Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 3 Jul 2010 16:38 Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > On Jul 3, 6:45 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: I had an idea about time, too, and why we have no time reversal. Things, that are stable in time, we call matter. Events are not stable, but they could influence their surroundings - or their 'neighborhood'. If the neighborhood returns these 'influences', the former event will be re-created, but in the future. The influences 'split apart' to reach their neighborhood. If one neighbor 'decides' not to return those influences, the returning ones from the other neighbors will not recreate that state (because their counterpart is missing). Instead they would move on and radiate away. If we call the timelike stable states matter and those lost influences radiation, the choice by the neighbor, whether or not an influence is kept is done later than they where created by the original state. So the state has to move on in time, because it cannot decide, what the neighbor does and it cannot get back the influences, that have been radiated away. TH
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 17:15 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] Newtonian mechanics is deterministic, dipshit.
From: David Makin on 3 Jul 2010 19:39 Clearly one of the points being alluded to in this discussion is whether the universe - or existence if you prefer - should be treated as a fractal entity. The case that it should is very clear and straightforward. If treated in it's entireity as consisting of state changes then it *has* to be treated as being fractal because clearly at least some processes concerned are fractal in nature. *Anything* can be modelled using fractal math including standard platonics and differentiable dynamics but fractals require fractal math. Note that here I'm using the term fractal very loosely - to me fractal also encompasses chaos theory (not the other way round).
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Jul 2010 22:59 Yousuf Khan wrote: > 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. You are confused. Relativity says no such thing. In SR, "time dilation" applies to MEASUREMENTS of moving objects' time rates, not to the objects themselves. In a spaceship, one cannot observe any effects of time dilation on processes occurring inside the ship, even though an external observer would do so if the ship is moving with respect to the observer's frame, and if the observer made the measurements in the usual way by projecting onto her own coordinates. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Jul 2010 23:01
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > 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. I would say that to get such a disparity you are making assumptions in the computation that are unrealistic. I believe John Baez has a webpage on this.... Tom Roberts |