Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:07 On Jul 3, 1:42 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Prove it. > It would take less than one page to do. -------------------------------------- In journals like Nature and the Journal of Theoretical Biology, many authors have demonstrated empirically and analytically how fractal structures are energetically favored and maximize the efficiency collecting light (see: Phyllotaxis), or maximizing the absorption of oxygen in the lungs, or the absorption of nutrients in the intestines. There is a huge literature on this subject, which you are probably totally oblivious of. If you want a start with lots of bang for the buck, buy Ian Stewart's book entitled "Life's Other Secret". You have much to learn, but every great journey begins with a single step. RLO http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:11 On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > Rob, let's hope that your notion will get some traction. The > study of SEFC (Self Similarity/Emergence/Fractals&Chaos) > may bring on hope to clean & rid the slate of all those retarded > Einstein Dingleberries who have prevented the progress of > Fundamental Physics for more than a century now. > Keep at it, guys. Kudos and Congrats... --- hanson ---------------------------------------------------- So you have a fixed idea that Einstein was not a great physicist? I regard Einstein as one one the three greatest natural philosophers of all time. The other two are Democritus and Spinoza. And no, I definitely do not want to discuss this particular subject any further. RLO http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:24 On Jul 3, 3:59 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > Well, I guess I'm an idealist, too, and posting here as kind of hobby. > What I write is based on my own understanding and that is certainly > limited. But that's how it goes and I can only tell, what I think is right. > On the other hand I assume, that some posters know, that it couldn't be > right, what they are saying. Only, in the end the better ideas will > 'win' and there is no way to block that. Knowledge is distributing on an > exponential curve. That stays low for a very long time, but now we see > the curve is rising and that is the point for dramatic changes. ------------------------------------------------------ TH, This is a reasonable place to try out new ideas, arguments, polemics and speculations, if you have a thick enough skin to withstand the barking dogs. Also, in trying to communicate your ideas to others, you learn where the weak points are and where you need to put in more work. Virtually every person who has come up with a good new idea has faced two problems. (1) Their initial efforts are little more than a general direction for inquiry, based mostly on intuition , and with many glitches that cannot be answered immediately. (2) Others will tell you that you are completely wrong, e.g., Planck telling Einstein that non-Newtonian gravitation would be a non- starter, or Pauli telling Goudschmidt and Ulenbeck that the idea of electron spin was provably wrong, etc. ,etc., etc., ... Don't be discouraged, but do let nature be an empirical guide and final arbiter. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:34 On Jul 3, 4:38 pm, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To evaluate this idea I would need an exact physical model to think about. Is the matter going to be a single atom, or bulk matter? You could use the annihilation of an electron and a positron. They move towards each other, annihilate into pure radiation energy, and this moves away from the point of interaction, but if enough energy in the surroundings is compressed into a small enough volume, then a new electron-positron pair can be created. This is known to happen in nature, close to very dense objects like black holes and neutron stars. Just make sure your proposed physical events are fully ordered by causality. This constitutes the real "arrow of time". Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:52
On Jul 3, 5:15 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > [...] > Newtonian mechanics is deterministic, dipshit. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I hate to break it to you, Woofster, but so is GR, nonlinear dynamical systems, the Schroedinger equation, and every real physical system in nature. Modern physics has taught most of us that a strong limits on predictability do not in any way violate determinism. The behavior of deterministic systems can be highly predictable, or moderately predictable, or only minimally predictable. Does that clear things up for you, or did I misunderstand your cryptic and petulant comment? RLO http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1 |