Universe

[Spectre]

aye, i really didn't want to get more complicated, time is after all only experienced one way to us, but to the universe its just a line.

To an outside observer past, present and future would all be observable at once?

 

[Mythal]

Oh you are not clear of the scenario ? Let me come again.

Two objects are travelling one behind the other with some distance between them. Both the object are travelling exactly at 'c' in the same direction. Now if the latter object flashes a light beam towards the first, the both object will see light travelling at speed of 'c' between them, also if the first one mirrors the beam back, both will again see the light beam to be travelling at exactly at speed 'c'.

How you can comprehend it I will type later.

No disrespect, may be I am getting something wrong but I think this scenario is not possible, because of multiple reasons. First objects cannot travel at the speed of light as you have already said earlier, but even if something hypothetically did travel at the speed of light and then object A flashed a light beam, the photons from that source will never reach object b as they cannot travel faster than their speed of light. A third object might see both object A and object B and also see the light beam from A colour shifted due dopplers effect.
BTW I do realize the whole scenario is very hypothetical as no perception of time would exist for any object travelling at the speed of light.

 

[Providence]

Don't worry - From a fellow MBA a piece of advice - Focus on profile not package.

Just read your signature. It says you are retired. Wow ! Glad to meet you. I hope I can pick your brains sometime over a cup of coffee.

Good to hear,I am studying MSc in genetics,freaking twisted and mind boggling,research oriented field
Regards

Glad to meet you as well. I hope you guys discover something and put an end to the menace of Cancer and AIDS

 

[applesauce]

To an outside observer past, present and future would all be observable at once?

well if you are a 4th dimensional being, technically yes. one would be able to simultaneously "see" the past, present and future. but the thing is, it's only the past, present and future to us, precisely because we only live in one frame of the 4th dimension at a time.

this is why the best vault in the universe would be exactly no challenge for a 4 dimensional being or a time traveler, they can simply go there before it was build, then go to when the thing they want is put in there, take it, go to a time before it was built again and leave.

just like how a 2 dimensional vault would pose no challenge to 3 dimensional being like us, we can literally see inside of it and take what we want, to them it would appears as though the thing simply disappeared with no traces whatsoever. they can't even perceive us unless we intercept their plane, even then a single slice of our 3d being would be seen, a 2d being would not realize what our true form is. we could be a small as a single atom intercepting the plane or our body at its widest point. this of course goes for us and our perception of 4 being as well.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

Some time back , there was a news floating around regarding Universe being a 2D hologram representation and the world that we think is real might just be an Illusion .

Any info on that ???????

 

[Spectre]

Some time back , there was a news floating around regarding Universe being a 2D hologram representation and the world that we think is real might just be an Illusion .

Any info on that ???????

too many marathon sessions of matrix trilogy sadly.

 

[Slav Defence]

Just read your signature. It says you are retired. Wow ! Glad to meet you. I hope I can pick your brains sometime over a cup of coffee.



Glad to meet you as well. I hope you guys discover something and put an end to the menace of Cancer and AIDS

You must follow American association for cancer research.You can follow it at linkedin as well
thanks for your hopes man,may god give you success as well

regards

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

too many marathon sessions of matrix trilogy sadly.

I think some researcher said that on Discovery ( Black Guy ) Don't know his name but that guy looks like
Morgan Freeman

 

[Providence]

No disrespect, may be I am getting something wrong but I think this scenario is not possible, because of multiple reasons. First objects cannot travel at the speed of light as you have already said earlier, but even if something hypothetically did travel at the speed of light and then object A flashed a light beam, the photons from that source will never reach object b as they cannot travel faster than their speed of light. A third object might see both object A and object B and also see the light beam from A colour shifted due dopplers effect.
BTW I do realize the whole scenario is very hypothetical as no perception of time would exist for any object travelling at the speed of light.

None taken.

First let us get the usual stuffs out of the way. When I said an object travelling at speed of light, obviously it was hypothetical but the intention was to highlight the relativistic effects of speed.

Secondly, when you are talking about time, pertinent question is not to comment about time but to ask whose perception of time. Both will differ. The object A from his reference will see his time to be traversing normally but object B's time to have virtually stopped. The reverse would be the case with object B's frame of reference.

While for a third observer say standing on earth, would see the time to have stopped for both the objects from his reference.

Thirdly, doppler's effect has nothing to do with speed (c) but shift in the frequency (v). As the frequency changes, so would the wavelength (λ)

Speed will always be constant and c = v * λ will hold true always.

 

[applesauce]

Some time back , there was a news floating around regarding Universe being a 2D hologram representation and the world that we think is real might just be an Illusion .

Any info on that ???????

what kind of info, it's a theory but one that can't be test yet

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

what kind of info, it's a theory but one that can't be test yet

Ooh ok

Info like , what the theory actually is , what is the reason behind the theory and many such info .

 

[Providence]

well if you are a 4th dimensional being, technically yes. one would be able to simultaneously "see" the past, present and future. but the thing is, it's only the past, present and future to us, precisely because we only live in one frame of the 4th dimension at a time.

Not to digress into philosophical realms but that is where our concept of self and consciousness comes in. We perceive our self to be existing only in that particular planck duration frame called "now". Who knows, maybe by exploring this concept of consciousness we can unravel the secret of escaping to higher dimensions ?

 

[Spectre]

Not to digress into philosophical realms but that is where our concept of self and consciousness comes in. We perceive our self to be existing only in that particular planck duration frame called "now". Who knows, maybe by exploring this concept of consciousness we can unravel the secret of escaping to higher dimensions ?

Very interesting, I was hoping it would arrive to this - however I am reluctant to participate further as it would inevitably lead to vedic slurs.

 

[Malik Alashter]

limited by Human perception and knowledge and as we expand our understanding these laws would be further refined and newer laws would come into place to explain as yet unexplained phenomenons.

There are three standards if I can say so

!- Law: law is law you can't refine it is physics it's firm just like that. like the gravety law

2- Hypothesis: here you can refine and find better one to explain things. like the black hole horizon all they have is mere hypothesis it's not firm no law.

 

[Spectre]

There are three standards if I can say so

!- Law: law is law you can't refine it is physics it's firm just like that. like the gravety law

2- Hypothesis: here you can refine and find better one to explain things. like the black hole horizon all they have is mere hypothesis it's not firm no law.

My point is hypothesis becomes a law after experimentation but such laws don't always stand the test of time.

 

[Providence]

There are three standards if I can say so

!- Law: law is law you can't refine it is physics it's firm just like that. like the gravety law

2- Hypothesis: here you can refine and find better one to explain things. like the black hole horizon all they have is mere hypothesis it's not firm no law.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested. So the statement, "A watched pot never boils," is a valid scientific hypothesis because we can test it (and find that in this case it is NOT supported by the evidence).

A theory is a general principle or body of principles that has been developed to explain a wide variety of phenomena. A scientific theory is NOT a wild guess. It must be consistent with known experimental results and it must have predictive power. As new knowledge is gained, theories are refined to better explain the data.

A law is a mathematical relationship that is consistently found to be true. For example, one of the most famous laws in physics is Einstein's e=mc^2.

So what you said about law of physics follows from it's definition. Laws do break when new theories arise though.