From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 01:27 On 6/23/10 10:01 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical > interaction that violates causality. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Feynman-QED.htm "Abstract. Lack of knowledge of energy transfer between particles is a major obstacle in understanding physics, matter, and the Universe. In 1945 Wheeler and Feynman sought the mechanism of energy transfer by calculating e-m radiation from an accelerated electron. The electron generated outward and inward waves and evoked a response of the universe from absorber charges. This paper compares Wheeler and Feynman�s work with a rigorous solution using the scalar wave equation that finds a quantum-wave electron structure based upon two fundamental principles of Nature. This is equivalent to replacing the material point electron with a spherical quantum-wave electron, a new structure in main-stream thinking but fulfilling a proposal by Schroedinger. Surprisingly, all the natural laws are found embedded in the wave structure of the electron � as envisioned by Schroedinger". "There is no causality violation because the in-waves are real and do not run backwards in time".
From: Edward Green on 27 Jun 2010 15:27 On Jun 19, 11:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research > concerning the nature of the "arrow of time" > > Below are the original post and a follow-up. Check it out and > contribute! > -------------------------------------------------------- <...> My incredibly profound view of the arrow of time is that "stuff happens". The second law based arrow confirms rather than overcomes this, since a system started in a purely random state will, according to the microscopic laws of motion, attain a _more_ random state winding the clock either forward or backward. The fact that we don't observe this is a result of an improbable boundary condition after which, well, stuff happened. I'm at least halfway serious. I think time is a primitive. BTW, the microscopic reversibility (if such it be) is a red herring: we might as well ask why peacocks have multiple colored tails and yet there is an arrow of time. Even if we _did_ have microscopically irreversible laws, we likely would have the increase in entropy going either direction from a starting state chosen at random. Again we would come back to the non-random nature of the current state, and its dependence on a highly ordered boundary condition, after which, stuff happened.
From: Yousuf Khan on 29 Jun 2010 04:45 On 6/28/2010 1:27 AM, Edward Green wrote: > My incredibly profound view of the arrow of time is that "stuff > happens". > > The second law based arrow confirms rather than overcomes this, since > a system started in a purely random state will, according to the > microscopic laws of motion, attain a _more_ random state winding the > clock either forward or backward. The fact that we don't observe this > is a result of an improbable boundary condition after which, well, > stuff happened. I'm at least halfway serious. I think time is a > primitive. BTW, the microscopic reversibility (if such it be) is a > red herring: we might as well ask why peacocks have multiple colored > tails and yet there is an arrow of time. Even if we _did_ have > microscopically irreversible laws, we likely would have the increase > in entropy going either direction from a starting state chosen at > random. Again we would come back to the non-random nature of the > current state, and its dependence on a highly ordered boundary > condition, after which, stuff happened. > Sean Carroll has proposal where he says that there was a universe before our current universe, but it was a static universe, with nothing but random fluctuations. Stuff would happen in it, and then unhappen just as easily. He proposes that our current universe happened as a random fluctuation that just gathered steam and grew and grew. Random fluctuations in this new universe have a directional bias, and stuff doesn't unhappen quite as easily. What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory | Wired Science | Wired.com http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/ Yousuf Khan
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 29 Jun 2010 15:37 On Jun 29, 4:45 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > Sean Carroll has proposal where he says that there was a universe before > our current universe, but it was a static universe, with nothing but > random fluctuations. Stuff would happen in it, and then unhappen just as > easily. > > He proposes that our current universe happened as a random fluctuation > that just gathered steam and grew and grew. Random fluctuations in this > new universe have a directional bias, and stuff doesn't unhappen quite > as easily. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Oh, fer shur man! Like....WOWWW! Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about multiverses, extra-dimensions, and the Big Bang preventing our eggs from unscrambling. I grant that his hand-waving arguments are creative, but they are also completely nuts. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Jun 2010 17:52
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:45 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Sean Carroll has proposal where he says that there was a universe before > > our current universe, but it was a static universe, with nothing but > > random fluctuations. Stuff would happen in it, and then unhappen just as > > easily. > > > He proposes that our current universe happened as a random fluctuation > > that just gathered steam and grew and grew. Random fluctuations in this > > new universe have a directional bias, and stuff doesn't unhappen quite > > as easily. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Oh, fer shur man! Like....WOWWW! > > Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the > sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about > multiverses, extra-dimensions, and the Big Bang preventing our eggs > from unscrambling. I grant that his hand-waving arguments are > creative, but they are also completely nuts. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Speaking of hand-waving, could you give a non-hand-waving answer to my question? I've asked you several times WHICH (college/University- level) physics courses you've satisfactorily completed. |