E 'may follow in these words, you can shoot a little' head ... is understandable, given that I write as I think and I think as I write. However, I've warned you ... do not tell me that after I told you!
Of all the things that are part of life, time is definitely the one that fascinates me more than any other. Perhaps because it is something that we feel is there, but we can do than simply measure its inevitable passing.
Not only that, it seems that only flows in one direction.
If we think at the beginning of the Universe, we can not help but place it in a given moment in our usual time scale. We would like to be able to fix the moment when it all originated, not considering that if ever we succeed, we will establish the "while" also compared before and after the instant of creation.
But it makes sense to establish a first? That is, it makes sense to think that time exists even before the Universe?
If so, we are faced with a scenario where time is flowing and there is still nothing.
The time is going by so long? Always? And why?
Or should we determine that the time has also been a source?
In this case we could not determine in an instant where time began to flow because, as I said before, if we set a moment, then establish a first, and the first in this case would not make sense.
E 'already difficult to conceive of a time that flows in the absence of everything else. Imagine a time that "suddenly" begin to flow into the void is something very far from our common thinking ...
Time is running alone and then ... suddenly ... everything appears out of nowhere: even more inexplicable!
Questions about questions ...
Time flows at the same speed?
One would define the speed of time. We could not define it as the change in time in time (seconds per second), unless it falls into a recursive definition. We can not rely on the time to measure time!
The time seems to be a primitive concept.
return a moment to think about the origin of the universe. Everything seems to come back if we suppose that time and matter (or energy, which is the same thing) coexist forcibly, that time does not exist without matter. In this case remain open for two hypotheses: that time and universe have always existed (this involves the periodic recurrence of birth, expansion, collapse and death of the Universe) or that it was born "at the same time." In the latter scenario, the Big Bang fascinating not only would have been a violent appearance of all matter from the void, but also of time ever since.
Even common sense seems to encourage that time alone would not make sense almost. What would be the time if it could not be measured with something, though nothing could change in precisely the same time. If there is nothing, nothing changes and everything (nothing in this case) would "always" identical to itself ... as if time had stopped ... as if time did not exist. Stop the time means that time does not exist?
We have within us an innate sense of the passage of time. Thinking of slowing down time is equivalent to think they can, watching with our usual sense of the passage of time, slowing the passage of time than the rest. Otherwise, if our time together at the time to slow down everything else, we do not notice if time slows down or speeds up.
Here, to measure the "speed" of time it would take, as a reference system, a time dimension parallel to ours and "speed" continued ... but steady compared to what? And then it makes sense to a time dimension parallel to ours? Maybe we should not ask more if something makes sense or not to try to understand certain things. Maybe some things do not have a sense, are like that.
Perhaps there are parallel and adjacent temporal dimensions and the passage of time is just the feeling that we perceive going from one dimension to another.
everything from the origin of the universe had a pulse that makes the initial travel irrespective of wills between adjacent layers of time? This hypothesis seems so unlikely that I would want to discard it. Everything always travel at the same "speed" through layers of these hypothetical storms. All the same speed, because otherwise we would see different effects of time on things of the same type. Atoms of the same element decay more or less quickly and people age faster than others ... Wow, this just seems to have noticed, but it seems to depend on other factors (genetics, lifestyle, environmental conditions, etc.. etc...) Better to use atoms for certain considerations!
Go back in time, in this case the layers of time, would be to cross, "meaning" contrary to the one followed by all matter in our Universe. Maybe if you could meet two Universes, the matter of one travel back in time with respect to other matters. But if the layers in time were common to both universes then everything proceeds normally (in the sense of time of course !!!).
Another hypothesis might be as follows: time is generated by matter. Each particle of matter (or energy) generates a stream of time, to the extent of which would be stable if is proportional or not the mass (or energy) of the particle generator. In this case I do not think it is appropriate to take into account the formula relating mass, energy and the speed of light (E = MC2) as bound to the speed and then at the same time. However, if this were the case, that the time is generated by the universe itself, we would be faced with other questions of a certain caliber: the time has a speed? If so, one could speak of "speed of time" and because the light travels through time, one would assume that the speed of time is greater than or equal to that of light. I imagine the photon as it travels at the speed of light, being himself energy, generates time, and it generates from its speed and therefore time should somehow generated out of the photon, and then go faster than the photon. Maybe I'm exaggerating ...
Perhaps the magnitude of the flow of time generated decreases with increasing speed, to reach zero and the speed of light. In this case, light and time would have the same "speed". Or is it absurd to even think about the concept of speed of time?
Years ago, when I came home from work by car, I went into a tunnel. I said to myself: "If I could die an accident. I'm still alive, but at my age, many people have already died. If you decide you skid, very probably would remain seriously injured or die. My future depends on my choice and can take one direction or another. This is true at every moment: if I do something my future unfolds in a way, but if I do another one, developed in another way. "That's when I flashed the idea of \u200b\u200bmulti-universe. Basically it is a hypothesis that is to look at the snapshot of the entire Universe as the situation resulting from all the choices made throughout our existence: one at any moment! But there's more: at any moment (and therefore every choice) our Universe is in for each of the choices available to us. Each of us, at any time, would be making a choice and therefore would be along a particular branch in the great tree of choice, while at the same time is one of our double-crossing the other branch of choice, in a parallel universe, now separated from us. So who knows how many times I thought I was dead in the other branches of the tree of choices, or whatever that has become in other branches, richer, poorer, etc.. etc..
Perhaps death is an illusion: still others die! If there is always a choice, every moment we die or stay alive: the following instance of us (voluntarily or not) death of the branch dies, the other live on, and so on until the next event.
One could argue that in this way are extraordinarily infinite possible universes. I see no drawbacks to this possibility.
could also happen that some branches of the tree of choices, after numerous bifurcations, going to come together to form the same kind of universe. Very roughly: if I lose one euro at nine o'clock in the morning or three in the afternoon, at 6 pm, while I'm coming home in the car, the situation is exactly the same ... the two universes are united.
Another point concerns the different perception of the passage of time with the increase of our age. I noticed the same effect on me and many I have confirmed that feeling. One gets the impression that when we were kids, the days would last longer and even more the weeks and months. The seasons and years later they were very long. The more we grow more and everything seems to flow more quickly: it seems like yesterday that rocked him to sleep and my son now goes to school. Summer passes in a flash. We are at Christmas and soon we will have to think about the next Summer ...
For this phenomenon I have a purely mathematical theory and a staggering banality (sometimes I find myself alone). Virtually every one of us constantly compares the time intervals to the total duration of its existence: for one child a year, equivalent to 365 days but part of their lives, while for a man of 40 years is equivalent to 14,600 but part and, for a 90-year-old, but the 32,850 part. Kept constant as the period of her own life, is becoming shorter the length of days, months, seasons and years that you live. It would be almost a demonstration that the sensation of time is a product of our mind ... if not time itself.
Why then do something interesting when time seems to rush, but on the contrary, when we do something boring time seems to "never go"? Maybe because when we are psychologically involved by something, most of our attention is focused on one thing and little attention is devoted to measure the passage of time, with the result that when we return to a normal state of attention, things do not go back there and we seem to have been literally " skipped periods of time. Just ask anyone who plays hard to video games ...
The opposite would happen when we get bored.
fact is that the time for me is something fascinating and mysterious.
But life is short and I can not spend all my time thinking about the time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment