Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Yousuf Khan on 2 Jul 2010 16:57 On 7/3/2010 1:08 AM, JT wrote: > Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up. > Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are > accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form. > So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the > bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in > every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the > line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none > of those is however proved. > > But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will > measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And > that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special > relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that > can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and > spatial. Well, if you think about it, in special relativity, all they are really saying is that causality is slowed down at relativistic speeds. Chemical reactions, biological processes, kinetic processes, all occur at slower rates. Yousuf Khan
From: BURT on 2 Jul 2010 17:47 On Jul 2, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/2/2010 10:58 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > > > > > Sean M. Carroll's argument, and that of many other physicists, is > > that: > > > (1) the "laws of physics in the microcosm are reversible" > > > (2) time has an arrow, it only goes one way. > > > (3) It's all the fault of the Big Bang, multiverses, Boltzmann Brains, > > extra dimensions, etc. > > -------------------------------------------- > > > RLO's argument is that: > > > (a) the "laws" [read artifical human models] are reversible, but > > nature's physical systems and their interactions are NOT. Real > > physical systems and interactions are irreversible. Always. > > That's of course not true. There's plenty of things in the universe that > are reversible. Earth's orbit around the Sun, for example, is so > reversible that you can roll it back in time billions of years, and > still be able to tell where it was. You could also roll it forward > billions of years, and tell where it will be. > > As long as the interaction doesn't involve any entropy changes, > processes can be perfectly reversible. Of course, at some point the Sun > and the Solar system was created, which involved entropy changes, and at > some point in the future, the Sun will fade out, which is also entropy > changes. Those processes are not reversible. > > > (b) Causality is the first and most fundamental principle of nature. > > If you say so. I don't want to belabour this point, but whether it's the > *first* most fundamental principle of nature is debatable, but it > certainly is highly fundamental. > > > (c) It is causality that determines the arrow, not time. Time is a > > purely relational concept we use to order causal sequences, and to > > measure the relative rates at which two causal sequences occur. > > You see, this is where you're not thinking carefully enough. At the > quantum level, causality is still preserved, but you just can't tell > which way the film is running. Almost all of the processes that occur in > the quantum realm, can be reversed exactly. If A happens, then B occurs > is just as likely as if B happens, then A occurs. For example if a > photon hits an electron, then the electron gains energy and jumps up an > orbital level. But if you run that film backwards, you see exactly the > process by which an electron loses energy, emits a photon, and falls > back down an orbital level. Causality is preserved completely in both > these two cases. > > > A bit subtle, I admit. But a thousand times better than Carroll's > > untestable postmodern pseudoscience. > > Time does affect causality. At relativistic speeds, time slows down, and > therefore causality slows down too. Chemical reactions slow down, > biological processes slow down, therefore a person traveling at > relativistic speeds will age slower than somebody standing still (i.e. > the Einstein twin paradox). > > Yousuf Khan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You're clock is running slow but it is always going forward! Mitch Raemsch
From: Androcles on 2 Jul 2010 20:02 "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sNudneDXHbJbz7PRnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... | On 7/3/2010 1:08 AM, JT wrote: | > Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up. | > Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are | > accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form. | > So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the | > bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in | > every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the | > line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none | > of those is however proved. | > | > But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will | > measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And | > that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special | > relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that | > can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and | > spatial. | | Well, if you think about it, in special relativity, all they are really | saying is that causality is slowed down at relativistic speeds. Chemical | reactions, biological processes, kinetic processes, all occur at slower | rates. | | Yousuf Khan Well, if *you* think ab... but you can't, can you? A slower rate than what? Do you have any idea what a rate is? Well, if you think about it, in special relativity, all they are really saying is that there are longer metres than metres. |
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 2 Jul 2010 22:55 On Jul 2, 3:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > as well as the modern physics theories, such as QED, enjoy the fact > that there has never been an observation that contradicts a prediction > of those theories. ----------------------------------------------- Have you ever heard about the vacuum energy density crisis? Disparity = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,...total is 120 zeros. I would say that is a, shall we say, significant contradiction from what General Relativity and modern cosmology estimate for the vacuum energy density. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 2 Jul 2010 23:11
On Jul 2, 4:51 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > That's of course not true. There's plenty of things in the universe that > are reversible. Earth's orbit around the Sun, for example, is so > reversible that you can roll it back in time billions of years, and > still be able to tell where it was. You could also roll it forward > billions of years, and tell where it will be. -------------------------------------------------- My dear benighted fellow! Have you never heard of Henri Poincare and his work on the stability of the Solar System, and the discovery of deterministic chaos/nonlinear dynamical systems? Do you read current scientific papers? You are talking pre-Poincare 19th century fantasy physics which was wrong even back then. To espouse such nonsense today is pathetic! Any competent physicist will inform you that your statement is completely ridiculous and false, to boot. At least try to come up to speed with the 20th century, if you are not ready to go forth boldly into the 21st century. KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, AND KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. Both are important, Pilgrim. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |