Date disaster in 30 year's time?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iTunes - sync Gmail contacts ?
Next: Bookmark Syncing
From: Peter Ceresole on 5 Mar 2010 06:39 whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > Because there is nothing to understand. > > yes there is, the idea that time only travels in one direction. I thought the idea was that time moves in the direction of increasing entropy? Of course the actual mechanism is unknown, along with so much else, but it explains the irreversibility. But, as entanglement shows, it's all sitting on top of something about which we have no idea at all. -- Peter
From: J. J. Lodder on 5 Mar 2010 07:02 whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "J. J. Lodder" <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message > news:1jevm6t.1pma4wq1glg0a2N(a)de-ster.xs4all.nl... > > wRowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Well, checking Palm desktop running (very nicely) under OS10.4.11, > >> > > > in > >> > > > mid-Feb 2040 it wraps round to 1904. > >> > > > >> > > That's true of real time, too. Physicists haven't noticed. > >> > > >> > They probably have- or they've seen it but not understood the > >> > significance... > >> > >> No-one understands time, not yet. > > > > Because there is nothing to understand. > > yes there is, the idea that time only travels in one direction. Irreversibility is well understood. > >> Hell, no-one understand gravity and > >> it's a damned sight easier to investigate than time. > > > > That's the hard one. > Hopefully the LHC will find something. > Hopefully soemthing more than bagles gum up the works. That's extremely unlikely, Jan
From: J. J. Lodder on 5 Mar 2010 07:02 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > > > Because there is nothing to understand. > > > > yes there is, the idea that time only travels in one direction. > > I thought the idea was that time moves in the direction of increasing > entropy? > > Of course the actual mechanism is unknown, along with so much else, but > it explains the irreversibility. > > But, as entanglement shows, it's all sitting on top of something about > which we have no idea at all. Why? It is just standard quantum mechanics. Counter-intuitive, sure, but no real problems, Jan
From: Peter Ceresole on 5 Mar 2010 07:18 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > But, as entanglement shows, it's all sitting on top of something about > > which we have no idea at all. > > Why? It is just standard quantum mechanics. > Counter-intuitive, sure, but no real problems, Not at all. Entaglement is *not* standard quantum mechanics. That's the whole problem. -- Peter
From: J. J. Lodder on 5 Mar 2010 07:51
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > But, as entanglement shows, it's all sitting on top of something about > > > which we have no idea at all. > > > > Why? It is just standard quantum mechanics. > > Counter-intuitive, sure, but no real problems, > > Not at all. Entaglement is *not* standard quantum mechanics. That's the > whole problem. But it is. (As Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen already knew) It is an inevitable consequence of standard QM when parts of a large system (which obeys standard QM) are considered. Jan |