Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 29 Jun 2010 18:18 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. In other words, it was heat dead. > > 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. But even a heat dead universe, left to itself for infinite time, will develop whopping big fluctuations. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. Wow. That's a pretty strong accusation. I guess I will have to read the cited account to see if I have a strong opinion too, or merely (consonant with my meta-philosophy of "stuff happening") a "whatever".
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 29 Jun 2010 19:15 On Jun 29, 5:52 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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.- Hide quoted text - ------------------------------------------------------- Next, I suppose you will want to know how many "Hail Bohr"s I have said. Or whether I subscribe to "Popular Mechanics". RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 29 Jun 2010 19:40 On Jun 29, 7:15 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 29, 5:52 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Next, I suppose you will want to know how many "Hail Bohr"s I have > said. No. You present yourself as a self-styled academic, even using an email address of a University to which you have no professional affiliation. This is obviously intentionally deceptive, if not terribly effective. First thing I did when I saw your email address/ URL was look at the faculty listings for Amherst, and saw that you weren't on the list. You try to solve the types of problems that academics try to solve, and you try (very poorly) to write manuscripts in the style of academics. Questions of academic preparation and background are entirely appropriate. Just because someone has extensive preparation and training in the sciences does not make them infallible, but it sets a minimal level and standard of competence. At least if you responded,"I have completed no physics courses at the college level", I could respect your honesty and forthrightness. > > Or whether I subscribe to "Popular Mechanics". Just be honest, and respond,"I have completed no physics or mathematics or chemistry courses at the College level." > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: BURT on 29 Jun 2010 20:03 On Jun 29, 3:18 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > 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. > > In other words, it was heat dead. > > > > 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. > > But even a heat dead universe, left to itself for infinite time, will > develop whopping big fluctuations. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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. > > Wow. That's a pretty strong accusation. I guess I will have to read > the cited account to see if I have a strong opinion too, or merely > (consonant with my meta-philosophy of "stuff happening") a "whatever". The way to look at time is that it is going forward. And the arrow isn't a relative like up and down. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 29 Jun 2010 23:01
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the > sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about Doctor, not mister. Respect your betters. > 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 |