The best
Physics of Time books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Physics of Time books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Physics of Time books:
I recommend reading the book; The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, numerous people have reported that they don't feel depressed or (as depressed/anxious) after reading it.
Here's a link to buy it on amazon
Even if they are physically possible and not just mathematical abstractions, I think the chances of us finding a macroscopic one in nature would be extraordinarily unlikely. Creating them in the lab poses engineering challenges that seem insurmountable too, at least for anything less than a galaxy-spanning hyperdvanced civilization out of science fiction. Paul Davies' book How to Build a Time Machine provides a fun hypothetical look at how building and manipulating a wormhole for time travel purposes might be done.
More elegant but not necessarily better
This reminds me a strange book I once read. Biocentrism, it has that argument that the universe evolved to see it itself aka sentient
https://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe/dp/1935251740
Okay thats fair.; Exact category is often debated.
The less debated fields don't have a replication crisis per se: They have a falsifiability crisis.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/how-physics-lost-its-fizz/
This book is a good start: https://www.amazon.com/Order-Time-Carlo-Rovelli/dp/073521610X
Time is an illusion. It is related to information loss, to entropy, and how our brains perceive that. On the microscopic level, there is no "time's arrow," time does not exist. Cosmologically, there is no "now." Time is related to "falling." Things floating in space-time experience no time.
What we perceive as our universe is just a very special part of something much bigger but inaccessible. Or so I suspect. Almost pseudo-religious but everything points that direction.
Three years actually.
Three years between the adoption of standardized time in Zurich (1893) and Einstein's thought experiment for relativity (1896).
If you're interested, I'd recommend "The Order of Time", by Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli
https://www.amazon.com/Order-Time-Carlo-Rovelli/dp/073521610X
I'll try to summarize:
Prior to trains, each town defined time subjectively, based on the position of the sun.
But with the advent of trains, and to maintain schedules, an absolute time was needed.
They first proposed a single universal time for the whole world (Greenwich mean time, GMT). This didn't go over well for obvious reasons, and eventually lead to time-zones.
In 1893 the clocks in Vienna switched to time-zones (just 3 years before Einstein's famous thought experiment).
Einstein didn't pull Relativity out of thin air.
There was plenty of mounting evidence that time couldn't be absolute (thermodynamics and the speed of light).
I’m halfway through the last link - his book. It pairs nicely with Robert Lanza’s biocentrism - links below. I do think there’s an emerging new paradigm that brings these threads together, and it’ll be exciting to see what emerges from all of it.
https://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe/dp/1935251740
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Biocentric-Design-Creates-Reality/dp/1950665402
This post made my day. The ridiculousness of the, let's call it, "though experiment" defies any sense of logic. The Dunning-Kruger effect has never been so artfully illustrated. OP read some wildly theoretical book written with the due diligence of "9/11 was an inside job"
I specifically linked that book in memory of a camping trip where my buddy read it and was trying to explain exactly this; why time doesn't exist. The problem was, he was violently high and couldn't string any thoughts together. He still made a better argument than the comment you replied to above.
It's been an absolute delight reading OPs tantrums at being challenged on a hill he wants to die on that's really just a landfill
Due to the high energy required for such a feat, as well as the technology needed, not for 100 or more - if ever.
Even then - if someone does develop it? It likely will be tightly controlled technology and not available to the public at large.
Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time
These are a couple of books I highly recommend. The first one is purely about time travel, the second contains more over a variety of subjects, but Kaku is a fantastic author in that he is able to convey complicated scientific ideas to the general audience and keep the reader engaged.
No, relativity is totally glossed over. And the designers also assumed that there is one definitive reference point of time. That’s probably because they didn’t understand relativity, but it has the benefit of giving us a simplified universe to play in.
I always assumed there was one single reference for time, like on Earth. What blew my mind was reading “The Order of Time” by Carlos Rovelli a couple years ago, which is how I learned that in reality not only is there not a single reference frame for time, but there CANNOT BE such a thing. I didn’t change my Traveller universe, though. The time reference simplification is no worse than a half dozen others needed to make the game workable.
If you have the inclination, I recommend this book:
Also, let me recommend two excellent books on the subject of Time:
- The Order of Time, Carlo Rivelli, 2018
- From Eternity to Here, Sean Carroll, 2009
These are two very approachable books for non-physicists that deal with time from a physics perspective. I recommend them highly.
I like "time travel in Einstein's universe" by Richard gott
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0618257357/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_i_16SJ4GF4QX2XVW033D1F
Not fiction but he lays out all the options and how they might hypothetically work or why they don't or how they might given tachyons, etc
And to answer your other question, time travel is usually a conversation about destiny vs. free will. something interesting would be coming up with time travel that uncovers a third option like... Hang on I just got a note from my future self... oh, me says I have to go. Good luck!
Just want to comment, that physics dont have to be beautiful minimalistic which is also discussed in the science community and also found its way into popular books like Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.
Imo it is quite unscientific to rule out solution which are not "mathematically beautiful" or "simple and elegant". Or not searching for solutions which do not meet this criterias.
It's complicated and there are several theories about what time is and whether or not it even exists.
If you really are interested in the subject, I recommend Rovelli's book on the subject. Very consumable by mere mortals.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/073521610X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ORsJFb7RQZR3J
Try amazon smile to donate to a charity of your choice automatically at no cost to you!
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/073521610X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ORsJFb7RQZR3J
^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot ^^^and ^^^this ^^^action ^^^was ^^^performed ^^^automatically.
In my view, the most realistic way to send a human being into the past would be to create, stabilize, and inflate a wormhole, having differentiated the two mouths with respect to time in some way, such as by sending one mouth around a particle accelerator in its microscopic state until time dilation results in the desired time difference between the two mouths. Needless to say, such a thing is not about to happen anytime soon, and it may very well turn out to be physically or practically impossible. The science is interesting but highly speculative, and the engineering paradigms necessary for the construction of such a time machine are so far beyond modern technology that it's just a fantasy at this point.
I recommend Paul Davies' book How to Build a Time Machine for learning more about these concepts. It's super short and gets right to the point.
You need to read this
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe https://www.amazon.com/dp/1935251740/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_YUoxFbREWR432
Legend has it, the EPub can be found online for free, but that’s none of my business 🐸
This was very interesting thanks for posting it.
What is ‘real’ then according to you?
Edit: I recently finished a book called:
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe https://www.amazon.com/dp/1935251740/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_wE8nFbCRMTSEV
You should check it out. The basic premise is whether reality creates consciousness or visa versa and why it’s more than probably the latter (he uses many examples to prove this)
Totally blew my mind
LINK: book
^(I am a bot, I make links more tappable on mobile)
^(Please report any problems to r/fatFingersbot)
^(Reply '!thinfingers' to disable replies to you)
^(About)
I am reading a book at the moment about whether life creates consciousness or consciousness creates life. You should check it out because ultimately I think we are seeking answers for the same things, regardless of faith and religion
I do not deny that time exists throughout the universe, I say that it it a local phenomenon, not a universal one. Its not the same "time" throughout the universe.
>to say that the concept of "now" is not the same point in time throughout the universe is absurd!
Perhaps it sounds absurd, but it seems to be true nonetheless. Read Professor Carlo Rovelli's book for a pretty detailed discussion of why it's likely true, even though it sounds absurd.
It seems clear these days that there just is no universal concept of "now".
You refer to observers watching black holes consume each other etc. But time for this observer is only a personal construct.
>When I refer to universal time I refer to the way an outside observer sees the progression of events, and there must necessarily be a universal time.
That's not how general relativity works. There is no outside observer or universal time. It's a local and personal phenomenon. It's the difference between Newtonian, and Einsteinian time...
I do seriously recommend Rovelli's books and YouTube videos. He talks a lot exactly this topic from a seriously well informed point of view. I learned a lot...
Cheers!·
the fabric of the cosmos by brian greene.
this is the book that got me into the subject when i was a kid. it builds understanding with terms that are understandable and then builds from there.
https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205
and dont worry, if i opened a paper from anything other than my own specific niche id be just as lost!
.... that said, i dont have a better answer than a five hundred page book. its not a simple topic!
The fundamental thing about quaternion, octonions etc. is, they involve extradimensions of sort. The quaternion-based Maxwell theory anticipated quantum and scalar wave effects, which the current Maxwell theory cannot. So there are good reasons for utilizing the octonion math within contemporary physics. The opposite problem is, such a vector math is too dependent on right-angled Cartesian system. And once the number of dimensions increases, the things stop to become right angled anymore - the extradimensions violate Euclidean geometry too. The octonion-based theory will be still usable, but overly complicated, over-parametrized and as such suboptimal.
This is btw also the fact, which ruined string theory too and a general problem of every hyperdimensional theory: they apply only in flat 3D space-time following the Cartesian system and their validity scope is thus constrained to very subtle phenomena, which don't violate the dimensionality of space-time in which they reside too much (i.e. dark matter fluctuations). Even the best brains on the planet don't know what to do with it (a renormalization problem of switching extrinsic and intrinsic perspectives). As famous blogger L. Motl noted the octonion based math is the same case of fancy but void formal approach, like this one criticized recently by Hossenefelder - who indeed had the string theory of L. Motl on mind instead... ;-)
The fundamental thing about quaternion, octonions etc. is, they involve extradimensions of sort. The quaternion-based Maxwell theory anticipated quantum and scalar wave effects, which the current Maxwell theory cannot. So there are good reasons for utilizing the octonion math within contemporary physics. The opposite problem is, such a vector math is too dependent on right-angled Cartesian system. And once the number of dimensions increases, the things stop to become right angled anymore - the extradimensions violate Euclidean geometry too. The octonion-based theory will be still usable, but overly complicated, over-parametrized and as such suboptimal.
This is btw also the fact, which ruined string theory too and a general problem of every hyperdimensional theory: they apply only in flat 3D space-time following the Cartesian system and their validity scope is thus constrained to very subtle phenomena, which don't violate the dimensionality of space-time in which they reside too much (i.e. dark matter fluctuations). Even the best brains on the planet don't know what to do with it (a renormalization problem of switching extrinsic and intrinsic perspectives). As famous blogger L. Motl noted the octonion based math is the same case of fancy but void formal approach, like this one criticized recently by Hossenefelder - who indeed had the string theory of L. Motl on mind instead... ;-)
I cannot recommend enough this book "From Eternity to Here", a book that explores time as a thermodynamic phenomenon.
That's simply a mathematical description of it. We're saying that antimatter moving forwards in time is mathematically identical to matter moving backwards. Matter can be thought of as antimatter moving backwards in time, too.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy increases) comes from the definition of entropy: high entropy means that there are lots of ways to arrange things microscopically so that they're indistinguishable at our level. That means necessarily that there are more high entropy states than low entropy states, so by pure probability evolving a system in time (in either direction) leads to a higher entropy system. It's got nothing to do with individual particles moving forwards or backwards in time.
Most of what you consider to be consequences of time moving forwards are consequences of entropy increasing: a being moving "backwards" in time isn't going to remember the future, because remembering is about being able to work backwards from your current high-entropy state to a low-entropy past. Imagine you have a photograph: if entropy was lower in the past, it probably resulted from the lower entropy situation of a camera photographing the subject. If it wasn't lower, then it might just be a random chance collection of atoms that used to be a high-entropy gas.
So to answer your question: antimatter is going to obey the same laws here as everything else. Entropy increases because we don't know anything about the future, and know that in the past it was lower. The same applies to antimatter.
Sorry for the wall of text - but if you're interested you should read this book, which does a remarkable job of explaining entropy.
This same man wrote a book on Biocentrism which will blow your mind.
It is a fairly simple concept that you can easily look up and read up in more detail about (I suggest http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357 which includes a very good explanation).
It is simply a statement of probability. If you are a random human (and guess what -- you are), it is most probable that you will come into existence when there are more humans than when there are less humans (assuming you are not in some way "special"). If you don't understand this bit, don't waste your time reading further, as that is fundamental.
Gott expresses the principle in terms of confidence levels (as a percentage). e.g. We can be 95% sure we are in the middle 95% of the span of human existence, or we can say we are 50% sure were in the middle 50%. So confidence in the prediction drops as the prediction becomes more narrow.
It makes total sense, and I can't help you if you do not understand the concept (or are unwilling to read one of the many sources that describe it).
The current well-documented rise of human population is completely irrelevant to what we are describing (and is likely to be constrained by resource constraints and disease, anyway). You would have to be pretty nuts to think human population can grow geometrically forever, whilst it has a finite resource base.
Edit: You may also want to try and find this article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6427/abs/363315a0.html
> They are the least problematic because essentially magic is involved, its hand waving and saying "Yeah its there because its always been there"
No, they're least problematic because there are no causality issues at all. All this forth and back through wormholes and black holes creates a closed time like curve where the actions of an object traveling in time and interacting with itself leads back into exactly this path.
Also there's not really a bootstrapping problem. To our minds this looks like violating common sense, because we're so used to the arrow of time. However common sense never works very well with this kind of physics.
But on a quantum level such closed time like curves are formed from nothing all the time: virtual particle / anti-particle pairs forming and destroying themself, if you look at the equations the anti-particle is actually a "normal" particle moving backwards through time.
There's also an excellent pop-sci book, written by a theoretical physicist, that deals with all things time-travel, focusing on how this works in the Einstein view (general relativity) of the universe. I highly recommend reading it. The case of closed loop bootstrapping is covered exhaustively and even discussed as a possibility for how the universe may have come to be in the first place: Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357