Even het (zeeer interessante) artikel van Lanier analyseren:
“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.
Uit mijn cut copy paste espistel in dit draadje:
Tijd is dus gelijk aan een afstand, onafhankelijk van de waarnemer! 1 seconde is dus 299 792 458 meter!
Miljaar probleem!:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR-paradox" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Weer niet juist??
Blijkbaar inderdaad fout.
Zoals ik reeds enige malen in dit draadje probeerde aan te halen is dat je verschillende soorten dimensies niet kan optellen of met elkaar vergelijken. Hoewel in de minowski ruimte de ruimtetijd bekeken wordt als een 4 dimensionaal gegeven, komt dit niet duidelijk naar voor in de quantummechanika.
http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtop ... 75#p333486
Men kan bovenstaande quote uit Lanier's artikel vulgariserend sammenvatten door te stellen dat men tot nu dacht dat quanta (bv foton) zich niet in de ruimtetijd bewegen maar net de ruimtetijd "creeren".
Nieuw inzicht:
Een quanta bevind zich enkel in een 3 dimensionale ruimte, niet in een 4 dimensionale ruimtetijd!
Què!?
In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.
The paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.
Kijk dat is wat men bedoeld: tijd is iets wat wij gebruiken om verandering in ruimte te definiëren, wat perfect werkt in de macro wereld. Maar wiskundig kan men tijd niet definiëren omdat elke definitie meteen wiskundig en experimenteel kan weerleg worden. Daarom heeft men ruimtetijd uitgevonden. Een kunstgreep die nu verkeerd blijkt te zijn.
Even naar een meer wetenschappelijke versie van het artikel:
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists ... nsion.html
They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.
Niet meetbaar betekent niet falsifieerbaar en we weten allen wat de waarde is van een theorie die niet weerlegbaar is: nougabollen.
“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”
Einstein zag al dat er iets niet klopte maar kon nog geen afstand nemen van de vierde dimensie of de ruimtetijd.
In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained.
“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
Wat nu zou blijken is dat niet alleen quanta zich enkel in een (maximaal) 3 dimensionale ruimte zouden bevinden, maar ook wijzelf. Dit wil niet zeggen dat er geen andere 1, 2 of 3 dimensionale ruimtes in onze ruimte bestaan. Dit betekend wel dat er geen 4 of 5 dimensionale ruimtes kunnen bestaan.
De volgende stap is nu dit experimenteel te bewijzen: nl. dat quanta zich in in enkel 3 dimensies bewegen.
Het artikel eindigt met een mooie uitleg over waarom wij tijd wel ervaren:
The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
