I Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter oxbaker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
  • #51
Sabine Hossenfelder did a YT vid "Does the past still exist ?" May help. (I haven't watched it, yet ; just remembered the title)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #53
Since the notion that "an event is a point in time-space" has become a major thesis in this thread, let me knit-pick that "point":

There are some General Relativity / QM / HUP constraints on that "point".
To our best understanding, the universe is not able to be so specific as to allow anything to exist at a "point".

If, as a construct, you consider a tiny time-space hypersphere of Planck's distance (1.616×##10^{−35}## m) diameter rather than a point, you will be in better conformance with what Alden Meads uncovered in 1964.

Alternatively, if we presume that an event is minimally one bit (it happen or it didn't happen), then we can calculate a restraint to an events minimal radius with the Bekenstein Bound:
## R/m \ge3.88\times10^{-44} / (M/kg)##
Where R is the minimum radius in meters and M is the mass of the system in kilograms.
If I wanted to spend another 20 minutes on this, I would try to get an exact answer by matching a photon wavelength to the resulting bound diameter - but I'm guessing that would be pretty close to the Planck's distance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Peter Strohmayer
  • #54
.Scott said:
Since the notion that "an event is a point in time-space" has become a major thesis in this thread, let me knit-pick that "point":
This is not valid. "An event is a point in spacetime" is a fundamental definition of the term "event" in relativity. Trying to redefine it as the rest of your post does is personal speculation and is off limits here.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #55
PeterDonis said:
This is not valid. "An event is a point in spacetime" is a fundamental definition of the term "event" in relativity. Trying to redefine it as the rest of your post does is personal speculation and is off limits here.
I will make a couple of edits to put it into strict accordance, but ...

My issue with a physical zero-radius "point" is hardly "personal speculation". It is so "text book" that the papers that back it up go back to 1964 and earlier. Any assertion that a physically identifiable thing can be, in theory, spotted to a better precision than Planck's distance would be speculation. According to the currently accepted theories there is, as a matter of principle, nothing see-able beyond that precision. My statement "The universe is not able to be so specific as to allow anything to exist as a point" was intended to accurately expresses this same notion - though on review, saying "at a point" instead of "as a point" would have been more narrow but still sufficient.

In reference to discussions on relativity, I would treat the term "event" as a construct. Those discussions sometimes involve QM/HUP effects, but most often they do not presume, one way or another, that actual events can actually have precise physical dimensions of zero.

The textbook nature of this notion is demonstrated in a Fermilab article, a portion of which is quoted here:
In 1964, C. Alden Mead published a paper in which he determined the effect of gravity on a phenomenon called diffraction, which describes what happens to light when you send it through a small aperture. Because gravity is so incredibly weak compared to the force that governs the behavior of light (the electromagnetic force), its effect is completely ignored in diffraction calculations. But Mead was curious about quantifying gravity's negligible effect. When you scatter a particle of light off another particle — say an atom — the atom's gravitational attraction to the light particle causes an intrinsic uncertainty in the atom's location. Mead used the uncertainty principle and the gravitational effect of the photon to show that it is impossible to determine the position of an object to a precision smaller than the Planck length.

So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible length? The simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is impossible, using the known laws of quantum mechanics and the known behavior of gravity, to determine a position to a precision smaller than the Planck length. Pay attention to that repeated word "known." If it turns out that at very small lengths, some other version of quantum mechanics manifests itself or the law of gravity differs from our current theory, the argument falls apart. Since our understanding of subatomic gravity is incomplete, we know that the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground. Still, until a better theory of quantum gravity is devised, the Planck length is the best estimate we have for a minimum length.

In this discussion, I think this intrusion of HUP into relativity is warranted. Time is not just philosophical and relativistic, it is also very QM and thermodynamic. So a construct such as "point", well-accepted in relativity, can use a footnote when included in a broader discussion.
 
  • Like
Likes Peter Strohmayer
  • #56
.Scott said:
My issue with a physical zero-radius "point" is hardly "personal speculation".
It is in this forum. See below.

.Scott said:
It is so "text book" that the papers that back it up go back to 1964 and earlier.
Papers that are not mainstream physics but speculations about quantum gravity. Discussion of such speculations, to the extent they are backed up by mainstream literature, belongs in the Beyond The Standard Model forum, not here. This is the relativity forum and we are discussing the mainstream theory of relativity, which defines "event" exactly as I said and does not contain any of the speculations you mention.

.Scott said:
In reference to discussions on relativity, I would treat the term "event" as a construct.
Then you are not doing relativity. You are doing some other theory, or some speculative hypothesis such as the ones described above.

.Scott said:
Those discussions sometimes involve QM/HUP effects
Which are outside the scope of mainstream relativity, i.e., GR, which is not a quantum theory.

.Scott said:
In this discussion, I think this intrusion of HUP into relativity is warranted. Time is not just philosophical and relativistic, it is also very QM and thermodynamic.
This is just more personal speculation on your part, at least as far as this thread and this forum is concerned. If you can find a valid reference and you want to discuss this kind of thing, please start a new thread in the BTSM forum. It is off topic here.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
  • #57
PeterDonis said:
It is in this forum. See below.
Sorry. I didn't notice which forum topic (Special and General Relativity) we were in.
 
  • #58
In classical relativity we very often treat a clock or a spaceship as a point particle. I think this is “much ado about nothing”. It is not relevant to the OP or the topic of the thread
 
  • #59
Closing this thread as the OP's question has been debated and answered.

Thank you for contributing here.

Jedi
 
Back
Top