Ok, but can I do it coherently is the challenge.
Start with time. Does time flow from the past through the present and on to the future? Probably not. That is likely a fabrication of consciousness. Einstein is quoted, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." The sensation of a passage of time is a feature of our perceptions, not a feature of space-time. Space-time simply is.
For example, if you were to skip around randomly on a DVD movie and at each jump you stop and ask the characters if it's confusing to carry out their capers out of order. They wouldn't understand the question. They would claim that the whole of their story follows in perfect sequence, first they got their rug stolen, then they went bowling, and then they found Tara Reid alive and well. As it has always been, as it will always be. The whole of space-time simply exists, it doesn't "happen". Just like a DVD exists as a whole regardless of how you watch it.
[And to add to an earlier argument: The characters will also always remember the past and not know the future even if we were to watch it entirely in reverse order (aka reverse time) from the end to the beginning.]
We might think of the passing of time like a reel of film where each frame depicts a moment in time and the moments in time are illuminated one by one by the projector as time moves forward. This doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If it is true that the current moment in time is illuminated and we call that the 'present', then what does it mean for that moment to go dark, or move to the past? How does a moment in time change at all for that matter? The definition of a moment is that it is unchanging, it is a frozen snapshot. Just like if a location in a room were to move then we would just call that a different location - the definition of a location is that it doesn't move, the definition of a moment is that it does not change in time. There is no opportunity for a moment to illuminate into the present and no opportunity for that moment to fade to darkness as the past. If a moment exists, then it was always illuminated and always will be illuminated. That is a permanent feature of that moment. The moment does not change, it cannot, it is you and your perceptions that change.
So on to movement. If a particular particle is in a particular location at a particular time, then during which moment can that particle change location? Moments do not include changes. If we flip to the very next moment either the particle is exactly where it was in the last moment, or it is in a different location - but during what interval of time did it change location? There is no Polaroid photo of movement, it has to have happened in between immediately consecutive moments which suggests instantaneous teleportation. But that is in conflict with the cosmic speed-limit that is the speed of light. So how, or when, does movement actually occur?
We might imagine some interval of time between consecutive moments and maybe movement sneaked in there. Or we might imagine time to be infinitely fine grained, that we can forever slice it into smaller and smaller fractions (which I don't think is the case, there is a Planck length minimum to the very fabric of space-time. Distances and/or time periods below this minimum have no meaning. Like asking if it is wet between the molecules of H2O.). With infinite slices of time, we still either have to have a thing changing in one static moment (defying the definition of a moment), or the particle still needs to instantaneously teleport in between moments (whatever that means to be in-between infinitely finely sliced time).
-- P.S. I try to be a realist. There probably is an answer to this puzzle, we just don't know what it is yet. We need to study time, location, quantum behavior, and all the rest more. I suspect that our notion of a 'moment' might not actually exist. Maybe even without a change in time, the Uncertainty Principle would forbid a static state. Maybe Polaroids really do vibrate.
Is this halfway intelligible?
PPS - if you really get to thinking about this model of time, you would come to the conclusion that the past and future together with all of space is a permanent block of space-time that simply is. Suggesting that free-will and choice is an illusion. We haven't watched it yet, but the film is already printed. It's always been there. That's what space-time is. Sometimes that brings me comfort. I didn't screw it up, it was already like that.
More a question of philosophy, rather than a rigorous examination of reality.
Evidence suggests time flows in one direction always, but which direction that may be is open to debate. Yes, there is also evidence it doesn't flow at all and everything coexists in one single, continuous "moment". So far, though, the weight of evidence is with the flow.
But...
Even philosophy will only take you so far. Sometimes you just have to accept that, in the absence of outside evidence, you have to trust that what you experience is real. To all intents and purposes, time appears to go from past to future and it's most likely the best way to think of it, since it won't make any material difference to how we live.
As the man on the volcano said to the menstruating woman, "It's always best to go with the flow".
Thanks Joseph, Cæmeron, Sam ? I find quantum physics fascinating but I'm still very much at the start of my learning, so you'll have to excuse any stupid questions.
PPS - if you really get to thinking about this model of time, you would come to the conclusion that the past and future together with all of space is a permanent block of space-time that simply is. Suggesting that free-will and choice is an illusion. We haven't watched it yet, but the film is already printed. It's always been there. That's what space-time is. Sometimes that brings me comfort. I didn't screw it up, it was already like that.
On similar lines, I've often wondered if all time was contained in the big bang as one compressed 'lump', meaning that as the universe has expanded (or inflated) events in time pull further and further away from each other, causing our perception of time as passing in a linear fashion. I have no evidence or theory to back this up, but I've always thought it was an interesting idea if nothing else.
It's definitely something that has some basis in reality, at least, in a limited sense. Take a look at the pheonomenon "Frame-Dragging" for an example.
That particular effect could also help to smooth out the quantum steps that we'd see if a rotating body was sufficiently large. The frame rate of the universe may not be fine grained enough to prevent the observation of stepping if an object was several times larger than a galaxy. OTOH, an object that size would be moving at a fair old clip anyhow, so relativistic effects would come into play, or the thing would be torn apart by tidal stresses before any of that happened.
Thinking more about it - I'm just extemporizing here - there must be an upper limit on the size of an object, to prevent it collapsing in on itself. In order to reach the size needed to generate directly observable effects, it'd have to be absolutely rigid and almost massless. Probably not doable by anyone, ever.
As an aside to that, there does seem to be an "As above, so below" constant throughout the universe. From clusters, through galaxies, solar systems, all the way down to the far reaches of subatomic particles, there's more nothing than stuff. Quite a sobering thought to consider that everything is made up of mainly nowt.
Joseph - I avoid using "Infinite" when talking about the universe, since it's demonstrably not. In many cases, time, space, numbers, they aren't infinite, just very very big.
"Numbers?" you ask, "surely not, Sam, they're infinite."
Well, no, not in the one and only reality we have, they ain't. A little thought experiment...
In order to imagine an infinite sequence of numbers, you have to pick a start point and keep increasing. Forever. You can't because one day, the universe will end. It may be that time starts to reverse, or we get the big crunch without time reversing, or the heat death, or God switches off the computer, or whatever, but the fact is, the universe is finite. So, your counting will be finite.
You could possibly build an amazingly fast computer to count for you, from some fantastically large starting point, but the same applies. Sooner or later, you come to the end.
So, the largest number in the universe will always be the largest number counted/generated before Game Over. And, you can't even say that adding 1 to it works because in order to do that you have to know what that number is, and since the universe just ended, you can't. In any case, adding 1 isn't infinite because you need to keep adding 1 again and again and again.
Everything comes to an end, even numbers.
Big bang theory is B.S.
Never believed it, never will.
Joseph - I avoid using "Infinite" when talking about the universe, since it's demonstrably not. In many cases, time, space, numbers, they aren't infinite, just very very big.
"Numbers?" you ask, "surely not, Sam, they're infinite."
Well, no, not in the one and only reality we have, they ain't. A little thought experiment...
In order to imagine an infinite sequence of numbers, you have to pick a start point and keep increasing. Forever. You can't because one day, the universe will end. It may be that time starts to reverse, or we get the big crunch without time reversing, or the heat death, or God switches off the computer, or whatever, but the fact is, the universe is finite. So, your counting will be finite.
You could possibly build an amazingly fast computer to count for you, from some fantastically large starting point, but the same applies. Sooner or later, you come to the end.
So, the largest number in the universe will always be the largest number counted/generated before Game Over. And, you can't even say that adding 1 to it works because in order to do that you have to know what that number is, and since the universe just ended, you can't. In any case, adding 1 isn't infinite because you need to keep adding 1 again and again and again.
Everything comes to an end, even numbers.
Hey Mr Therapy. How are you feeling? Are you on the mend?
Eyup, Myn0k, me owd mate. Pneumonia cleared up eventually and as for the Prostate scere, I'm sure I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about it but anyhow, I got a provisional all clear from the specialist. Have to go back in January for confirmation but so far, so good.
Mrs Therapy and the kids have the barfing bug at the moment so the place resembles a scene from the Exorcist but apart from that, all appears to be good.
Big bang theory is B.S.
Never believed it, never will.
Right you are. Beats me how you get to that conclusion but entirely your choice.
'Nother idea about the coexistence of every event, or rather, a way of accounting for everything, is the Multiverse theory. I don't know the exact terminology but the idea itself is generally accepted - in principle, at least - by many physicists. In short, every possible outcome of every single event exists in potential, and events prior will determine which branch our reality takes. So, a multidimensional aspect to spacetime, existing in potential but not necessarily accessible by us. It's plausible these potential realities are "real" in an internal sense and that our reality is just another branch from one of those.
The upshot of all this is, yes, every single possible event ever has been accounted for but rather than our destinies being fixed, we get to choose the track we travel.
Here's another, rather odd one. Nothing to do with time or multiple dimensions, and, on the face of it, much more mundane. Its strangeness comes from the feeling that it's a potentially accessible alternate, although beyond our reach at the moment...
The universe is so big that patterns start to emerge and, as with most things, structures begin to repeat. What this means is, it's possible - even probable - there are alternate versions of our galaxy, right down to the planets and people, scattered about the place right here, right now. Chances are they are far, far distant from us and any meaningful interaction is impossible but it's still odd to think there are other versions of us out there in real time and space, not just floating about in a distant parallel universe.
Big bang theory is B.S.
Never believed it, never will.
Right you are. Beats me how you get to that conclusion but entirely your choice.
Scientists can't explain it, they come up with this theory and until it's proven wrong, everyone just believes it.
One day we will learn the truth, hopefully.
But really, I guess it doesn't matter ☺
Big bang theory is B.S.
Never believed it, never will.
Right you are. Beats me how you get to that conclusion but entirely your choice.
Scientists can't explain it, they come up with this theory and until it's proven wrong, everyone just believes it.
One day we will learn the truth, hopefully.
But really, I guess it doesn't matter ☺
Lol, reminds me of religion and also of the many, many TP theories. Peaksism I call it. 🙂
Big bang theory is B.S.
Never believed it, never will.
Right you are. Beats me how you get to that conclusion but entirely your choice.
Scientists can't explain it, they come up with this theory and until it's proven wrong, everyone just believes it.
One day we will learn the truth, hopefully.
But really, I guess it doesn't matter ☺
Lol, reminds me of religion and also of the many, many TP theories. Peaksism I can it. 🙂
Oh don't get me started on religion! Biggest con ever!
Peaksism...... hmm I like it!
I have so much response in me.
SamX - the object you describe that may reveal 'framing' could only exist with some sort of energy balance. The gravity of it would cause it to collapse to a black hole unless there were a countering force - like a sun that burns can prop itself up, but when it cools and runs out of fuel that's when it crumples up. The problem with a giant sun (UY Scuti) is that it's so bright it's hard to see its surface.
To your multiverse ideas. You describe two different proposals. The Many Worlds Interpretation first described by Hugh Everett (Everett, WA??) is like you say; any time a particle has a non zero probability of different location/momentum/spin it will manifest each one of those possibilities in an alternate 'universe'. I've always thought this to be more of a manageable tool to aid in calculations and not really a genuine proposal of 'how it is'. But maybe. The other multiverse that you reference is the Quilted Multiverse. That sorta depends on the expanse of our universe to truly be infinite. I understand your argument against infinity as a substance or as a real world phenomenon, but I disagree. It exists as a concept and it exists in calculations and could possibly exist as a quantity of space and/or time. There are different kinds of infinity too. 
The Quilted Universe relies on two things. First the universe must be infinite, or possibly it only needs to be rockingly immense. Like a googleplex of miles. The other thing is that there is only a finite number of arrangements of the particles in our observable universe (93b light years). Particles may differ in position by an amount that we can't detect and that's good enough. If your ham sandwich has a single atom one picometer to the left, you'd never know the difference. So we'll call that the same thing. Then you can have repeated arrangements of particles which means somewhere far away there will be another Sun, another Earth, another you and me and this conversation. In fact it will be repeated an infinite number of times in an infinite number of universe patches. So that's neat.
I like the Bubble Multiverse Theory. A universe or 'big bang' -like event could spontaneously happen anywhere and anytime. Lots of bubble universes. One of them might've even bumped us. There's a weird warm spot in the microwave background. We might've gotten sideswiped.
Fire walk with