Jump to content

Edgard Neuman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Bad

1 Follower

About Edgard Neuman

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

4720 profile views
  1. 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 CMB" You should not ask after that "where does the information come from" and ask about the conservation of information.. my first message imply the information come from outside the universe at each point of time. And for instance, I know the CMB is not "outside of the universe".. ) So I feel annoyed to have to explain each point one by one. It seems to me people should not waste time criticizing the form of the message, but the "idea" itself, once understood. I'm not here to write an essay, but to discuss ideas. I know that plays against me. Sorry for that.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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" are just summaries of reality (classification into sets) I was explaining that if entropy (a property of a system can go backward) can go backward. As I said entropy is a statistical property, in reality, law of physics are time reversible.. So the real reason why entropy "always increase" is because of initial conditions. And reversed system, that goes back into a ordered stable state, is perfectly possible in respect to the laws of physics. Entropy can stop changing. I mean therefor it can't define time. But I don't think "time can't stop". You talking about your idea of time, as something that occur spontaneously in matter (like the spining of electrons in atoms, or the "oscillations of wave"). But for a true objective idea of time, independent of scale, can stop. You know, when nothing happen. The "quantum" time, is just a level of time.. Therefor it can't be time. That's it. You talked about entropy, you know why you do. I don't ! sorry : *Light*
  5. 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 the box.. The subject of the thread is "what is time". I gave you my answer. You talk about the classic theory that the arrow of time is somehow explained by the laws of thermodynamics (the entropy thing). So what are you trying to say if you're not talking about that ?? Ok that sentence wasn't very clear. I mean that the matter that carries the information (like the screen, a computer, a brain, a book.. information doesn't exist without matter to carry it) does not have a relationship with the reality described by the information (the meaning). A book, without a dictionary, is not enough to recreate the story. Therefor this "information" does not "exist" (something that exists, by definition, is something that can be lost and found..).. the meaning is only in the brains of people.
  6. 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 ?
  7. 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 "flaw" Entropy just talk about probabilities for system to be in specific stats. In reality, a set of card, when it's ordered, is not different to when it's not ordered (except in your mind, where "some cards go after some others cards). You choose to believe specific states are "special" because they exhibits symmetries.. but even that's a subjective idea. Symmetries you observe in nature, (like Chrystal) are just minimum states.. minimum states often have symmetries (because they obey local constraints) but not always (like quasi-christals) It's all about probabilities : systems flows from states to states, and when the flow of states (in the space of states) converges to some more probable states, matter often ends up in those states. But that's not "time". because... conservation of quantum information precisely and explicitly contradict this "convergence of states".. 🤷‍♂️.. A perfect oscillator (like a isolated atom), or even a chaotic oscillator doesn't gain or lose entropy, while it still "evolves" in time.. I think what you see as entropy is just a redistribution of randomness.
  8. 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 that carries this "information" doesn't have any relationship to reality itself. If you don't have the code, you have don't have a book, but a inked paper. Some alien reading this text would find regularities, symmetries and even some rules. But without pictures, there's no way they would understand the meaning of the text. Now if you talk about a series of "bit" as information (as a mathematical property of a set of 0s and 1s).. that's just symmetries.. You can't really compress anything without a code. To zip or unzip a file, you need a specific software. Without knowing the software, you could never read a zip file, because the bits could be anything.. Suppose you code the bits "00000" into somehow 5 x "0" (the bits would be "1010" in some unrealistic software the already know that the first 3 bits are a number)... how do you know that "1010" isn't the bits you coded at first ? or 2 x "10" ?.. By "information" I mean the minimum (the Greek "atom") of causality.. (that's the meaning used in relativity.. "no information can't travel faster than life" really speaks about causality)
  9. 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
  10. 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 it implies in terms of flow of information.. picture any system, and how information flows in it..what would happen if it wouldn't).. When you try to define a clock in relativity.. what travels between the parts of your clock ? at least a particle, a signal right ? What is the minimum of a signal ? (information !) You can't define a "wave" (any wave.. quantum wave. The "idea" of wave) without talking about a field and a perturbation travelling in it, from points to points continuously (in any type of mathematical structure you can imagine).. what is a wave, if it carry a perturbation across space, but neither matter, nor energy ? (a wave of information..! ) And for the "rules" don't make the system predictable.. so new information pops up everywhere you think (because there's no "between the two"). you can roll the quantum dice, and you get new random numbers on the screen (are numbers not information ? can't I fill my hard drive with random quantum numbers ?).. wouldn't that contradict the conservation of information "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem" Apparently (according to MIT) a photon carries 10 bits of information.. how many virtual photons are usually in the void ? Bye !
  11. 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 current definition is : - time is the accumulation of information in each system. Any structure and history can be "distorted rotated" inverted etc.. But any system is in a state that depends its previous interactions.. most complex system tends to be described as what I call "vortex" : it's a loop of causality, with some data entering, and some going out, and some of it staying in the loop. Just like what conscience is. Or a rock. Or a molecule (I'm not 100% sure about that : that would need the confirmation of a quantum mechanic expert). And the structure of a system contains partially "memory" that is the component of the state of structure that was added over time.. (but of course, not all data is stored in a system).. (and for us, as systems, memory is really what we call time) Somehow, I would suppose that a closed system could only be in one of the three states : not changing, cycling, or chaotic. That's disputable but it seems that reality has laws, and that, in a closed system : each state depends only on the previous one (in a infinitesimal part of space that is). So for everything, every event that come into it from the outside, perturbate the set of states that were previously reachable.. every data make the system more complex.. Consider a book containing a story. If the story obey laws, the story can be deduced from the premises : the start of the book implies the end of the book. The book is just information. Now if somehow, at a point in the book , you "intervene" in the story : the story change into states that depends on what you did. The end of the story can't be explained without mentioning your particular intervention : you added information to the story. Another good way of seeing is this : ultimately, each point in the universe because the speed of light is finite, receive some photons from the CMB, photons that were previously out of the visible universe for the point . Each structure in the universe sees the visible universe constantly growing. So at the very list, at a deeper levels, everything in constantly gaining information. In other words, when a structure interact with an other structure, because of relativity : some part of the past cone of the other structure never were in your past cone : so every interaction you get depends on something new from your history. (You could say that laws are not necessarily bijective, but I think the conservation of information in quantum mechanics exclude that). It's kind of like in Conway's game of life : each state of a square depends chaotically on its cone of previous squares, and each square depends on at least some squares different from its neighbours. (I think that "explains" what you measure as time in relativity, but I really fear being banned for this highly speculative idea of mine.. ) At a deeper level, if you consider reality as a mathematical structure, where identity is truly absolute (not depending of where the structure is) : I think of time as a the creations of new informations (by mixing previous informations) .. and the diffusion of the new information to mix with previous informations.. It's like a big problems that constantly tries to solve itself.
  12. 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 "properly scale" the universe and everything in it in your mind..(that was not a problem for me. When I mean scale I mean "scale".. if you scale a system you scale everything in it obviously... I think the problem came because you consider space to be something that exist independently of matter...I suppose the only thing that exist, is what define the propagation of information.. and in my idea, that is the scale field) But that was not the important part. The important part, is that there is a equivalence principle involved between two universe with different scales, and that implies the existence of a field. You could then use a Gauge principle, to deduce there is a particle that "carry" that information from place to place, and that would be the graviton. But as you said, for the laws of universe to be invariant by the scale change, you have to put all others law "under" the influence of this scale defining field.. Ok, you can say, that's just indeed some deeper interpretation of general relativity. There's nothing else to say, I am not asking something really, I'm suggesting a speculative theory. If somebody think of something that contradict it, I would be happy to read it..the problem is, you didn't understand my definition of scale, but if once you understand it, you can contradict it, go ahead. I don't see why you would forbid people to contradict me.
  13. 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 universe.. relative to the observer, it's a different universe with a different set of constants.. I scale the universe, without changing the story inside of it.. It's a different set of law. Mathematically what I do is exactly equivalent to changing meters to inches or other simple unit change.. in reality all measures are nothing but numbers.. Now I compare "2 universes" .. one being the homothetic version of the other.. They change only by the very most numerical definition of length, and one relative to the other. Imaging a atom in a void space. How can you measure the size of the atom ? The only answer is "the atom is 1 atom length"... There is nothing in this universe except the atom to compare to.. there is no "scale frame" except the content of the universe itself.. you can say "it's x time the speed of light when the atom vibrate n times..".. but you would use the light from the atom and the time from the atom... (because there is no other photons in this universe). The things you could use to measure distance.. are made of particles.. particles make the length.. You can't say how big is a atom without..atoms (or particles)..
  14. 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 length (like the size of a atom or planck length).. that already mean that "space and the law in it" defines "length". There is no reason that it is a absolute constant.. no more than there is a absolute 0 position or an absolute 0 speed in that space. My idea is that : a field define the scale of local laws and the atom (yes ok a rank 2 tensor field define the matrix transformation between the set of laws).. There is no reason why "space" has exactly the same scale of laws everywhere : that's why I suppose that's what general relativity is : the effect of the variation of the scale of laws.
  15. Let's just say this : my definition of "scaling" is from the start precisely the same as changing the length units.. (not relative to something else in the same set of laws) It's a very naive and simple scaling, not a change of length relative to matter. There's no point in talking about "just scaling the length".. I've never said "that" would work, and that's not the object of this thread. It's really the idea that "a dimensionless space" can't define the size of what's in it.. so that can vary (and ok it's not a simple scalar).
  • 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.