Thank you Peter. I think your correction of my phrase "more fundamental truth" is justified. And from that point it is also becomes a circular argument. Is it better if I say simply that Block Universe employs some concept of time in its construct as you asserted it uses the concept of spacetime?
Any system of math using a set of postulates may express a contradiction to another system of math using a different set of postulates. (or may not) but any system of math used may not be valid if it contradicts its own postulates.
The math topic was introduced by the mentor.
If we are using the math of Boolean 101 logic, then a self-contradiction cannot be true. If it is not true how may we make meaning from it? But if it contains no self-contradiction and employs an accepted more fundamental truth (time) in its construct then the more fundamental truth employed is...
Thank you Peter.
The question is answered logically in that if we understand Block Universe as incorporating spacetime, and we accept Block Universe as not being self contradictory we must accept time as some objective reality.
I am still learning how to speak "physics". But am learning fast.
Apparently this discussion may be addressed without QM or "proposed" theories.
In this way:
The name of this thread is "Does the Block Universe.of Physics Mean Time Is an Illusion?"
Since we are trying to approach this with a...
Sunil, I am impressed. That reply seemed so complete to the point
It must be most of the answer in condensed form. I had trouble trying to copy it with the quotes to take time to study it or hang it on a wall. Better than a Picasso. And with the math too. It will take me some einfulung and time...
Well... Could it be (and I am asking not speculating) that entangled particles seem to be influencing each other nonlocally because they are still sharing an absolute time reference. This would in no way be a contradiction or violation of GR or SR. And may not be limited to quantum particles.?
I liked your reply. Is there a reciprocal theory to understand POVM using superposition? ( If I am correct in thinking what Schrödinger's equation is referring to?)
So if Schrödinger is using non-relativistic mechanics, meaning the Newtonian absolute time concept, not the relativistic concept, then doesn't there develop a contradiction between understanding time as relativistic with covarient properties and Schrödinger's equation using Newtonian absolute...
I am referring to the use of an absolute time used by Schrödinger as being used in the manner of an inertial frame being the absolute beginning position.
But my comparison or conceptualisation of these two uses may be incorrect hence the question.
I liked what Sunil wrote but:
Question: Is the parameter of the Schrödinger equation a useful temporal Inertial frame that is an abstraction useful in discussing theoretical ideas? Is it like a point in geometry defined as having position but no size which of course does not exist. Still in...
I think I looked it up in the rules. I think Nature magazine is there.
NATURE
Publisher:
NATURE RESEARCH , HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, BERLIN, GERMANY, 14197
ISSN / eISSN:
0028-0836 / 1476-4687
And in the above those physicists claim a "quantum time dilation"..
And it is pertinent to the discussion of...
Oct. 23 (UPI) -- Not even the most precise atomic clocks are immune to the quantum phenomenon known as superposition, according to a new theory developed by a team of physicists from Dartmouth College, Saint Anselm College and Santa Clara University.
Superposition describes the ability of an...
Sorry. Still new to the forums. I don't know how to use the quotes yet. Please explain.
Also I have read (sorry I don't know source now and it may not be acceptable to the Forums but please don't point me this time.) that scientists are using superposition to get atomic clocks to measure time...