Adam Frank writes:
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- When you look at a picture of a galaxy that is 75 million light-years away, you are seeing that galaxy at a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.Â
- Distance translates into time because the speed of light is finite. Â
- What you perceive as ânowâ is really layer after layer of light reaching your eye from many different moments in the past.
Light from the time of the dinosaurs
When you look at a picture of a galaxy that is 75 million light-years away, you are not seeing it as it is right now, but as it was when that light you are seeing left it 75 million years ago. That means you are seeing that galaxy at a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and you were nothing but a dream in the tiny mind of the tiny mammals that existed back then.
[Or, to override the materialistic worldview of the author, we could say that 75 million years ago, we were nothing but a dream in the vast mind of God, who has existed from all eternity.]
I think everyone is familiar with this idea, and it is mind-blowing enough that everyone is happy to explore it again each time an image of a distant galaxy is released. Distance translates into time because the speed of light is finite. Therefore it always takes some time for light to cross the distance between a galaxy and your eye. A galaxy 75 million light-years away has had 75 million years to evolve since that light left and may no longer look like what we see in the image. That is incredible. (Actually, 75 million years is not enough time for galaxies to evolve much. Galaxies 10 billion light years distant are, however, another story).
So yes, everyone loves this idea. But here is the thing. You donât need objects to be billions, millions, thousands, or even one single light year away to experience how distance translates into time. It is a constant part of your life. You are trapped in time.
False simultaneity
Consider an object sitting two meters away from you. Look up now, find one, and focus your eyes on it. Letâs say itâs a chair. Because the speed of light is 2.99 x 108Â meters per second, the light your eye is detecting left that chair exactly 660 picoseconds ago. A picosecond is one trillionth of a second, and while I will grant that 660 trillionths of a second ago is pretty recent, it is still in the past. You are not seeing that chair as it is now, you are seeing it as it was. The same is true for everything else your eye detects. You never ever see the world as it is.
[Sorry to have to correct his math, but if the object is two meters from your eyes, you would be seeing it about 6700 picoseconds in the past, not 660 picoseconds.
The author continues, and raises some interesting questions.]
What you perceive as the ânowâ is really layer after layer of light reaching your eye from many different moments in the past. Your ânowâ is an overlapping mosaic of âthens.â What you imagine to be the real world existing simultaneously with you is really a patchwork of moments from different pasts. You never live in the world as it is. You only experience it as it was, a tapestry of past vintages.Â
Chairs, tables, houses, the moon, the stars, and the Milky Way. They are all living in different pasts, but when you stand in their assembled midst, they make up this fleeting moment of your life. How could something so real be built from such a potent illusion?
Full article at Big Think.
If we could imagine moving at the speed of light (which is not actually possible for material objects), we would be decoupled from the time experienced in this physical universe. All events in the physical universe would seem to us to be happening simultaneously–we would effectively be outside of time. Perhaps light is more fundamental than space, and the only reason we are “trapped in time” is that we have been rotated into a spatial-temporal reality in which light is only ever a fleeting visitor.
In one of Fred Hoyle’s SF novels – I think it’s October The First Is Too Late – he uses the analogy of a piece of music like a Beethoven symphony. If you played all the notes in the composition at once, all you’d get a a massive jarring chord. If you play them in the right order, you get a beautiful piece of music. In other words, time is an essential part of making sense of this Universe, at least for life-forms such as us.
First, from the point of view of the photon, time never passes for them. i.e. There is no ‘past’ for the photon, it is always ‘now’ from the point of view of the photon
Second, there was actually a heated argument between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, (who was a prominent philosopher), over what the proper definition of time should be.
Einstein bluntly stated, to an audience of prominent philosophers that he was invited to speak to, that, âThe time of the philosophers did not existâ. And in fact, that disagreement with those philosophers, and with Henri Bergson in particular, over what the proper definition of time should actually be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Henri Bergson, as the preceding article pointed out, championed the primacy of âlived timeâ over and above Einsteinâs âspacetimeâ, Which is to say that Bergson championed âsubjective experienceâ over and above âobjective realityâ in providing the proper definition of time. As the preceding article stated, the subjective experience of âdurationâ, was âa major part of his (Bergsonâs) thesis on timeâ.
In support of Bergsonâs main thesis, and as Dr. Egnor has pointed out, âDuration, and/or âpersistence of self identityâ, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
Likewise, J. Warner Wallace also lists âPersistent self-identity through timeâ, i.e. âdurationâ, as a property of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by âdurationâ, and/or âpersistence of self identity through timeâ, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a âtinyâ island of ânowâ as the river of time continually flows past us.
In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, âit is impossible for us to be âpersonsâ experiencing ânowâ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as âpersonsâ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!â
In further defining the immaterial mindâs attribute of âthe experience of the nowâ, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that âThere can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mindâs ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.â
Several years after Einsteinâs heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap.
In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, âCan physics demonstrate the existence of âthe nowâ in order to make the notion of ânowâ into a scientifically valid term?â
According to Stanely Jaki, Einsteinâs answer to Carnap was âcategoricalâ, he said: âThe experience of âthe nowâ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.â
Einsteinâs ‘categorical. denial that âthe experience of the nowâ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since âThe experience of âthe nowâ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.
For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was dome with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, âIt proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,â
Likewise, the following violation of Leggettâs inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion âthat reality does not exist when weâre not observing it.â
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, âLook, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!â
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even goes one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that âa decision made in the present can influence something in the past.â and, âQuantum correlations come first, space-time later.â
And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that âentanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.â
Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that âIn the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observationâ
And as the newly minted, (Oct. 2022), Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, âwhat we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.â
Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheelerâs delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggettâs inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einsteinâs belief that âThe experience of âthe nowâ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physicsâ has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.
In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einsteinâs answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; âIt is impossible for âthe experience of âthe nowââ to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.â
Verse:
Supplemental note:
This piece makes a big deal out of the delays in “seeing” nearby objects due to the speed of light, and how that supposedly affects how we experience reality. However, the difference in time between a photon from two metres away and another from say, ten meters away is a mere 27 ns or 0.027 us or 0.000027 ms. Given that humans have a hard time distinguishing visual events even 1 ms apart, this means that, for humans, these two arrivals are for all practical purpose, simultaneous. Thus, for normal, everyday purposes, the speed of light does not impact our reality, at least not in the visual terms discussed in this piece.
Moreover, there is a significant delay between photons impinging on the retina and nerve signals reaching the brain, another delay as the visual cortex decodes and combines the signals, and a further one as the brain presents the interpreted image to the mind. Those delays are all measured in milliseconds, making the nanosecond delays from object to eye meaningless. The “reality” you observe therefore happened many milliseconds ago, making the effect of the speed of light negligible to our reality for almost all normal day-to-day activities.
Not to be too mean to Adam Frank, but doesn’t he have more profound things to write about?
The second sentence is a sheer non sequitur from the first. If we could experience the universe at the speed of light, we would not experience time as we currently do — but that does not mean that we would experience all events as simultaneous. The speed of light still takes place within time — that’s the very point of “light-year” as a measure of distance.
Give me warp speed, Scottie……..
I agree with PM1 at 6. Even if you were travelling at the speed of light, your experience would only be of light rays that were travelling with you: light rays all over the rest of the universe would not be part of your experience. Also, if you looked behind you, as soon as you saw whatever lights rays were impinging on you at that time, the world would be black because no more light rays could catch up with you.
I think Caspian didn’t get this thought experiment right.
And just to add a dash of chaos to the pot…
You do know that we have never measured the one way speed of light. Maybe it’s infinitely fast in one direction and you’re seeing that galaxy as it is now.
Furtively leaves….stage left.
Einstein’s breakthrough insight into special relativity came from a ‘thought experiment’. A ‘thought experiment’ where he imagined he was traveling away from the face of a clock tower at the speed of light. And where, “Einstein looks back at the clock tower and what he sees is astonishing. As he reaches the speed of light, the hands of the clock appear frozen in time”
And, of course, without the passage of time if we were traveling the speed of light, then that means that our travel from point A to point B in this universe, no matter how many light-years we traveled in this universe, would be instantaneous for us. i.e. It is as if no passage of time whatsoever has happened for, say, the photons now hitting our telescopes that were left over from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) 13.4 billion years ago.
That time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, and yet light moves from point A to point B in our universe, and thus light is thus obviously not âfrozen within timeâ, has some fairly profound implications.
The only way that it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is, fairly obviously, if light is of some âhigher dimensionalâ value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be âfrozen within timeâ from our temporal frame of reference. Time not passing for light would simply be impossible if light were part and parcel to our temporal 3-Dimensional framework.
,,, And leaving aside the fact that, according to quantum mechanics, we do not really know what a photon is actually doing between emission and absorption,,
,,, And leaving aside the fact that, according to quantum mechanics, (since the photon, between emission and absorption, is mathematically defined as existing in a ‘infinite dimensional’ state, and that it, mathematically, takes an infinite amount of information to describe that ”infinite dimensional’ state of the photon properly), the photon is best described as being one of ‘God’s infinite thoughts’ between emission and absorption,,,
,,, Leaving all those ‘minor details’ aside, although it is intuitively obvious that light must exist some ‘higher dimensional’ framework in order for time to not pass for light, Einstein was not the first person who figured out the ‘higher 4-dimensional’ framework that light must exist in. It was Hermann Minkowski, (Einstein’s math professor), building off the work of Bernhard Riemann, (who was a devout Christian by the way), who worked out the higher 4-dimensional geometry that special relativity is based upon.
And due, in large part, to Minkowski’s work that properly elucidated the ‘higher dimensional’ framework of special relativity, we can now visualize what happens when a ‘hypothetical observer’ approaches the speed of light.
In the first part of the following video clip, entitled âOptical Effects of Special Relativityâ, a video which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world âfolds and collapsesâ into a tunnel shape as a âhypotheticalâ observer approaches the âhigher dimensionâ of the âfour-dimensional continuumâ of the speed of light.
Also please note, as was visualized at the 3:00 minute mark of the preceding video, that all of the light was concentrated into the direction of travel of the observer. This concentration of light in the direction of travel is termed the âheadlight effectâ
Moreover, these higher dimensional 4-D spacetimes that undergird both special relativity and general relativity are also comforting to overall Christian concerns in that they reveal two very different âeternitiesâ to us. One âeternityâ is found for a hypothetical observer who is going the speed of light, and another âeternityâ is found for a hypothetical observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole.
Again, the finding that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, (and at the event horizon of a black hole), is very friendly to Theistic presuppositions about âeternityâ and/or âeternal lifeâ.
As Dr. Richard Swenson noted in his book âMore Than Meets The Eyeâ, âThe laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I donât pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.â
Now that we have outlined the basics of what we know to be physically true from special relativity, (and from General Relativity), It is very interesting to note that many of the characteristics found in âheavenlyâ Near Death Experience testimonies are exactly what we would expect to see from what we now know to be physically true about Special Relativity.
But first and foremost, before we get into that comparison, it is important to note that, (although atheists dismiss Near Death testimonies out of hand as not being worthy of consideration), the evidence for the validity of Near Death Experiences turns out to be far more robust and trustworthy than the evidence for Darwinian evolution is. As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, âThe most âparsimoniousâ explanation â the simplest scientific explanation â is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,â
In fact, the main debate between ID advocates and Darwinists is over the sheer inability of unguided Darwinian processes to account for the origin of the functional ‘immaterial’ information that is found to be ubiquitous within biological life. And yet, it is the ‘immaterial’ nature of this information that is found to be ubiquitous within biological life that provides the Christian Theist with a ‘soul’, and/or a mechanism if you will, in order to explain how Near Death Experiences are possible.
Now as to how NDEs and special relativity correspond. Many times people who have had a deep Near Death Experience mention that their perception of time was radically altered. In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a âtimeless eternityâ.
And here are a few more quotes from people who have had deep Near Death Experiences, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered, i.e. how they experienced âeternityâ, as they were outside of their material, temporal, body during their NDEs.
As well, people who have had deep Near Death Experiences also frequently mention going through a tunnel, towards an extremely brilliant light, to a higher heavenly dimension:
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel towards âthe lightâ:
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, (besides being able to âmiraculouslyâ see for the very first time in her life during her Near Death Experience), Vicki also gives testimony of going through a tunnel at a âhorrificallyâ rapid rate of speed:
And in the following quotes, the two Near Death Experiencers both testify that they firmly believe that they were in a higher heavenly dimension that is above this three-dimensional world, and that the reason that they have a very difficult time describing what their Near Death Experiences actually felt like is because we simply donât currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
That what we now know to be physically true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a âtimelessâ, i.e. eternal, âdimension of lightâ that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDEs is, needless to say, powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and reliable and that they are accurately describing the ârealityâ of a higher heavenly dimension, that they experienced first hand, that physically exists above this temporal dimension.
I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ânon-physicistsâ, who, in all likelihood, know nothing about the details of special relativity, substantially adds to the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies and thus substantially adds to the Christianâs claim for the reality of a heavenly âeternalâ paradise that exists above this temporal realm.
Thus in conclusion Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself, Einstein’s own baby, directly contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate âphysicalâ descriptions of what happens after death, of going to a âhigher timeless/eternal dimensionâ, i.e. âheavenly dimension of lightâ, that exists above this temporal realm.
All in all, and as far as modern science is concerned, I would say the Christian Theist is now sitting very comfortably as far as our most advanced science is concerned, As Michael Strauss stated in the following talk, “When you understand how limiting 3 dimensions of space and time are,, and when you understand relativity and quantum mechanics, the miracles of God become almost trivial”,,,
Of supplemental note as to the ‘main miracle’ of Christianity, i.e. Jesus’s victory over death turns out to be very plausible as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.
Verses:
Ba77 at 10,
Time passes for light. It takes 8 and a third minutes for the light from the sun to reach us. Photons have wave and particle characteristics.
Ba77 at 11,
As a spacecraft reaches 90% of the speed of light, it begins to turn into energy. E=MC2. If matter can be interpreted as traveling at the speed of light squared, which cannot be shown to be true. The speed of light is given as 186,000 miles per second. Double that and it becomes 372,000 miles per second.
The fastest spacecraft speed is 364,660 mph, which becomes 6,077.66 mpm, which becomes 101.294 miles per second.
Since a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light would begin to experience friction from hydrogen atoms and should not get hit by particles the size of a grain of sand or larger, it would require a force field.
Allow me to present a proposal:
As the spacecraft reaches 90% of the speed of light, it experiences a phase transition. Like photons which can be waves or particles, it enters a phase transition. It would register not as solid matter but as a wave. However, the crew would experience nothing while in the wave state. They would look out a window and see the light from the stars begin to smear, as if the points of light now had tails. Once past the speed of light, the stars would turn into lines of varying lengths. The spacecraft is now traveling in a condition where further acceleration would pose no problems. It has transformed not from matter to energy but to a state I will call phase-shifted. Further, it has now entangled itself to its destination via the intentionality of those on board. Like a photon, it has particle and wave characteristics.
PyrrhoManiac1 @6,
As an object travels at relativistic speeds, time slows for that object relative to an observer according to the formula, T = T0/sqrt (1- (v^2/c^2)). As v (velocity) approaches c (the speed of light), v^2/c^2 approaches 1 and the denominator approaches infinity, thus T approaches infinity and we’d infer that time nearly stops from the object’s frame of reference. I suppose one could argue that everything else would then seems to speed up, but funny things happen when one tries to divide by zero, so most physicists will refuse to go there.
Of course, the speedy object would also be squashed flat according to a similar equation and the handy limerick:
There once was a man named Fisk,
Whose fencing was exceedingly brisk,
So fast was his action that the Lorenz-FitzGerald contraction
Reduced his rapier to a disk.
-Q
Relatd/14
If an object in space is accelerated then energy is added to it. A moving object has more energy by virtue of its motion than a stationary object. By the equivalence of mass and energy, when energy is added to an object, it’s mass is also increased. As the mass of an object increases it takes ever more energy to make it go faster.
At the speeds we normally experience the effect is negligible but when you approach the speed of light it becomes significant, so much so that at the speed of light the mass of any physical object would become infinite and would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it any further. There isn’t enough energy in the whole Universe to do that.
The other effect is the dilation of time that occurs at relativistic speeds. Time would be observed by us to pass slower for an object travelling that fast. In effect, it would live longer.
All the above effects have been observed in particle accelerators.
That sounds more like Star Trek physics than the real world version. That said, there is nothing wrong with speculation provided you don’t give it more credence than could be justified by the evidence.
I don’t agree with any of that.
Seversky @16,
No, that’s completely wrong. Check into something called “relativistic mass.”
-Q
I don’t think relatd understands a number of things correctly.
First, let me quote Britannica, from the first part of here.
Now some specifics:
1. Related writes, âAs a spacecraft reaches 90% of the speed of light, it begins to turn into energy. E=MC2. If matter can be interpreted as traveling at the speed of light squared, which cannot be shown to be true. The speed of light is given as 186,000 miles per second. Double that and it becomes 372,000 miles per second.â
a) This paragraph makes little sense. Matter canât be âinterpreted as traveling at the speed of light squared,â nor can the speed of light be doubled: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
As the Britannica article points out, as speed increase mass increases. Nothing special happens at 90% the speed of light: every increase in the speed increases the mass. Sev explains all this correctly.
2. The second quote of relatdâs about the phase transition at 90% the speed of light does sound like science fiction. For instance, related writes, âOnce past the speed of light …â
But nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Relatd, do you have a source for your understandings about all this.
And Q: you write
I just posted an article on relativistic mass that I think says what Sev is saying. Can you explain what is âcompletely wrongâ about that, and perhaps explain what you think is right?
Viola Lee,
No, I don’t do “homework assignments” for you anymore. Check out something called “the Lorentz factor” involved in relativistic mass.
-Q
Q, I know about the Lorentz transformations. I know how to derive them from the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments. I quote the formula for mass in my above quote from an article on relativistic mass.
I think Sev is talking about how mass increases as velocity increases according to the Lorentz transforms. As velocity increases so does mass, and since the effect of energy on velocity is proportional to mass, the faster something goes the harder it is is to add enough energy to continue to increase its velocity That is why the Britannica article says, “In fact, as the spacecraftâs speed approaches that of light, the mass m approaches infinity. However, as the objectâs mass increases, so does the energy required to keep accelerating it; thus, it would take infinite energy to accelerate a material body to the speed of light. For this reason, no material object can reach the speed of light, which is the speed limit for the universe”
Do you agree with what I wrote and what the Britannica article says?
Relatd: As a spacecraft reaches 90% of the speed of light, it begins to turn into energy. E=MC2.
What? Are you serious? No one, except you, ever said that. That’s not how to interpret that equation.
You can’t even interpret a simple equation correctly!! Incredible.
Relatd: I donât agree with any of that.
You have the right to be completely wrong if you wish. But it doesn’t mean anyone will take you seriously.
Just sayin’.
While we are on the subject of the speed of light, (and/or the inability of objects with mass to reach the speed of light, i.e. the “Cosmic Speed Limit”), here is something that makes you go “wow, that’s cool”…
Of note to ‘mass’, (which prevents atomic particles from ever reaching the speed of light),,,
And yet the Higg’s field itself, by which particles receive their mass, (and apparently to the consternation of Atheistic Naturalists), provides evidence for Intelligent Design in that the Higg’s field is found to be finely tuned. i.e. “Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding”,,, “This is an unacceptable prediction of the theory because if this had happened we wouldn’t be around to discuss it”
Verse:
Supplemental note:
Bornagain77: And yet the Higgâs field itself, by which particles receive their mass, (and apparently to the consternation of Atheistic Naturalists)
Really. It’s a wonder not one of them has decided to become a Christian then isn’t it?
âEvery number is defined by its own character so that no number is equal to any other. They are unequal to one another and are different, and the individual numbers are finite, but as a class they are infinite. Does that mean that God does not know all numbers, because of their infinity? Does Godâs knowledge extend as far as a certain sum, and end there? No one could be insane enough to say that.
Now those philosophers who revere the authority of Plato will not despise numbers and say that they are irreverent to Godâs knowledge, For Plato emphasizes that God constructed the world by use of numbers, while we have the authority of Scripture, where God is thus addressed, âYou have set all things in order all things by number, measure, and weight.â And the prophet says of God, âHe produces the world according to numberâ. And the Savior says in the Gospel, âYour hairs are all numberedâ.
Never let us doubt then that every number is known to him âwhose understanding cannot be numberedâ. Although the infinite series of numbers cannot be numbered, this infinity of numbers is not outside the comprehension of him âwhose understanding cannot be numberedâ.â
What does that mean: every number is known to him? Are we talking every single real number? Every single rational number? Every single irrational number? Every single transfinite number? Every single hyper-real number? Every single complex number? Every single cardinal number? Every single ordinal number? There are a lot of different kinds of numbers. I guess if God already knew about all those then Christians should believe that mathematics is discovered not invented.
JVL, Christians do believe math is discovered not invented. And yes, Christians would believe God would know all those numbers. That is pretty orthodox theological philosophy of math.
Viola Lee/27
Does the theological philosophy of math hold that God discovered math or that he invented it?
Ba77 at 25,
When Einstein was formulating his theories, he lacked knowledge about certain things. I propose that the speed of light barrier is false. Einstein’s equation was a straight, linear progression. And of course, it ended at a very high, “impossible” number. Example:
“Cosmic rays, which are ultra-high energy particles originating from all over the Universe, strike… [+] The fast-moving charged particles also emit light due to Cherenkov radiation as they move faster than the speed of light in Earth’s atmosphere, and produce secondary particles that can be detected here on Earth.”
If Einstein knew this when he was formulating his theories, what would he have done?
But forget that, we now know particles can travel faster than the speed of light.
Thanks, relatd:
You write, “Einsteinâs equation was a straight, linear progression.” What equation are you talking about? Can you explain more?
Here a couple of links that will help you understand better: (Oddly enough, these are insecure sites, so you may have to cut and paste the url in. )
Does Cerenkov radiation travel faster than light? (Intermediate)
curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/the-speed-of-light/1038-does-cerenkov-radiation-travel-faster-than-light-intermediateât/1038-does-cerenkov-radiation-travel-faster-than-light-intermediate
Has there been an experiment that measured speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum? (Advanced)
curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/133-physics/general-physics/general-questions/801-has-there-been-an-experiment-that-measured-speed-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-advanced
The basic fact is this, from the second article: âWhen we say that no particle can travel faster than the speed of light, what we mean is that a particle with finite rest mass cannot cross the speed of light limit; in other words, it cannot speed up to faster than speed of light starting from a speed less than the speed of light.â
Also, it is important to note that light travels slower in various media. That is why a stick looks crooked when you stick it part way in water. Light follows the principle of least time, so it actually takes a long, bent path to get to your eye to compensate for travelling slower in water. I used to teach this in calculus class as an important application of finding the minimum of a function.
to Sev at 28: a difficult question for theologians! đ
Do you have a reference for any particle travelling faster than 299,792,458 m/s?
How would you know since you are not theologian? đ
Here’s a better explanation of Cherenkov radiation
[My emphasis.]
Note: Bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) prevents electrons from travelling faster than the speed of light in a particular medium while undergoing acceleration (typically, deflection around a proton-heavy nucleus).
Viola Lee wrote:
Great! So then you know where gamma is involved in Einstein’s famous equation.
Here’s a thought experiment. Take a massive object travelling at a relativistic velocity into and out of a gravitational energy well. As it speeds up it gains some mass and as it slows down it loses some mass. When it slows down and loses mass, would you say that the extra mass is radiated as energy?
Relatd,
The only way something–a galaxy in this case–can actually travel APPARENTLY faster than the speed of light in a vacuum is actually due to cosmic expansion and not due to relative motion. At least this is what’s being measured by the increasing red shift of distant galaxies.
Regarding Cherenkov radiation, here’s an explanation that might be helpful (note the words, “in a medium”).
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-bremsstrahlung-and-cherenkov-radiation/
-Q
Thanks for the second opinion about Cherenkov radiation, BA. I assume relatd understands now.
Q: Of course I know the role played by the sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2) factor in the equations. Don’t know what point you were trying to make when you wrote, “Great! So then you know where gamma is involved in Einsteinâs famous equation. ” As I wrote above, “I know how to derive them from the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments.” I once worked with a student in the gifted program who was interested in relativity work through the derivation of the equations and understand both the setup and the algebra.
JVL: “I guess if God already knew about all those then Christians should believe that mathematics is discovered not invented.”
JVL, first off it is important to note, although mathematics is indispensable for modern science, that Darwinists themselves have no mathematical model to establish their theory as being a ‘hard science’.
Secondly, with their reductive materialistic framework, Darwinists also have no realistic clue why ‘immaterial’ mathematics should even exist, (much less do they have any realistic clue why ‘immaterial’ mathematics, which are indispensable for modern science, should be applicable to the universe).
Thus Darwinists, who are wedded to the framework of reductive materialism, (and who claim, (without any evidence mind you), that consciousness and/or the immaterial mind, is ’emergent’ from some material basis), are forced to deny the objective reality of this transcendent, ‘immaterial’, realm of mathematics that our immaterial minds are able to grasp.
The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the objective reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.
But be that as it may, the Christian Theist holds that God, who is omniscient, i.e. infinite in knowledge, already knows all math that can possibly be known, and that God chose, out of that infinitude of mathematical possibilities, “among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions” and brought “into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what âbreathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.â
In short, the Christian Theist holds that, via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, that any mathematics that might describe this universe âare Godâs thoughtsâ,
Although Darwinian materialists, and/or Darwinian atheists, have no clue why ‘immaterial’ mathematics should even exist, much less why it should be ‘miraculously’ applicable to the universe, (and/or how the supposedly purely material mind of man is even capable of grasping this immaterial realm of mathematics), many atheists will claim, (with their philosophical feet planted firmly in mid-air), that mathematics exists completely independent of God’s Mind in some ‘platonic realm’. Which is to say that many atheists hold that they don’t need God in order to explain the existence of mathematics, and that mathematics has a ‘necessary’ existence, not a ‘contingent’ existence that is dependent on the Mind of God.
Yet Godel falsified that ‘Platonic’, i.e. ‘necessary existence’, belief that atheists have for mathematics. Godelâs incompleteness theorems proves that mathematics has a âcontingentâ, i.e. dependent, existence, and that it does not have a ânecessaryâ, i.e. self sufficient, existence as is erroneously presupposed by most contemporary theoretical physicists today.
As the following article states, “Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”
And as David Goldman put it, âwe cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable,,, Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.â
In fact, via Gregory Chaitin’s extension of Godel’s incompleteness, we now know that âan infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.â
As should be obvious, this presents an irresolvable dilemma for atheists who hope to construct a single mathematical description of the universe that makes no reference to God. As even the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, himself honestly admitted, âI donât think one should underestimate the fix we are in.,,, we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that donât describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question âwhy are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?â
The only way out of this dilemma is, as Bruce Gordon explains, (and as was previously mentioned), âa mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what âbreathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.â
And it is not as if we do not already have very good reasons to believe that the infinite Mind of God must be behind âchoosingâ among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bringing into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.â We already know that ‘free will’ is involved in human mathematicians themselves creating new mathematical axioms.
As David Robertson has shown, the âfamous âTuring testâ for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.,,,â
Moreover, the free will of God, via the Judeo-Christian presupposition of the contingency of the universe, played an essential role in the founding of modern science. As Stephen Meyer explains contingency was the essential Judeo-Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science âthat nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator.â
And as Sir Isaac Newton himself, (the father of modern physics), stated, âWithout all doubt this worldâŠcould arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God…. From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed,”
Moreover, âNewtonâs voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of,,â
In other words, not only did Newton hold that God, via his free will, created this universe, but Newton also held that God, via his free will, continually sustains this universe in its existence. (i.e. the universe is ‘contingent’ on the will of God for its continual existence)
And since Newton also held to the orthodox Christian belief that man is made in the image of God,,,
,,, and since Newton also held to the orthodox Christian belief that man is made ‘in the image of God’, (and since he explicitly rejected the mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy), then I hold that Newton would be very pleased, if he were around today, to see the recent closing of the âfreedom of choiceâ loophole within quantum mechanics.
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God âbackâ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the âfreedom-of-choiceâ loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God âbackâ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after âtheory of everythingâ in that Christâs resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after âTheory of Everythingâ
Verses:
Nothing like a few thousands recycled words from BA in the morning to keep a discussion on track! đ
The Rules of Life – Rule Four â “The lesson is repeated until learned,,”
Yes, but your long posts derail discussions others are having, and I seriously doubt anyone is reading them so your repetition is not effective.
VL, I did not want to step any further into this thread. And I thought that you and others have been doing a good job on correcting Relatd and JVL. in their mistakes thus far.
For instance, I liked very much when you corrected JVL thusly, “JVL, Christians do believe math is discovered not invented. And yes, Christians would believe God would know all those numbers. That is pretty orthodox theological philosophy of math.”
Yet when Sev asked, “Does the theological philosophy of math hold that God discovered math or that he invented it?” And you responded thusly, with a smiley face, “a difficult question for theologians!” đ
,,,I saw the necessity to step back into the thread to clear up any misconceptions you created.
You falsely claimed that I am ‘derailing discussions’, but alas, I only stepped in to clear up any unnecessary confusion that you yourself, willingly or not, created when you said that whether God invents math or discovers math, with a smiley face no less, is “a difficult question for theologians!” đ
Although the answer to that question is a bit technical to understand, it is a question that, none-the-less, (since it has been mulled over for centuries by Christian theologians), not really all that ‘difficult’ for Theologians to answer. For instance, I think Edward Feser, (in an articled entitled “Keep It Simple” no less), does a fine job of answering that question.
Thanks, BA. That type of focused response is better.
to relatd: Back to the speed of light: the most significant things is not that it is a speed that cannot be exceeded by any particle, but that it is constant for all observers irrespective of their relative speeds.
If I am going 100 mph in a boxcar and throw a baseball forward to 100 mph, the ball appears to be going 200 mph to an observer on the ground although it it just appears to be going 100 mph in respect to the ground.
However, if the hypothetical boxcar is travelling at the speed of light and throws the baseball at the speed of light, both the observer on the ground and the one in the boxcar will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light. The observer will not see the baseball travelling at twice the speed of light in respect to the ground. Both will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light.
Ooops. I need to read more carefully. Here are some corrections, in bold:
Back to the speed of light: the most significant thing is not that it is a speed that cannot be exceeded by any particle, but that it is constant for all observers irrespective of their relative speeds.
If I am going 100 mph in a boxcar and throw a baseball forward to 100 mph, the ball appears to be going 200 mph to an observer on the ground although it it just appears to be going 100 mph in respect to the boxcar.
However, if the hypothetical boxcar is travelling at the speed of light and one throws the baseball at the speed of light, both the observer on the ground and the one in the boxcar will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light. The observer on the ground will not see the baseball travelling at twice the speed of light in respect to the ground. Both will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light.
Querius at 35,
Really? Let’s look at Einstein’s equation, E=MC2. What does it tell you? Energy EQUALS Matter traveling at twice the speed of light. So, if you could accelerate matter to twice the speed of light, it would turn into energy? What a stupid equation. I mean people just assume that nothing can travel faster than light but if we could accelerate the chair you’re sitting on to twice the speed of light, it would turn into energy? What was he thinking?
VL at 48,
What? If I am in a car going 100 MPH and another car going 100 MPH pulls up alongside, I can throw a ball to the other car (assuming zero wind) just like it was not moving at all.
Bornagain77 @40,
Thanks for the video link.
I noticed that Dawkins was nodding in agreement through the Weinbergâs observations (https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495).
In college, I once listened to a conversation between two physics professors, one of whom expressed curiosity at how the laws of physics are actually derived and the source of the constants being used.
Mathematical systems donât determine physics, they are intelligently chosen to approximate whatâs observed. So, is there a single mathematical system that perfectly describes the operation of the universe? According to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, the answer might actually be no. And thereâs no way we can determine whether we are even capable of understanding such a mathematical system or systems.
Personally, I prefer the amazing and brilliant statement from 2,000 years ago . . .
In answer to the question, âWhy is there something rather than nothing in existence?â it indicates that the Logos has personal consciousness that manifests our experienced reality!
I’m sure the scientists you referenced studied science with respect and reverence.
-Q
Viola Lee @ 38,
Oh, then you obviously donât understand how gamma works in conjunction with mass and energy. No, I wonât explain it to you.
Did you come to a conclusion on my thought experiment? Do large objects radiate energy as they are slowed from relativistic velocities?
-Q
Relatd: E = mc^2 is c squared (times itself), not doubled. And yes, you could throw a ball to the other car.
I think I’ve concluded that you know very little about physics, so I won’t bother to explain any more.
But it takes a lot of something to declare that E = mc^2 is a stupid equation!
VL at 53,
It’s a stupid equation. There can be no experimental verification.
Don’t worry, Q. I don’t expect you to explain anything to me. Of course, I therefore really have no idea what, or how much, you understand. Maybe lots more than me, and maybe not. Over and out with you, I think.
E = mc^2 has been verified: it is the key equation which makes nuclear power possible.
Here’s a link of the derivation: Link.
You might also read here. The fact that you think such an important equation, central to many aspects of physics, is “stupid” and has not been experimentally verified says a great deal about you, but not about the equation. No sense is my saying any more.
VL at 56,
Baloney.
Viola Lee,
Ignoring your ad hominems, did you come to a conclusion on my thought experiment? Do large objects radiate energy as they are slowed from relativistic velocities?
-Q
Didn’t think about it. Not related to the discussion about the inability of a particle to be accelerated to the speed of light, or about the truth of E=mc^2.
Maybe you’d like to explain some of this to realtd , or just tell him he’s wrong (BA pointed out he was wrong about Cherenkov radiation), or perhaps just point him to some youtube videos.
Also, I don’t think you are using ad hominem correctly.
Viola Lee @59,
So you agree with Seversky’s description @16?
-Q
No. Reading back over those posts I think Sev has some misunderstandings. Not nearly as many as relatd, though.
Viola Lee @61,
I’m happy to agree. And that was the purpose of my thought experiment.
-Q
Relatd: Baloney.
Incredible. You frequently ask for ‘real science’, experimental, observable, empirical science. And when it’s given to you but disagrees with your (incorrect and ignorant) views you just dismiss it.
I tell you what, why don’t you get a few kilograms of plutonium and check out some of the work yourself. Just let me know ahead of time so I can be well away.
In defense of Relatd, I’d say that, while Einstein’s mass-energy equation and “relativistic mass” and time equations have been experimentally verified. However, its interpretation has been challenging and one can be easily fooled into false statements as a result, not to mention that it’s currently incompatible with quantum mechanics.
For example, here’s the iconic experiment validating time dilation:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/07/15/time-traveling_on_an_airplane_one_of_the_cheapest_tests_of_relativity_785017.html
Let me strongly recommend the following article, which describes the experimental history of relativistic dynamics:
https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/relativistic_mass.html
Yes, it was Galileo! And yes, I learned something new! (smile)
-Q
Querius,
Thanks for the attempt. If you look at Einstein’s equation, how do you get that you can’t travel faster than light?
For those younger than 60, the idea of a sound barrier might sound ridiculous. It was thought that nothing could move faster than sound or 10,000 feet per second. And survive. Especially a manned aircraft.
At Physics World, the whole ‘faster than light barrier’ idea is being looked at differently.
https://physicsworld.com/a/spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/
It should be obvious to anyone: There is no way to reach the nearest star. None. But by doing the work, making proposals, and eventually, experiments, this barrier will be broken. Otherwise, humanity will always remain in the present solar system.
Viola Lee/61
I make no claim to infallibility – unlike some – what am I misunderstanding?
Relatd @65,
The m in E = mc^2 is relativistic mass for which the formula is m(rel) = m(rest)/sqrt(1 – v^2 /c^2).
If you increase the velocity of something until it reaches c, then the relativistic mass becomes m(rel) = m(rest)/sqrt(1-1/1) = m(rest)/sqrt(0). Dividing is undefined, and when approaching 0 as the denominator, it results in the relativistic mass approaching infinity. It’s not possible to accelerate an infinite mass.
If magic happens and you find an object travelling faster than the speed of light, the denominator of the equation would be negative and the relativistic mass and energy would then be imaginary numbers.
-Q
Relatd @65,
Did you get my explanation?
-Q