Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 4 Jul 2010 15:54 Huang schrieb: >>> The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe >>> has a fractal structure. >>> The difference is, that the universe means: everything. >>> The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, >>> that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, >>> planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. >>> TH > > > > I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. > I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. > I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. > I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. > I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. > > But so does my toilet when I flush. Makes a real nice vortice. > > A vortice or eddie is nothing but a particular type of geometric / > dynamical thing. What is the difference between this form and lines, > points, or planes. > > If I see large volumes, and inside the large volumes there are smaller > ones, and so on, they why cant I just say that spacetime itself is a > fractal because the property of volume exists on all scales and so you > have self similarity based on the notion of length, area, volume or > whatever ? > > You want to do this with dynamics. I agree, the universe may look like > that in ways. But visual inspection and mathematical analysis are 2 > dif things. What happens to the fractal on the quantum scale - thats > what I'd like to know. Kinematic equations do not work in QM, the > planetary model failed see : Neils Bohr, Bohr Atom, etc. > The fractal is created this way: We take a spherical structure of some size, say an apple, (what is a good example of this form of a vortex). This is not perfectly a sphere, but has an axis, we call timelike. The equator is spinning inside the connectors of the poles. This spin is called spacelike and is perpendicular to the axis. The system is 'lefthanded', what means the left hands thumb points towards the future and the other fingers in the direction of the spin. The connectors return to the other pole, while the sphere would spin. Inside the sphere we have a screw (or a vortex, if we look from the top). This is the general scheme. The size of this form is scaled up or down, and the small vortices are embedded inside the larger ones, going up or down to infinity. Any such 'step' has a typical frequency, depending on the size of the sphere. Larger spheres have lower frequencies, going up or down to infinity. Infinitely low is zero frequency or stability. Infinitely high frequency is a point or a singularity. Now we need to rotate the picture and make the singularity expand, while the infinite large sphere would contract, but simultaneously. This alters the relations and the spacelike rotation gets timelike (or contracts), while the timelike connections expand. TH
From: Huang on 4 Jul 2010 16:09 On Jul 4, 2:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/4/10 1:33 PM, Huang wrote: > > > I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. > > The majority of galaxies are not spirals! > > > I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. > > Atoms don't "look like" or behave like vortices! > > > I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. > > Planetary system do not rotate like vortices. For our > solar system to rotate like a vortex, angular momentum > divided by mass for each planet would be the same. And > of course, that is not the case. > > > I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. > > Eddy currents are source, geometry and material dependent. > In general they are not vorticies in any sense. > > > I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. > > Perhaps you do, but my frog does not. > > = Right. Imagination has much flexibility, empiricism does not. If a galaxy looks like an eddie now, but later it will evolve into a cluster, is it still an eddie. Or was it a cluster all along. Just trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt.
From: bert on 4 Jul 2010 18:10 On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2 Juli, 21:15, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 9:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 7:41 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Alright, I'll bite, and give you the time of day to explain yourself. > > > > What exactly are you saying that is any different than what we call > > > > "causal time"? > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > 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. > > > > (b) Causality is the first and most fundamental principle of nature. > > > > (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. > > > > A bit subtle, I admit. But a thousand times better than Carroll's > > > untestable postmodern pseudoscience. > > > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > > There is only one direction of time and that is ahead. It is the same > > for space. You are always moving ahead in space-time. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > Actually you could consider a prerendered universe where our realtime > destinies already settled as they go along. > You think that decision just not made yet. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - SpaceTime reversal is the heart of my 5th force theory. Its the only theory that takes in the entire cosmos. TreBert
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jul 2010 00:02 On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/4/10 12:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe > > has a fractal structure. > > The difference is, that the universe means: everything. > > The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, > > that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, > > planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. > > -TH ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Obviously not fractal. Atoms don't behave anything like planetary > systems and irregular galaxies. - SW ---------------------------------------------------------- Sam, I can show you atoms that behave very much like planetary systems, in fact the atomic physicists who study them call them "PLANETARY ATOMS". Ever heard of them? They are atoms in highly excited Rydberg states. They involve particle- like electron wavefunctions, planarity, and orbiting just like the Solar System. Here is a direct quotation from a Physical Review paper: "We predict the existence of a self-sustained one-electron wave packet moving on a circular orbit in the helium atom. The wave packet is localized in space, but does not spread in time. This is a realization within quantum theory of a classical object that has been called a "Rutherford atom," a localized planetary electron on an unquantized circular orbit under the influence of a massive charged core." "[W]e provide the first demonstration of the existence of what has been called [14] a "Rutherford atom," i.e., the wave function for a single electron moving on an unquantized stable and nonspreading planetary orbit about a massive charged core." ----------------------------------- I can also show you atoms and stars displaying unique and rigorous discrete self-similarity, including masses, shapes, physical behavior and frequency spectra that match up amazingly well. See: http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0510/0510147.pdf The problem is that you are still thinking in terms of mid-20th century atoms. We have learned alot about atoms since then. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jul 2010 00:16
On Jul 4, 1:12 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > 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 state. ------------------------------------------------------- Hi Thomas, You are certainly a font of ideas! If you want scientists to seriously consider your ideas, then you must offer them some nice elegant retrodictions, and hopefully one or two definitive predictions. There are so many new ideas floated out every day from arxiv.org and the web that one needs a way to sift the wheat from the chaff. Science does this via retrodictions and predictions/testing. Saying the uinverse is a 143-dimensional hyper-vuvuzela is dandy, but if it can't be tested empirically what good is the idea? So I would encourage you to work towards a few good retrodictions and predictions for your ideas. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |