Mystery111

No. Sense maybe, physically, no, that ain't a W boson.

''1) What is the reason for disorder (or increase in entropy) according to second law of thermodynamics?'' The reason for disorder is simply the fact of the evolution of objects. You imagine the first instant of time; the objects cannot remain the way they were, this would violate the uncertainty principle, so disorder, the movement of objects in a space happens because to avoid the violation of physical principles. ''2) How can we apply this second law of thermodynamics to the evolution and cyclic universes?'' Time doesn't appear to be cyclic. It's an often misused concept, along with time's arrow and the flow of time, even time reversibility which would be involved in cyclic universe theories. Anyway, the evolution of a collection of particles is the idea their dymanics change with each passing measurement made on the system. Not just an idea in fact, it is a measured observable fact. You can reverse entropy, but you can't reverse time as we know it. Say you have a box with a very small amount of particles, let's say [math]10^6[/math] particles. Eventually those particles may or may not end up in the states they began. This is an example of reversing entropy but not time itself. ''3) What is the reason for not converting, potential energy into 100% kinetic energy in internal combustion engine?'' Why a 100% Can you define your question again please. Why is that important for instance?

((Note)) --- sorry I made a mistake in the OP. It aint 60 degrees in the turn from real time to imaginary, it's 90 degrees. Just read that and realized what I put there.

I don't believe that the Pauli Exclusion Principle really states that like charge particles repel. That is a matter of electrodynamics. Pauli's Exclusion Principle really says that spin is cancelled out. If a particle has a spin down for instance when interacting with another particle, then the other particle will exhibit a spin up. In effect, what I think you where saying from the nature of your post, is that due to spin coherence there is no one energy level in an atom which can be occupied by two fermions sharing the same spin directionality. My calculation only works for one dimension. The true calculation should be [math]3 \cdot 10^{80}[/math] particles in the observable universe, 3 to account for the three dimensions of space. This aint virtual particle stuff I am talking about.

I also noticed doctor rocket said I had said this as well. Which is a lie. I never said anything of sort. Fair do's. Dammit swanson. I liked your post, but still waiting for an orgasm. :/

There are applications of a global time - such as the Wheeler de Witt equation. This global time however, the time derivative containing all the dynamics of the matter field and radiation field vanishes. So in a way, you try and establish a global time, but it fails. Motion in general relativity is also a symmetry of the theory, not even a true time evolution. It might even be said, that General Relativity (in respect to time) breaks down on large scales. This might be a mathematical discrepency, or it might be something more sinister, like a singularity being implied when speaking about the absence of a global time. In fact, if a singularity arises when speaking about the absence of a global time, then maybe a global time should not be absent!

There are certainly approaches. Quantum field theory is often said to design the vacuum like a grainy, bubbling couldren of quantum particles.

Since you have such a good grasp of what he talking about, I'll leave it to you. Also Michel, I don't know about you, but I travel in time on a daily basis. You may want to refine what you mean by this statement.

I don't think there is any other universes, and I never have, Hawking might believe it, IN FACT, some of the best minds might believe this, butt I certainly don't!! I think it's a load of rubbish. I share the same views Smolin does.

You seem to be hooking up a bunch of lines and called it ''time''. There is only an imaginary space leg which we call time, that is one more dimension of space which we call time. I am afraid, your diagram is nonesense.

Psuedoscience I am afraid. I believe Fred Hoyle once said you could pop up in another universe and never know you actually did. You could wake up to a new spouse every morning but the quantum information would never let you know the difference. That was an anecdote but a little science behind it. Sounds like this site is using this anecdote.

The past does not exist ''now'' because that would be in direct contradiction with our frame of reference and agreement of what ''now'' is happening. As for ''my theory'' not dealing with a past and future, is simply because there is no past or future to deal with. You seemed intelligent enough to figure this out for yourself, but you seem to have totally went off on a new tangent, most probably based on your own Ontological look of time. It's as I said before, the only way to have a present time is believing that what we call ''past'' is really just another frame-dependant present time. To us, indeed, this is something not happening any more, but this is caused by nothing but being slam dunk in the present moment - The thing we call future is nothing but a present moment. My theory doesn't deal with the concepts of past and future because as we know, as a boundary between our own present time frame is just one big illusion. You can't deal with something which doesn't really exist. If anything, the past and future will only be used by me as a calculational tool but not as real fascets of the physical world.

What part of quantum theory not accepting a past and future don't exist do you not understand? It's not my fault you are still grappling with that idea. Past tense means over and done, not just a "notion." There is no "it" (reification of 'past tense') to "have a present." Whatever has already happened IS not Now happening, not still present. yes from our frame of reference this must be true. Listen, I am very buisy lately. Do me a favour and remove this ''past present future'' nonesense. Your work seems dependant on it.

I can't explain it any better than I will now: The present time means ''the present'' - this is going to get complicated.... My sentance saying that the past has a now that is happening is very strange, there is no words which can really describe it properly, but I will try. The past tense can't be just a ''past notion''. It must have a present moment - this is frame-dependant though because we have a ''now'' as well. A way to imagine the present frame of time is by saying each present moment happens in their own frames of reference, they do not happen simultaneously. If it did, reality would be over in one great flash of existance. Instead one present moment must be surpassed by another - this is what is implying by a present moment passing. It does not pass us in any flow, but our frame shifts. We no longer have experience we had of a present moment simply because our frame of reference is moving through time. Saying you can have present moments happening now, is a ''now'' depending on the present and from the frame of the measurer. You can have many present time's, and one way to imagine how you can have an event happening now, but not within our frame of ''now'' is when relativity questions the simultaneity of two events when an observer is concerned. In short, the relativity of simultaneity is concerned if two events actually happened at the time. The answer turns out that the events are not absolute and completely frame dependant. So if two elapsed moments in time for two events [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] will not be the same. It is a relative matter. So you can have more than one present moment for two different frames that are ''happening'' - let's be honest, the events are still happening but the real question is whether they will differ on when each event happened.

Well as far we can tell, there is no such thing as a ''universal present''. Unless Owl meant it very loosely to describe that there is only the present time ever in existence. I call it an eternal present - a present time in the universe for each objects frame.

''How can the past (no longer present) "have a now that is happening?" As per the "block universe" theory based on eternalism, in which the past and future are all somehow still present? (see below.) Quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: from my post 317 in Ontology of Time; Quote Presentism is the view that only present objects exist. More precisely, it is the view that, necessarily, it is always true that only present objects exist. One version of Non-presentism is Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. According to Eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist right now, even though they are not currently present....'' Block Universe would imply simultaneous past and future present states. There maybe a number of reasons why this might be a good model... but for me, it just doesn't work. Let's be clear. I think we both agree that nothing ever exists other than in the present moment. There is nothing in theory, and it is from here we 'might' differ... is that in theory there is nothing which stopped us from believe that one present moment can be replaced by another present moment. That almost certainly places a limit on simply believing all present moments are happening simultaneously. You can have a present moment in the past which is happening by definition ''because it is a present moment'' but we have the special ability to discern this ''present moment, here and now'' from any other present moment which may be in our past and in our future. Technically-speaking, our present moment, in fact no present moment is really special. You could have an infinite bundle of these present moments and in no way distinguish which present moment most accurately fits the current picture - instead to be able to do this, you must be able to discern the current present sphere we are in from any other. It is a contradiction to say more than one present moment can exist, especially when ''we'' are involved. That kind of behaviour mirrors the wave function. Let me explain: You can have actually many different pasts. Let us equally say this ''sum over histories'' is in fact a ''sum over present histories''. This only happened because no one is around to view the present system and break it out of it's superpositioning. (In fact you can make a measurement in the present and effect the past, but that is a more complicated scenario). Focusing on the sum over histories example, we as recording devices acting as observers don't see this quantum weirdness on our levels. If we could, and we simply stopped to view this system, all the histories would deflate and what would be yielded is the most probable history. You can have many present moments, so it seems acting simultaneously but, it seems you cannot have it always that way. Having a past and future happening simultaneously doesn't seem to work very well, or it causes a lot of confusion and raises a great many questions. One might argue, creates more problems than what it solves. ''How can the past (which is no longer present) have a now that is happening?'' Odd isn't it I have said that the past and future do not happen simultaneously but yet, above this statement seems to contradict it. It is odd, but there are ways round it. Suppose I wanted you at face value to just accept that no present moment in the past or future happen simultaneously. Ok. However, I also want you to believe every part of our past had a present moment, or even has a present moment. I don't want to talk to much in the past tense; dynamically you are able to effect the past even from the future. I gave an example of this above, but never named it. It is called the Wheelers Delayed Choice Experiment. According to this experiment, effecting the wave function of a particle now in the present moment of time can effect the original state of that system in the past. For that to happen, there must be ''information'' being carried in the wave function back to the source where our particle was emitted. Imagine a photon being emitted from a star in the past, lets say 7 billion years ago, and direction is irrelevent. All we need to know is that this particle has travelled the galaxy taking every route possible; this is our old friend, the Sum Over Histories, or as I called it, a Sum over all Present Times. The photon reaches Earth and hits a scientists detector screen and something remarkable happens. All those possible histories suddenly deflate to a single value, a single existence and a single history. So is there a way physics can say, keeping in line that the past is still the past but isn't, if you know what I mean? Instead of us being lazy and saying all present moments are happening simultaneously, it can still be safe to say that the past and future have present moments, and are happening, they just aren't happening simultaneously. This must be true, afterall, if you can effect the wave function of something and make it's past state more real, then the past state must be happpening. This is a matter of choice. For instance, I raise a question. If all present states are happening right now, what is stopping anyone from saying that all present states happen all time? Sure, you cannot reverse the entropy of a system once the egg has fallen and cracked on the floor. So the only way to say time is simultaneous in regards to all present moments is also to say that every present moment is happening now alongside our own present moment, and continues to do so as we move from one frame of time to another. Or you can believe my picture. Present time exists for the past, but is not happening simultaneously with our own. The past is happening for it's own present time, but for our present frame it is not. '' It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",[2] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time*. I commented: Count me among the opposition. The above denies presentism, that the future is not yet here and real and that the past is not still here and real. You seem to agree. Right?'' Partially. Again, the past is happening, it has it's own ''now''. It does not act simultaneous however to the future present state. I think theory allows one present moment to be suceeded by another. The past-tense moment is still a present moment however. It is just not currently THE present moment in respect to our observations. To give you some taste of Absorber Theory in the Transactional Interpretation Method of treating the wave function as time-symmetric function you have one quantum wave moving forward in time, classically names ''an offer wave'' and a wave moving back in time ''echo wave.'' This is an advanced and retarded wave solution of the form F1~e^[i(kr - ωt] G1~e^[-i(kr - ωt] The idea is that the the absorbing electron responding to the incident of the retarded field F1 in such a way it will gain energy, recoil, and produce a new retarded field F2=-F1 which exactly cancels the incident field F1. The net field after such a transaction is zero. F(net) = (F1 + F2) = 0 The Transactional Intepretation is the only interpretation of the Wheeler delayed choice experiment which makes most sense.

''I am not confused at all by your misleading use of buzz words, and misuse of the associated concepts.. But, unlike you, I understand those concepts'' Mmmm bitchy Rocket. Very bitchy. I am sure I understand these concepts quite well thank you. I've had some of the best teachers. ''The issue is not whether we exist eternally in the present. That is a triviality. The issue lies with the assertion that there is a global notion of "present", hence time, valid throughout the universe. There is, in fact, no such notion.'' Then you better start keeping up to track with the actual conversation (doctor?) rocket. No one mentioned anything about a universal present. ''Your emphasis was on the word real, which merely comes for free with a Lorentzian manifold. I had already, several times, pointed out that a time coordinate is purely local, an approximation taken from the tangent space to the spacetime manifold at av given point.'' No, the word ''real'' is an emphasis on the nature of time Rocket. Measurements (which defines time) are always real and local. ''Global time does not result in singularities. '' http://www.fqxi.org/...timecontest.pdf ''The Wheeler Dewitt equation has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. You accuse me of not knowing buzzwords when it is quite evident you don't even know the real arguement at hand based on this reply of yours. The Wheeler deWitt equation has everything to do with a global time, where time derivative vanishes - it was the core arguement for a timeless universe as an incompatibility of GR and quantum mechanics. Please understand these subjects before you frivolously throw them away. I will provide you with one reading material, which highlights the Wheeler deWitt equation. If you will not read that, then study it yourself. It is called the ''Time Problem'' of quantum mechanics. You will find massive reading on the subject. There is that one peice of reading material. Enjoy, holds everything need to be known at this point about the WDW equation. http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf

What is ''Universal Present'' to you exactly? I have said an ''Eternal Present'' - I know what is meant by this, do you? You do realize that the past and future don't really exist simultaneously to the current present frame right? ''The fact that time is a local real variable is completely irrelevant. '' Do as you say then.... it was you who mentioned time being local and does not apply to the universe as a global time; which by the way, global time results in singularities. Global Time does not manifest itself and maybe this is reflected in the Wheeler deWitt equation where the time derivative vanishes. Oops, I better be careful not use too many buzzwords. It seems to confuse you I still don't understand why the flatness of the universe was brought up. Nor do I understand your objection to my statement that there is atleast 100,000th degree of an error for flatness in all directions, (making the universe almost flat). My statement is absolutely correct within the framework of Astrophysics, but I can't fathom why you even brought it up Rocket maybe you could elucidate.

I know what it means, it's quite clear you haven't a clue. And homogeneity is perfectly correct, in the way I was using it. In what sense are you using it?

It's very close to being homogeneous; It is homogeneous to 100,000th of an error in each direction of spacetime we observe. Ahem... anyway... I do understand what the Wheeler de Witt equation is. And it may seem like buzzwords, but I know it acts as a solution to the EFE's and the wave function it describes is the wave function of the universe. Bing Bang Bosh. Owl I've opened up a thread on time, take the qoute up there and I will answer it, if I can. It's the quantum mechanical view. How more correct could it be? Doctor Rocket maybe I will call your bluff afterall. You have admitted yourself that time description is a local event. It is also a local, real variable. Events only ever happen in the present moment and observations made in real time. Perhaps you would like to tell me why a universal present is ''obsurd.'' With all the evidence that everything exists inside the present sphere, what evidence do you have other than saying time is not global that presentism, or certain fascets of it are.... simply hogwash? I know you have strong opinions about this, we've clashed before on the subject, so I hope you can recite references and whatnot.

I agree with you. The references are only used to refer to the subject at that moment. Is this the physics textbook here we are referring to? The only qoute of importance is the part which says that no such thing as a times arrow exists. Anyway, I totally agree. Time does not move or flow.

It's a bit short, maybe more detail could have gone in, but I said to Appolinaria that I would write a thread up on time. Since the recent interest in it, I thought best do it now. The Theory of Time Quantum physics brought a new understanding, a new picture if you like of time and the way we previously understood time seemed to prove innacurate. The theory seemed to predict that there was actually no flow to time [1][2], a strange new understanding in current theoretical physics as we seem to have the experience that there is some kind of linear flow to time. General Relativity also generates motion that is a symmetry of the theory it is not a true time evolution. Diffeomorphism constraints on the theory return a vanishing time derivative which gives rise to the existence of the General Relativistic Wheeler-deWitt Equation. This equation has a wave function which describes the entire universe. In this equation there is no real time evolution. This leads to a new concept of timelessness; a universe where there is no dynamical change as a whole. This leads to yet another paradox since inside the universe, us, as intelligent recording devices seem to have an experience of objects dynamically changing from one moment to another. It seems that our psychology may play the largest part of all when concerning why time seems to flow into the future from our past; in fact Newton said it best, "absolute, true, and mathematical time" which "in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flows uniformly and by another name is called duration" with what he defined as "relative, apparent and common time". It seems to have the ability to sense time pass, where events are changing requires the ability to discern a past and future where you are stuck in a present frame of time. To have the ability to sense a flow, the brain must take a series of events and mold them into our psychological understanding. For us to have this linearity, we take the past as an objective fact of experience: The future is evident to us as a history we are yet to explore. This happens, we presume, when one passing moment suceeds to another in total symmetry with the idea that somehow space is linear. Well, one hard thing for the mind to comprehend is the fourth dimension of space. It is an imaginary leg off the real spacetime triangle and this leg is part of the ordinary geometry of the universe; this leg is the imaginary space dimension of time. The geometry of ordinary space has time as part of this structure. This should not be ignored, but it should also be noted that the idea might be flawed. It is true time in every respect of the sense, seems an invariant of space. But space is not divided into a past and a future where there is the present frame according to physics. In fact, the most famous account of this was spoken by Einstein: ''For those of us who believe in physics... The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." This would mean that there must be something drastically wrong with our classical way of thinking about time; the way Newton himself defined as. If there is no such thing as a past and a future, it would mean on the drastic scale of things, that there only ever existed the present time. The boundary between past and future are explicitely part of our make-up... so there would be a gene responsible right? Right. It's called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. A gene which regulates the perception of time; it is the reason why we may feel one event seem longer in a short time, than one in a short time but feels longer. Actually, the human body has atleast seven internal clocks which regulate certain cycles such as eating, drinking and sleeping. So it seems that ultimately, time seems to exist (to us) because of our biology and our psychological make-up. It certainly places a lot of questions on whether time is actually an objective feature of the world. Another question that might be raised, is whether timeless models such as the Wheeler deWitt equation describe real time evolution. In Prof. Hawking's model, the universe can be modelled under an imaginary time. In this model, you simply shift the way you view evolution. Turning your equations time parameter [math]60^o[/math] you are able to view the universe as though it has no boundaries and thus eliminated the idea that our universe had a beginning. Hawking stresses however that the big bang still happened, it's just a new way to view the universe under a different time description. The events we actually experience are real time events. The moments we observe in present time are made in real time evolution with reality appearing as the square of the wave function. So it must be said that objective time may not exist, but indeed time may not even exist at all according to one interpretation of General Relativity. Of course, there is quantum mechanics description of time as well, which we never covered. In this interpretation of time, time is a series of starts and stops, just a sucession of momentary fleeting flashes of existence. The brain however, somehow binds this reality together. This binding process allows us to associate past events from the present and future from present. Whatever the true description of time, we should atleast trust our current theories unless something new progresses which may cast doubt on it. [1] - http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_Fqxi_essay_contest__E.pdf [2] - http://www.motionmountain.net/download.html "Time is a concept introduced specially to describe the flow of events around us; it does not itself flow, it describes flow. Time does not advance. Time is neither linear nor cyclic. The idea that time flows is as hindering to understanding nature as is the idea that mirrors Page 71 exchange right and left. The misleading use of the expression ‘flow of time’, propagated first by some flawed Ref. 36 Greek thinkers and then again by Newton, continues. Aristotle (384/3–322 bce), careful to think logically, pointed out its misconception, and many did so after him. Nevertheless, expressions such as ‘time reversal’, the ‘irreversibility of time’, and the much-abused ‘time’s arrow’ are still common. Just read a popular science magazine chosen at random.''

TIME DOESN'T HAVE A FLOW!!!!!! I think I have said this several times now. Maybe more.

Most people follow the doctrine of a beginning to time called the Big Bang. Most scientists agree with the Big Bang as the most probable theory, it is afterall, just a theory.

I'm sure you are... but I never understood properly for instance, the Dynamics of the Dirac Equation until I was in my late teens... do you see where I am getting at?