Jump to content

Edgard Neuman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Bad

1 Follower

About Edgard Neuman

  • Rank
    Atom

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://oneeyejack2.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

5082 profile views
  1. hi, there's a thing that i think is a good candidate for "time", and that has been under our noses the whole time : decoherence.. Decoherence doesn't work backward.. a choice is made.. Any thoughts about that ? thks
  2. That's a big problem I have. I am too enthusiastic, I always want to answer the fastest, and I usually have to edit my answers many times.. when I hear the notification sound, I can't wait to answer.. I always have trouble understanding people don't understand me.. I usually suppose that I already said enough, because in the first message I send, I usually consider that I closed every loop hole.. A lot of things are supposed to be deducible from a single text. (for instance If I say "ultimately, each point in the universe because the speed of light is finite, receive some photons from the
  3. Sorry if you don't understand me. 🤷‍♂️ Information, meaning "minimum causalities" from "outsides of system" is what ultimately animates them.. It's like "things happens" because you know "outside exists" I think it's simple.
  4. You say stable systems don't exist ? The moon, left in the cold space, does its entropy change ? The fact that entropy always increased (I think I mixed up the law before sorry).. doesn't mean It "has" to increase. sorry I admit I go too fast. Anyway, I've said enough. The question is "what is time". You have my answer, if you can explain why I am wrong, do go one, but I don't need your answer.
  5. Dynamic "closed" system.. Or has I said from the beginning.. The universe IS EXPANDING. You get "new photons" at any point of the universe (directly or indirectly).. (and I suppose "photons" are not the only carrier of information, gravitational waves, any particle.. any event.. any "information".. that's just to explain that because of relativity : any point of space time get to interact with new points of space time as time go one).. No system is really closed.. that's why I say information is time. I don't disagree with that.. I almost wrote a text that said that "measurements"
  6. I understand that entropy speaks about "closed system".. can't diminish (the laws of thermodynamics)..but when entropy stay the same (because the system is stable) does time stops.. ? and if it stops, what does make it start again ? (information !) Suppose you take a empty box . You carefully compute the trajectory of every molecule you throw in the box, in a specific way, that is the exact opposite of where the molecule would have pop up if the box first contained ice. You throw the molecule, close the box. The molecules bounce, and according to your calculation, ends up in the corner of th
  7. So if entropy can be reversed, how could it define time..? Can time be reversed now ? What about the grandfather paradox ? You can't explain time with something that can be reversed. And does the entropy of a single atom change ? So how could we built atomic clocks ?
  8. You try to make me understand your ideas (I don't need to, because I already have a answer to the question ).. first : entropy is not "irreversible".. you should know that all law of physics ARE time reversible. when people say "entropy" can't be reversed, it's not entirely true. In theory, if you reverse the speed "every molecules" of a gas, the gas go back to the corner.. If you want to unbreak a glass, you just have to put it back and restore the molecular liasons that were broken.. and you can "unmix" liquids (it's just complicated and require skilled chemists) so already, there's a "fl
  9. how and why ? I can believe you're not convince, but I see no hole in my ideas that I would have forgotten to fill. The problem probably comes from what you call "information" that is not what I call "information". You're seeing it as description.. In reality "information" as you see it, doesn't even exist.. the letters on this screen describe poorly reality via a code, and that code exist via physical relationship between sensorial neurons in our brains (those who see things, and those who read letters).. (we share the code, that is the English language) But in reality, the matter tha
  10. sorry (I'm not a native English speaker). By the way you seem to love "bits".. here is some facts : - by definition, probabilities carry "less" than bits. If I tell you "the memory has 60% chance to contain a 1".. how many "bits" did I transfer to you ? - any mathematical continuity, implies infinity of "bits".. between to real numbers, you can always find a infinity of new numbers.. and you can have some with a infinity of uncompressible digits.. so you know you can always find a number, whose writing would need more bits than the first 2
  11. I'm sorry, our way of thinking are too different for me to even have the will to try to understand and describe every difference between us.. (OK I can't resist) If you "understand physics", and you don't see how "information makes time at every level of complexity".. (ok maybe, because you don't see information as the minimum causality possible).. try to understand dominos.. our even how computer works.. or this thread your reading.. or your mind.. or special relativity.. ("information can't go faster than light".. if information can't go faster than light.. try to understand what
  12. Hi, Can I give you my point of view ? The question is in metaphysics, not really physics but not "quackery" philosophy about "inner feelings of time" either (as if humans would be the center of the universe).. I don't wish to discuss it, as metaphysics is by definition out of provability. I'm placing my thought about the particular laws of physics : I speak only about states of structures in space, laws (how structure's state are related localy) and interactions between structures (without specifying anything more, or any geometry), because I think it's enough to define time. My c
  13. I'm saying that the changing of scale (and ok, maybe a more complex thing that defines a transformation of vectors) .. not what you call "scale" that is applying to some laws and not the others, I mean "the scale of the universe, and everything in it, every laws".. This is by definition a relative value, because it's undefined outside of the universe and the matter in it.. So I'm saying that this value could change from region of space to region of space, and that would be "general relativity".. That was my point.. I had to countlessly explain what "scale" is.. because you don't want to
  14. you still don't understand, that I scale "everything". every law. I change all the dimensionless constants accordingly.. Interaction would be transformed accordingly. (In reality, you should really understand that I'm really talking about changing the speed of light, assuming of course "light" drive time or length at the deepest level.. which I suppose true because of special relativity... that would be equivalent.. )...It a very simple transformation of coordinates.. I'm scaling every particle, every wavelength, every speed (so the speed of light).. Relative to itself, It's the same uni
  15. The length relative to the matter that obey the physical laws versus the length relative to some other universe with a scaled set of laws.. - A given atom is "always" X meter, because a meter is defined by the local laws of physics (the speed of light, the fine structure constant,etc). - two universe, with different set of laws, scaled differently, could have the same atoms, and there would be no way to define why one is bigger or the other. Special relativity tends to show that matter organize itself depending of the flaw of information. If the laws of physics defines a constant le
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.