Page 8 of 8
Re: Time
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:11 pm
by aristarchusinexile
harry wrote:G'day Aris
Topic quality is nice to have.
How do you get it?
Loco, answering for Aris, says: "Hit and miss, Harry. What 'quality' is, though, is like beauty: "in the eye of the beholder" perhaps, although there must be a universal constant, which might need revision as often as the Cosmological Constant. And that reminds me, how can they call the Cosmological Constant a Constant when it's been revised so many times? Science is fickle?
Re: Time
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:34 am
by harry
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz
Sometimes the eye of the beholder is not science.
The Cosmological Constant a Constant will be again redefined.
Within 3 years we should get better reading after the NEW large telescope has been placed in space.
Re: Time
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:07 pm
by aristarchusinexile
harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz
Sometimes the eye of the beholder is not science.
And which beholder is to classify what is science? Answer .. the Power Structure of course .. and as power can and does often corrupt through vanity and error, the power structure should be abandoned in favour of free speech.
Even a mother crocodile eating a human being looks beautiful to the offspring of the crocodile, particularly beautiful at that moment as nourishment for the offspring is involved.
Re: Time
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:27 pm
by apodman
moderator ban this troll
Re: Time
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:33 pm
by Chris Peterson
harry wrote:The Cosmological Constant a Constant will be again redefined.
The Cosmological constant has not been redefined in the past, and seems unlikely to be redefined in the future. What has changed is our understanding of the
value of this constant- hardly surprising since it is very difficult to measure accurately. This is no different than what happened with many other physical constants, such as the speed of light.
Re: Time
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
by Loco
harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzz
I came across this paper and I thought it was worth sharing. I'm not trying to prove a point or agree with the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3520
Time is not the problem
Authors: Olaf Dreyer
(Submitted on 22 Apr 2009)
Abstract: Attempts to quantize general relativity encounter an odd problem. The Hamiltonian that normally generates time evolution vanishes in the case of general relativity as a result of diffeomorphism invariance. The theory seems to be saying that time does not exist. The most obvious feature of our world, namely that time seems to progress and that the world changes accordingly becomes a problem in this presumably fundamental theory. This is called the problem of time. In this essay we argue that this problem is the result of an unphysical idealization. We are caught in this "problem of time" trap because we took a wrong turn in the early days of relativity by permanently including a split of geometry and matter into our physical theories. We show that another possibility exists that circumvents the problem of time and also sheds new light on other problems like the cosmological constant problem and the horizon problem in early universe cosmology.
So non-locality must happen on the quantum level, of course.