From: Sam Wormley on
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
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
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
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
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.