Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 10 November 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.1217
News
Time to test time
The essential fuzziness of time may be the limiting factor for a gravitational-wave detector in Germany.
Poets have long believed the passage of time to be unavoidable, inexorable and generally melancholic. Quantum mechanics says it is fuzzy, ticking along at minimum intervals within which the notion of time is meaningless.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
All those detected materials or effects are the mirror of advanced human technoloies. The universe and time is still, unchanged. the one change is human brain, in short. Therefore is saying " Imagination is more important than knowledge.
I find a God's eye view of space and time clarifying. Time and space are exact. The measurement of them is not. The warping of space-time in General Relativity is viewed as a material that is distorted along with rulers and clocks. From God's view there is no distortion. It is the 'jello' of space-time which is distorted with its rulers and clocks. One stands outside of the universe and views it. In the same way the quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle is only a comment about the quantum aether which is in fluctuation along with clocks and rulers. From God's eye, time is still uniformly stepping along. We are just made up of jostling parts.
Hmmm... after reading an article with a way-out theory using not more, but fewer dimensions than we know exist, entirely based solely on some unexplained noise (which was probably caused by some damaged soldering).... I was hoping for some down to earth comments to bring some reality into the discussion. I was disappointed. @Robert Liu: So what is your point? All Physicists should take LSD? There is no point in experimental Physics? I understand what you are saying, but your statement seems to be more about poetry than science. @Douglas Danforth: God probably does not exist. Or even if we for a moment assume that He does exist, remember this: thinking about God will not get you any closer to understanding Physics. Otherwise, we would be talking about the Vatican interpretation of Quantum Theory, and not the Copenhagen interpretation. Reading your comment again, I can see what you're trying to get at, and your point has some merit - but the invocation of God (with a capital G) obfuscates your point of view.
I am sorry Dan but I agree with both Douglas and Roberts statements. To demystify what Robert has said - the universe is exactly the same as it always has been it is our brains that have changed, how we see the universe has changed. Without imagination there would have been no advance in human understanding - Knowledge is just the current beliefs or religion we hold. a couple of 1000 years ago we knew the Earth was the centre of the universe we now know this was a belief. With the advent of the 20th century with such mind blowing ideas such as quantum mechanics, relativity, chaos theory, string theory etc we have found that how we thought about universe is wrong or not entirely correct it is so much more complicated than Newton for example or the church thought yet it invokes such wonder to the point of spirituality see Einstein. There is a huge point to experimental physics but no point in making any exact statements about the universe or even beliefs such as God probably does not exist this is old style thinking. Why would we be using the Vatican interpretation? what does an outdated medieval institution have to do with God or the modern idea of God? or the universe and its workings for that matter. That is like saying what is the flat earth society interpretation. We talk about the Copenhagen interpretation because physics unlike biology, religion, philosophy etc has moved with the times whereas biology is still stuck in the enlightenment and religion is still stuck in the middle ages, philosophy is stuck in existentialism. This does not mean that God or Evolution don't exist but maybe how we understand them has/is changing beyond the church or Richard Dawkins's atheism. Atheists seem to fear god as much as the christians do (I am neither by the way)
This research reminds me the discovery of the cosmic microwaver background radiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation There are some similarities.
I've understood time as motion. Before motion, time didn't exist, that doesn't mean something didn't exist, it just means their wansn't any motion. We can only measure time by measuring movement. If Craig Hogan claims he can see it, he is seeing more motion. Doesn't appear to be any explaination of why a minimum time interval would exist. Tomorrow someone may witness an even smaller quantity of motion.
Dave Rank, How does an article about yet another physicists outlandish theory (based on no experimental evidence - see string theory) turn into a rambling hit piece on evolution, Richard Dawkins, and atheism?
Adam It was less a response to the article and more of a reply to Dans comments. Ok, my post was way more rambling than Dans I am a rambler what can I say. I think my post was more a 'hit piece' on old ways of thinking and the constant need to clarify what you mean by god so as not to confuse atheists. I dragged Dawkins and evolution in as this long suffering theory has been all but seconded by atheism and what has happened to biology as a result? it is stuck in a rut. This is what happens when science is constantly being framed in purely atheist or religionist ideas. Thankfully Physics has had no creationism at great odds with it so has remained free to explore outlandish ideas such as Hogans. Hogan may turn out to be wrong - who cares- if he was a biologist trying to show genes weren't the be all and end all of life he would be laughed out of academia. If people want to show their admiration for the universe/physics by being spiritual or whatever this is fine its time people got over the whole G/god debate. Physics has not suffered by physicists having outlandish ideas or using the term God
Fair enough Dave, though I must say that there are many biologist who say that genes are not the 'be all and end all of life'. Just look at the recent explosion of epigenetics. As a day to day working biologist, I have to say that religion v atheism or G/god doesn't really come into play, it's just a fun thing to argue about after work in the pub.
This is a response to the above discussions about science, God and philosophical implications. I believe that the results of this study seem too speculative and far-fetched as is theoretical physics today, given that very few aspects of it can be proven without resorting to pure story-telling in order to satisfy our curiosity and imagination. Mathematical equations mean nothing without some injection of human interpretation to satisfy our ignorance of the laws of the universe. Many prominent scientists, including Einstein himself, believed that the universe was static and never created until red-shifted stars and uniform backgroung radiation came to the scene. Now, if someone would like to infer to the presence of God, he should be free to do so without being ridiculed by scientists believing they are the only people capable of holding the keys to absolute truth, for example Richard Dawkins. Therefore, let the scientists do science, philosophers to think, storytellers to count fables and clergy to preach about God.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." --Albert Einstein or "Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." -- Philip K. Dick :-) I have had a longstanding interest in astrophysics since childhood as a result of my hunger to know the Truth, whatever it might be. Perhaps it was because I wanted to know the Truth, whether I liked the Truth or not, that the God of the universe has helped me to know that He real exists and that Jesus is His Son. For many years, I resisted faith in Jesus as too facile, but He opened my eyes to the fact that He really is the Lord and is more extraordinary than we can ever comprehend. I have no idea whether this particular theory is on the right track or not, but my sense is that our universe is holographic (regardless of how many dimensions it has), in that the reality that we perceive is only a small portion of the greater reality. We already know that what appears solid is full of empty space, yet we perceive it as solid despite knowing otherwise. It is intriguing to think of being able to eliminate a dimension, rather than tacking on extra imperceptible dimensions, in order to explain the universe we perceive. My question is that if the universe is holographic, what is real (i.e. not an illusion)? Does this theory hypothesize the existence of a metareality in which our holographic universe exists? In terms of there being a greater imperceptable reality existing alongside the reality we perceive, I absolutely believe that there are heavenly beings and even demons/unclean spirits all around us, who perceive us even if we don't generally perceive them. In the same way, God is omnipresent--seeing us from all angles, inside and out. If reality were a number line, what we perceive is akin to the counting numbers. Yet, in terms of numbers, counting numbers are a small portion of all the numbers out there. Scientists can deduce from experiments that there exists more than we can perceive, but it would be ridiculous for them to believe that all that exists ought to be testable. There are different hierarchies of infinities on the number line (i.e. there is an infinite number of even numbers, but there are even more natural numbers and there are even more irrational numbers than there are rational numbers). Just as imaginary numbers show up all over the place in important equations, even though they are impossible. In the same way, the reality we can perceive is a small part of the greater reality. The reality posited by theologians may seem impossible, implausible or downright silly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Physicists will always be limited by their logical minds, by their insistence on believing in a universe that makes sense. The universe does make sense, but we don't have enough information to understand it. Neither can we understand God unless He reaches down and opens our eyes to be able to know Him. There is no way that a theoretical physicist can construct a theory to accurately explain the universe without recognizing that we have a Maker Who is more extraorinary than we can ever realize. I used to think that, if God existed, He was essentially like the clockmaker God of the Theists. He opened my eyes to the fact that He is so vast that He has total control of the universe, from the heavens all the way down to the last subatomic particle. If He allows things to happen that don't make sense, it is a part of His greater plan. He is under no obligation to simplify His reasoning to something that we understand now--but if we trust Him, He will make it all clear in time. The universe is interesting, but its Maker is that much more fascinating. While I look forward to Jesus somday letting me see how the universe works, I know that I'll never be able to understand Him in His entirety, since the Maker is always greater than the creation.
If time is iterative, does that mean we are transported across the fabric of space and time, from now to now... an expression of our universe's ephemeral existence ;)
If anything exists it does not exist in isolation from everything else, unless it is an instance of something that exists in absolute isolation. If it is such a thing truly in isolation, then it cannot be observed, because then it by being observed could not be isolated in the absolute sense of the word 'isolated.' Thus all terminology leads people astray and they empower things unwittingly. They believe in the existence of things like electrons or neurons, which are useful constructs, but simple contemplation is enough to prove that neither the one nor the other makes any sense except within the context of the vast electromagnetic field or the whole nervous system and huge living ecosystem of which it is thought to be a signal part. For instance the concept of the 'gene' is undergoing great change in understanding, and misunderstanding as well, no doubt. So it is with the concept of 'time.' If it is anything at all really beyond a useful and temporary construct, then it is also something which has no meaning except in relation to everything else, and every idea about it is necessarily imprecise in this way.
Apart from the article itself and the wonderfully odd matter it is about, it is fun to read the above comments and effusions, but funnier, in my opinion, is the fact that the included photograph of the wormlike sensory apparatus in its sandy hole includes in the form of the little probabilistic waves on the ground exact-like illustrations of the presumed time-quanta, as I, enlightened biologist, imagine they would be like.
Apart from the article itself and the wonderfully odd matter it is about, it is fun to read the above comments and effusions, but funnier, in my opinion, is the fact that the included photograph of the wormlike sensory apparatus in its sandy hole includes in the form of the little probabilistic waves on the ground exact-like illustrations of the presumed time-quanta, as I, enlightened biologist, imagine they would be like.
Grains of sand. How fitting! A grain of sand is one of time's many forms. The hourglass another.
Everything is created by sound current, Remember Bible states God is word an word is God. We found some proof of sound in COBE experment and in String theory vibrating strands of energy. This physical world when it impinges onto other planes, it gives us results and this will prove further the existence of All mighty supreme creator. We cannot pass physically thru to other planes unless we convert ourself to a energy form i.e going to planck level etc. We are like trapped prisoners (i.e our world) in a plane, but we do pass into the other plane, that is after death we go into astral plane etc. The only way to get glimpse of the other planes is via true meditation and that is not easy and needs true desire to get connected with the absolute truth (soul). When I was a kid I used to notice ants working very hard and I wonder we do the same thing on differnt relative scale. We humans are making a fool ourself by not accessing our main power centre "Soul". We want science to also progress after we all need to do some work (action) but what harm is done if a scientist can also look into the power centre, but there is one problem as access to this power centre is not via a physical wire but is wireless and is NOT POSSIBLE if your EGO exists. That is why it said truely humble persons our close to the power centre. We humans are like the female deer which keeps looking for the beautiful smell evrywhere but the smell source is in her stomach. Therfore understand the trickery of the mind force and do yourself a favour of infinite proportions. Mr Dawkins please take note as you do not want to be trapped for ever like the three evils persons in the first superman movie.
Oh my.. how sad that this has degenerated into a discussion of the existence of god(sic) I, myself, prefer the theory that we are actually living inside a computer simulation from another multiverse
Why is it that you just about can?t talk about anything nowadays without someone bringing up religion?
It is a very bad idea for nature to have people post their own comments because they usually turn into pointless arguments about nothing that accomplishes nothing.
Wow. I am surprised that most of the commentators posted on here consider others as so closed minded and yet you have no room for anothers point of view. The mutual exclusivity of science and religion is itself a man made concept. Why is it that 2 constructs we can see neither of (God and Time) cannot both be included in the discussion? I do agree this conversation has veered off point and yet I say, so what? If you want to discuss the topic among your peers, this is NOT the forum. This is entertainment. Go to a forum where you must present your credentials as a pompous-ass expert in your field. Then you can feign disgust at and mock the other pompous-ass experts with whom you disagree.
Well it's certainly good to know that Einstein's "God does not play dice with the world" is still alive and strong in present day society!! The fuziness of time is not an anthropomorphic concept or a problem with "soldering" but a fundamental process of the world as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle outlines. The Planck Length, Time amd Mass are all real and measurable, and if these guys have found the Planck Noise it is truly a great dioscovery along the lines of the Cosmic Microwave Background!
I have long suspected that time is a fuzzy phugoid, especially early in the morning after a poor night's sleep while I wait for the coffee to brew. As the day progresses, time appears to change in both frequency and amplitude. Ergo, time is relative. Certainly religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The string theory is a good example of religious science. Or perhaps it's a scientific religion. Depending on how you look at things, with a Newtonian or Quantum viewpoint, we've either come a long way or a short way from Aristotle's Crystal Spheres.
religion and science are mutually exclusive. i dont get why people have resorted to talking about god instead of what the article is actually about. There is no mention of god or religion or philosophical ideas only scientific speculation of the observations made.
isaac masanabo - Read Aristotle and the First Cause Arguments. Science and Religon are hardly mutually exclusive, logically.
Dan Skal the idea of one dimension having encoded info is done all the time on radio and tv, and is a known quantity. The concept of holography is proven. As the holograph is broken to smaller pieces, the smaller pieces retain the image but it's "noisier". David Boehm equated this with the complete interconnectedness of the universe itself: in order to maintain itself, whether you were in higher or lower dimensions, the universe retains an overall encoded image of itself that in completely interconnected in order to maintain the integrity of the structure, just like a holograph.
Dear Isaac Masanabo, Please note the force behind this creation which is imparting energy to electrons (for example) is classified as GOD and religion is a science of finding connection with this GOD force. If you are thinking that there is no force and you are millions times wrong like Mr. Dawkins. Therefore science is trying to approach towards infinity (God Force) with all these finidings etc.
I strongly recommend reading "The Structure of Time" by W H Newton-Smith from 1980 (Routledge & Kegan Paul). The chapter titles are quite appetizing: (1)Nature of time, (2)Time & change, (3)Topology of time (1st part: linearity), (4)Topology of time (2nd part: unity - meaning contiguity, I think), (5)Topology of time (3rd part: beginning (& end)) (6)Topology of time (4th part: micro-aspects), (7)Metric of time, (8)Special theory of relativity, (8)Direction of time, (9)Towards a positive theory. Further, Immanuel Kant's view of the subjective nature of our perceptions, including our perception of time, is quite relevant. I haven't yet formed my own conclusions about these matters, so I cannot make more concrete comments.
I think it is time physicists must stop talking like mystics. Indeed, any discussion on fundamental concepts of science, not just physics, is bound to have philosophical implications but that does not give a scientist the liberty to use his imagination in explaining what appers to be a mystery. As such, we have lot of imaginative theories and now this appears another imaginative suggestion. Space is the only physical structure in the universe and everything else is mere manifested or distorted form of space. Time is the process that brings about a change in the structure. Einstein suggests that matter can only be thought of as regions in the space where field strength or energy density is particularly high. This effectively means that matter is distorted space. Now, this suggestion is diametrically opposite to Einstein's own suggestion that matter distorts space. Einstein tried to resolve the problem but failed to evolve a field theory consistent with the field of general relativity. Einstein observes, ?Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.? And, ?Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, objects) does not exist.? ?But the idea that there exist two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic, was intolerable to the theoretical spirit. We are prompted to the belief that both sorts of field must correspond to a unified structure of space.? Quantum mechanics also does not believe in matter existing independently of space. Matter cannot exist independently of space and as suggested by Einstein can only be thought of as the region where field gets distorted. The structure is constantly evolving and time can only be thought of as a measure of the change. This process of change goes on at different paces in different frames of reference. Time dilation or relativity of time is such an important concept that its effects can be seen everywhere. Our problem is that even though we know that time is a relative phenomenn, we still need a concept of time that has uniform flow and hence we operate our clocks in standard conditions in different frame of reference. In my theory, 'Nature of Reality', I have experimentally shown that in nature the word instantly does not necessarily mean, 'as it occurs' but more often than not it means, 'at the same time'. It is very important to understad the difference between the two terms. Suggestion that there is some sort of ticking of time suggesting an interval between this continuous process is scientifically untenable. Quantum mechanics suggests that for a brief while lawlessness exists in the universe. Even momentary violation of fundamental laws of universe will result in complete collapse of the system. For such an idea to prevail, time must have uniform flow across the universe but we know time is a relative phenomenon. The interval is explained by the difference in the two terms discussed above. As far as Reality is concerned, our problem is that we do not even a proper scientific concept of reality. In the absence of a scientific model, we have to rely on the model that philosophy has developed. Therefore, it is very important to develop a proper concept of reality before we explore the nature of reality. Everything in the perceptible universe is relative as nothing in this universe is endowed with the properties of self-manifestation. Energy and matter remain imperceptible in the absence of each other. What we perceive is information and information is always relative. What is worst is that we are not born with ability to interpret any information; we have to train our mind to interpret even the simplest of information. Most of the chaos in the physics is caused because of the wrong interpretation of the information but at the same time we must admit that this is how science evolves. An observation or a procedure becomes an experiment of science only due to its interpretation to establish cause-effect relationships. Therefore, it is very important to ensure that our interpretation of the results of our experiments is correct. What appears to be obvious may not be the true reflection of the reality. I will explain with a simple example. In my exploration of nature of light, I extended the standard double-slit experiment simply by making a slit each in the dark band as well as in the light band. When we peep through the slits, we find virtually no difference in the two views. Obviously, light does not have to reach us for us to perceive it. This effectively means that information can be communicated between the light source and the projecting screen instantly irrespective of the distance between the light source and the projecting screen. This extended double-slit experiment has enormous implications not only on our understanding of the nature of light but also on our understanding of nature of reality. Evidently, we can sense light wherever it is, provided it is in the perceivable range of our eyes. What comes out of the exploration of the nature of light shows that everything we knew about light is wrong. This is not an attempt to sensationalize the issue but is the reflection of the reality. We do not perceive objects individually; image of entire viewing area is formed in our eyes as one unit. Everything in our field of view appears relative to everything else. I am tempted to make further observation esp. on the nature of reality but I know the post is already too long but I could not resist putting my views esp. in view of the comments on the nature of reality.
Sunil Thakur, while experimenting with reality, have you noticed.