🇳🇱
How many years will it be until we are capable of time travel into the past?
Assume humans dont go extinct first.
@freemo Julian Barbour researches this idea where time is just changes in configuration space.
I have been (casually) wondering for quite a while: what if gravity is a consequence of some sort of bias in interactions, i.e. out of number of viable interactions the bias determines the actual interaction that takes place. As-in, gravity is such a subtle force that I wonder if it is a subtle side-effect of something else. (It would reduce the whole time-space-mass thing by a lot.)
@freemo it's like having a alternative view to not get stuck in the hype too much.
@cobratbq The interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. but the math predicts reality and that makes it correct as much as any other model is correct. So long as it makes consistently valid predictions then the model is right, even if our understanding or interpretation is not.
@freemo sure, of course. If the math works for it, then you can use it. I'm just saying that there are some alternatives that sound interesting that may just work because it turns out to be a simplification of a subset of the math formulas involved. It's not unthinkable, and I'm just left with the idea that the current mainstream models seem complicated. Also, different math could end up approximating just slightly better/worse. (I'm a CS guy, so no physics background, just casual interest.)
@freemo again, I'm not arguing the current models are wrong.
@cobratbq sure a simpler model that is as complete is certainly possible. Someone may create a whole new form of math that makes this stuff trivial to calculate.
the wave function collapsing is an oversimplification inhow we describe it, but i dont think the underlying facts any less true.
What we call wave function collapse is just entanglement from the perspective of the thing being entangled.. We are just idiots and most people dont recognize "observation" is just a fancy term for "I entangle myself with the system". The wave function never really collapses in any absolute sense (as in someone not entangling themselves with the system).
@freemo sure, I see your point. But has the question of "what constitutes an observation" been solved? Same with the double slit experiment, .. I read something about this pilot wave idea which sounded nice, but I keep hearing how there are theories but nothing really is solved.
I get your reference of entanglement. I probably don't have a good understand of it on every level, so I'm guessing I'm missing significant parts of your comment. But I get where you're going with this.
@freemo okay, maybe to clarify with another perspective: I read this thing about the Schrödinger's cat experiment but now there were more (nested) levels with the office and a next-door office with see-through mirror. Also a thought experiment. So there is this recursive notion of observation. That's why I mentioned that it's all not quite clear / clarified, as I understand it.
@freemo oh, to summarize, even if just for myself. So if gravity would be just a 'bias' of the mass, i.e. the gravitational effects, and time doesn't really exist, but because of the bias, interactions are no longer reversible, then you've got your arrow of time because the bias is enough to ruin an otherwise perfectly (symmetrical?) reversible situation.
@freemo well, sure, but you're approaching it statistically now. Looking at the theories there's all the juggling with fields and particles, force-carriers, etc. There such a comprehensive framework.
Julian Barbour mentioned in a recent presentation that I watched with a casual "letting the information flow" kind of attitude, that his recent work may have removed the need for wave function collapse. Now I have only very superficial idea but I know his ideas make a lot of things simpler.