Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 4 Jul 2010 00:00 On Jul 3, 11:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, Tiny Tom, would you accept Nobelist Frank Wilczek's opinion on this matter? Read: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3381.pdf Therein you will find Wilczek's assessment of the situation right at the beginning. See if you can learn something instead of posing as an infallible font of physics knowledge. And shouldn't you be over at SPF arguing with Charles Francis about the meaning of tensors? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Thomas Heger on 4 Jul 2010 01:12 Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > 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. > The idea is to 'geometrise time'. There is -of course- a good paper about this, called 'Geometry of Time' by Alexander Franklin Meyer. He -btw- shows, that stars follow a fractal law of distribution. http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/book.html I'm doing something with complex four-vectors (sometimes called bi-quaternions). This is like a generalization of GR. About this exists a good paper from Jonathan Scott: "Complex Four-Vector Algebra" http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/cfv.pdf My own paper you find here: "Structured spacetime and trialities" http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 As I have some trouble with that kind of math in practical use, I have drawn my ideas, since for creating pictures I have some talents. > Is the matter going to be a single atom, or bulk matter? > My concept is in practice the negative to the particle concept. It assumes, that matter is a structure, composed out of connections. This resembles a bit a tornado, that is a vortex. These vortices are countable substructures of a continuum (in case of a tornado it's air). The 'air' in my model I call spacetime. This is based on connections I call 'influences'. These are modeled with quaternions. The assumption is, that any points 'wants to get rid of' those influences and pass them away if possible. But they bounce back, because the neighbors 'don't want them' neither, so they got trapped at certain spots, we call matter. The connections are than, what we call fields, because they connect those spots. > 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. > For particle anti-particle annihilation I assume the opposite behavior of 'un-trapped patterns'. As I assume a generally left-handed behavior of spacetime, right-handed substructures are the anti-entities. Those are possible, but unlikely. That is like a particle in a mirror. > Just make sure your proposed physical events are fully ordered by > causality. This constitutes the real "arrow of time". The very counter-intuitive aspect of this concept is, that it could have timelines, that are 'perpendicular' to ours. That means something like Wick rotation to our timeline, where a new and different space appears. With such a shift all other relations are shifted, too. That means the connections and the vortices could be exchanged. And the change could be done smooth. That means, we could alter the temporal context of a state. So there are no 'real arrows of time', because time is a local concept for any such sate. TH
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jul 2010 09:04 On 7/3/10 10:24 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Don't be discouraged, but do let nature be an empirical guide and > final arbiter. There is no choice, observation is the final arbiter, Oldershaw!
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jul 2010 09:08 On 7/3/10 10:07 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > 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. Doesn't work over the range of atoms to galaxies!
From: mpc755 on 4 Jul 2010 09:11
On Jul 4, 9:04 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/3/10 10:24 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > Don't be discouraged, but do let nature be an empirical guide and > > final arbiter. > > There is no choice, observation is the final arbiter, Oldershaw! Observation of double slit experiments is evidence of an associated aether wave entering and exiting multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory' Louis de BROGLIE http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "This result may be interpretated by stating that the current statistical theory considers as spread out in the entire wave, devoid of singularity, that which in reality is totally concentrated in the singularity. It is on account of the foregoing interpretation that I simultaneously considered two distinct solutions of the wave propagation equation connected by eq. (33), one, v, having physical reality, and the other, ø, normed, and of statistical character. I therefore named this reinterpretation of wave mechanics the double solution theory. By distinction of the two waves v and ø, the mystery of the double character, subjective and objective, of the wave in the usual theory, vanishes, and one no longer has to give a simple probability representation the strange property of creating observable phenomena." A probability is not an observation. 'Scientists supersize quantum mechanics' http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously." What is observed vibrating are the associated aether waves. |