymore though)
A guy playing piano does not add much to it. :cheesy:

[hunter]

Clearly you have no idea how science works. I don't say we are absolutely certain it is random because we can never be absolutely certain about anything. There is always the possibility that tomorrow we will make a new discovery that changes things completely. However, right at this moment, radioactivity appears to be an example of true randomness.
Not as clearly as you would like to think, considering all you've done here is elaborate my point. The discoveries we might make in the future will likely be due to an improvement in observation.

[Cuddles]

It is common usage to divide human/non-human events. Printed Circuit Boards are not considered natural.
I understand your point but I think it irrelevent.

Yeah, as I said, yo ucan pretty much ignore it. However, I think it's important to keep at the back of your mind, since discussions involving us doing "unnatural" things have a nasty habit of ending up with "Oh noes! We're going to break the world!" kind of claims.


Thank you for your answer.
What range of Atomic numbers are these stable regions? 150? 300?

The Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability) explains a bit. It's not just the atomic numbers that are important, but also the number of neutrons. It's all to do with filling shells in the nucleus, similar to how filling electron shells makes an element chemically stable.


Not as clearly as you would like to think, considering all you've done here is elaborate my point. The discoveries we might make in the future will likely be due to an improvement in observation.

Which has nothing to do with your claim that radioactive decay violates cause and effect, which is what I was arguing against. The fact that we don't know everything is not only irrelevant, but is also universally acknowledged by all scientists, so I really don't see why you keep bringing it up.

[ZERO]

The Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability) explains a bit. It's not just the atomic numbers that are important, but also the number of neutrons. It's all to do with filling shells in the nucleus, similar to how filling electron shells makes an element chemically stable.


Very interesting.
Seems the super heavy atoms might not last long anyway.

Thanks for your answer. O0


Oh, I could bombard you with so many questions.

[hunter]

Which has nothing to do with your claim that radioactive decay violates cause and effect, which is what I was arguing against. The fact that we don't know everything is not only irrelevant, but is also universally acknowledged by all scientists, so I really don't see why you keep bringing it up.
This reminds me of nothing so much as a dog chasing its own tail. And it surprises me not at all that you now admit to arguing against a claim I have not made.
My claim is that a truely random event would violate cause and effect, and thus any perceived randomness may be a failure of perception. You have asserted that randomness does appear to occur without violating cause and effect in the form of an unpredictable timescale during radioactive decay. You certainly sound quite convinced this is in fact the case and I do not question your authoritar in this field. I do however question why you have asserted it as evidence against my claim.
Please excuse me for spelling it out but you seem to require this.
:ponder:

[Fiona]

Well I don't know much about this particular manifestation but I do not think a random event like this violates cause and effect as I understand it, Hunter. What I think is being said is that:

The elements are unstable and they decay

This seems to be because they are produced in stars etc where the forces are enormous. I think of it like, for example, two cars being cut in half and the back of one being welded to the front of the other: they look like one but if you drive them or if there is a crash they are not so robust as a single car and they might fall apart. Not a great analogy but I hope it serves. Anyway you cannot say when they will fall apart, so to that extent it is sort of random. But you can say that such cars are likely to fall apart and if you tested a whole lot of them you could also say statistically how long they last before they do. You know the cause and the effect but not the timing.

Elements are not single entities, in that the nucleus is made of different particles. Stable elements have atoms with "filled shells" and unstable ones move towards that configuration over time. Because there are millions of atoms you can measure the time it takes for half of those atoms to reach a stable configuration, but you cannot say which ones will shed particles to make that happen. You seem to me to be right that it might not be random: but if it is not we do not know enough to say what the particular relevant differences might be - in short they all look alike to us.

Of course it is possible that if we did know enough then we would be able to predict which atoms, and you seem to me to be right if you think that should be the hypothesis at our current state of knowledge. That fits with other things we know and in fact it seems to me to be intrinsic to the ordinary language use of the words "random" and "cause and effect". It is possible that these words are used in a special sense in this field and that would lead to some confusion: but on balance I think you are both right in the way I have outlined.

Not sure if that helps at all though :smiley:

[Cuddles]

This reminds me of nothing so much as a dog chasing its own tail. And it surprises me not at all that you now admit to arguing against a claim I have not made.
My claim is that a truely random event would violate cause and effect, and thus any perceived randomness may be a failure of perception. You have asserted that randomness does appear to occur without violating cause and effect in the form of an unpredictable timescale during radioactive decay. You certainly sound quite convinced this is in fact the case and I do not question your authoritar in this field. I do however question why you have asserted it as evidence against my claim.
Please excuse me for spelling it out but you seem to require this.
:ponder:

Oh for god's sake, do you even read what you write? You have said it again:

My claim is that a truely random event would violate cause and effect
That is what I am arguing against. Please at least try to stay in the same discussion as the rest of us.

[Fiona]

Cuddles, can you explain to those of us who
<-------

Cos I don't get it

[hunter]

Whilst a random event would most certainly be unpredictable it is not necessarily true that an unpredictable event should be random. By saying a truely random event would defy cause and effect I narrow the definition to the idea of a spontaneous event without order. Not particularly complicated but I suppose still not clear to some.:smiley:

[ZERO]

Whilst a random event would most certainly be unpredictable it is not necessarily true that an unpredictable event should be random. By saying a truely random event would defy cause and effect I narrow the definition to the idea of a spontaneous event without order. Not particularly complicated but I suppose still not clear to some.:smiley:
Other than the Big Bang, I cannot think of any spontaneous event or events that defy cause and effect.
Even the BB may not be truly spontaneous because we, at present, can't work well with infinite values (according to my limited understanding). If the BB had a cause or not is presently hidden.

Can you actually think of any?
I would be interested to know.

O0

[Cuddles]

Whilst a random event would most certainly be unpredictable it is not necessarily true that an unpredictable event should be random.

Sure. No-one has said otherwise.


By saying a truely random event would defy cause and effect I narrow the definition to the idea of a spontaneous event without order. Not particularly complicated but I suppose still not clear to some.:smiley:

It's perfectly clear. It's just wrong. Please stop the condescending attitude when discussing things with people far more knowledgeable in the area than you. It really is very simple. A random event does not violate cause and effect. End of story. Of course, if you could find an event which did violate causality it is very likely that it would be random. That does not mean that all random events violate casuality.

This is the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. It takes the form:
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

It is a fallacy because although A implies B, B does not imply A since there could be other causes. This is what you are doing. You are saying that since a violation of causality would imply randomness, therefore randomness implies violation of causality. Since we have examples of random events which do not violate causality, this is not true.

[hunter]

It's perfectly clear. It's just wrong. Please stop the condescending attitude when discussing things with people far more knowledgeable in the area than you. It really is very simple. A random event does not violate cause and effect. End of story. Of course, if you could find an event which did violate causality it is very likely that it would be random. That does not mean that all random events violate casuality.

This is the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. It takes the form:
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

It is a fallacy because although A implies B, B does not imply A since there could be other causes. This is what you are doing. You are saying that since a violation of causality would imply randomness, therefore randomness implies violation of causality. Since we have examples of random events which do not violate causality, this is not true.

I appologise to you cuddles for being condescending. It is an ugly form of communication no matter whom the more informed party. Hopefully we will both be less inclined to dish it out in future.
The form of my argument is not as you have described it (affirming the consequent) I believe I have used a hypothetical syllogism. If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. I fully expect it to be flawed because I am such a novice, I am having difficulty learning from your opposition which flies in tangents . You seem to be upset by the implications of my argument as they reflect on you rather than the argument itself. Do you think I should go away untill someone tells me I'm qualified to think? Don't give up on me, I vow to be more polite and respectfull in the future.
Does my definition of true randomness not imply a violation of causality? Am I not permitted to define the level of randomness I wish to discuss or must I acknowledge all possible connotations simultaneously.

Forget everything else and tell me why a random event does not violate causality. How can it be random if it has been caused?
Do we really have examples of randomness or are they examples of the limit of perception?

[Cuddles]

Forget everything else and tell me why a random event does not violate causality.

I already have. Several times. OK, forget science, forget that we can't know everything, just imagine that we really do know everything that can be known. Now take radioactive decay. Assume it really is random. Now, even though it is completely and utterly random and cannot be predicted for any individual particle, there is still a cause. A particle cannot decay without first being in an unstable state. Therefore, the intial cause of the decay is the creation of the unstable state.

Of course, it is possible that radioactive decay isn't really random and that we just don't know enough about it. That is irrelevant though. Even if it really is entirely random, the effect still always follows the cause.

[hunter]

I already have. Several times. OK, forget science, forget that we can't know everything, just imagine that we really do know everything that can be known. Now take radioactive decay. Assume it really is random. Now, even though it is completely and utterly random and cannot be predicted for any individual particle, there is still a cause. A particle cannot decay without first being in an unstable state. Therefore, the intial cause of the decay is the creation of the unstable state.


Thank you for telling me one more time. I understood that there is cause for the decay, I am concerned over the cause for delay. There is however too much for me to learn for you to explane it in this forum. I need to research it myself to get my head around it, so I will because I do want to understand.

[Dr B]

Hi Hunter

You should take the time to really consider what Cuddles said above (and repeated below) as it does appear to be what you were suggesting earlier.

I know its hard to think about all these concepts and fallacies at first - but keep at it - it gets better and easier with practice. We are all capacble of making fallacies and we all do it from time to time despite our best efforts to avoid it. That is why discussing ideas with others always helps.

An informed community can work like a kind of 'ideas police' - not necessarily telling you what is right (as we rarely know for sure) - but pointing out which arguments and ideas do not have the capacity to be true based on the reasoning provided. 8)


Sure. No-one has said otherwise.



It's perfectly clear. It's just wrong. Please stop the condescending attitude when discussing things with people far more knowledgeable in the area than you. It really is very simple. A random event does not violate cause and effect. End of story. Of course, if you could find an event which did violate causality it is very likely that it would be random. That does not mean that all random events violate casuality.

This is the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. It takes the form:
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

It is a fallacy because although A implies B, B does not imply A since there could be other causes. This is what you are doing. You are saying that since a violation of causality would imply randomness, therefore randomness implies violation of causality. Since we have examples of random events which do not violate causality, this is not true.