[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick But in the real world, time symmetry more often than not gives way to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that entropy in a system increases in the direction of the future. In other words, the universe is moving away from order and toward chaos.

Hi Wick

The 2nd Law of TD is frequently quoted as a reason why the arrow of time can only move forward. IMO it's more likely an effect not a cause. However, there is a large fly in this ointment. If disorder is always increasing, how do we explain the formation of the galaxies which quite obviously contravene this law? I have only recently learned that gravity causes entropy to decrease - i.e. run backwards (in time?). Comments welcome.

Felix

[neutralino]

A couple of thoughts and comments that came to me when reading through the thread:

Originally Posted by Wick Light: Relatively stationary energetic particles filling the immensity of 4-space.

How can a particle be both stationary and energetic? Also, what do you mean here by 4-space? Do you mean, literally, that there are four spacial dimensions? If so, where is the fourth?

Originally Posted by Wick So I started to read and what I learned is that there has been a schism in the Church of Physics. There are those who believe in a kind of Calvinistic determinism (GR) and there are those more charismatic (Quantum Mechanics) whose faith lies in probabilities. There are lots of sects drifting about between these two camps.

I think that the majority of physicists work with both GR and QM, and I'm not sure that there are many that firmly believe in one of the theories and do not believe in the other. Still, that may just be me.

Originally Posted by Wick I think I found the most honest voice in Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics".

I enjoyed this book-- it was particularly well written for a popular science book, and did not appear to be all that biased one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Wick The papers on special relativity and the photoelectric effect came from a patent clerk.

It should be pointed out that Einstein was not merely a patent clerk when conducting this work. He was a qualified teacher with a degree in mathematics and physics, who could not find a teaching job. Making such a statement as yours above implies that Einstein was a complete layperson with no higher knowledge of physics/maths, which is not true.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by neutralino How can a particle be both stationary and energetic? Also, what do you mean here by 4-space? Do you mean, literally, that there are four spatial dimensions? If so, where is the fourth?

May I ask you to carefully reread the first two posts and then let me know whether they clear up some of the confusion. If they don't I need to work on rewriting them. Maybe you can help me. The basis of this theory is that the observable universe is moving through a fourth spatial dimension. This turns the table on what we consider moving and what at rest. The 4-dimensional light is at rest and we are passing through it, but because everything in the observable universe is moving through 4-space at the same speed and in the same direction, we imagine ourselves at rest and the light moving. NOTE: This movement may be a very slight, exceedingly rapid oscillation (or rotation), so you should not necessarily think of this motion as a wild, speed of light plummet through 4-space.

Whether this is true or not, thinking about it requires one to make considerable mental adjustments. We are not used to thinking of the universe in this way. Our assumption is usually that nearby macroscopic things (say the couch) are pretty much at rest. We don't imagine that the couch, the floor, the refrigerator, the house, the earth, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and everything between here and the edge of the known universe are moving together through 4-space. Such thoughts are as astonishing to us in the 21st century as a moving earth was at the time of Copernicus. Thoughts like this are unsettling.

No less unsettling is the thought that all light is at rest. Why? We'll lets say that you made a "light" movie of yourself which included the entire magnetic spectrum--gamma-rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, brain waves, everything. In the movie you would observe a radiating figure of light walking about, eating chocolate, looking for the keys and going for a drive. Some of this light would be related to waste generated by your biological functions, but some of that light (the biophotonic portion) would be coherent light which is not associated with waste, but which is an organizing influence that executes critical processes which structure, regulate and control your organism.

What I'm implying is that the light that constitutes you (especially the conscious you) is the steady thing. The body you are wearing is not the steady thing. If this is not already apparent to you, grow a little older and it will be.

So now, to answer your question, our "assumption" that energetic particles are in motion and that non-energetic particles are not arises from our assumption that the universe is at rest. If the universe is not at rest (if it moves through 4-space), the opposite might be true.

I think that the majority of physicists work with both GR and QM, and I'm not sure that there are many that firmly believe in one of the theories and do not believe in the other. Still, that may just be me.

Its not so much a matter of believing or not believing in the two theories. I think all physicist are willing to work within the framework of both theories because they work well enough as long as we keep them in their own realms. What is clear to all physicists is that the two theories cannot both be true.

There are discussions (even arguments) in physics as to which of the two theories is truer. These are the ones who join one sect or another. I think the fairest physicist remain agnostic in this regard and view both theories with reverent skepticism. Such scientist believe that both "faiths" are in error and that at some point in the future, a greater unity will arise that changes both GR and QM into something else.

I enjoyed this book-- it was particularly well written for a popular science book, and did not appear to be all that biased one way or the other.

Agreed. I think Smolin is an agnostic (referencing my previous comment).

It should be pointed out that Einstein was not merely a patent clerk when conducting this work. He was a qualified teacher with a degree in mathematics and physics, who could not find a teaching job. Making such a statement as yours above implies that Einstein was a complete layperson with no higher knowledge of physics/maths, which is not true.

You are absolutely correct. Apologies for misleading. That was not my intent. That said, Einstein was definitely on the outs with the physics community, partly because in his early years he was an arrogant young pistol and alienated many of the great physicists of his day. What I was trying to show was that he was not yet a connected member of the science community.

Thanks for all your helpful insights!

[Wick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Wick The 2nd Law of TD is frequently quoted as a reason why the arrow of time can only move forward. IMO it's more likely an effect not a cause. However, there is a large fly in this ointment. If disorder is always increasing, how do we explain the formation of the galaxies which quite obviously contravene this law? I have only recently learned that gravity causes entropy to decrease - i.e. run backwards (in time?). Comments welcome. Felix

Actually, Felix, I think gravity causes entropy to increase. The dead end of gravity is a black hole, and a black hole is the poster child of entropy. Such gravity wells do not turn back time, they stop it (although many think this stopping of time is a weakness in GR). The opposite of the black hole is the singularity that physicist suggest existed immediately before the big bang. We don't really know what that "thing" was, but it was definitely not a black hole.

Here's a question for you. What would it mean for time to reverse as you suggest?

[Wick]

Did I say something wrong? Didn't mean to offend. Is anybody out there? Having reread my last two threads, I thought maybe my post seemed arrogant. Didn't mean to come across that way. I really am interested in hearing back from Felix and Neutralino.

I have started a Blog on this theory (as David suggested). I called it On the Revolutions of the Universe. I'd be interested in feedback if anyone has time.

Thanks again to those who have helped me along the way here.

Wick

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick The opposite of the black hole is the singularity that physicist suggest existed immediately before the big bang. We don't really know what that "thing" was, but it was definitely not a black hole. Here's a question for you. What would it mean for time to reverse as you suggest?

Sorry, Wick, been trying to incorporate diagrams into my own TOE (without success). If there's a problem with your thread (for me anyway), it's trying to follow some very complex ideas without any diagrams to illustrate them.

I don't believe that a reversal in time is possible. Time is a mechanical function which is incorporated into the fabric of reality and it controls motion (this is explained in my own TOE - 'The Dance of Shiva'). However, inside a black hole there is no room for it to function as the underlying fabric of space is compressed with no space for matter to be created in. Hence there is no time in a singularity.

I believe that the opposite of a black hole is a white hole - the source of the ordinary matter which we perceive but there may not be just one as in the BB scenario - there may be/have been one at the centre of each galaxy- hence their existence.

Felix

[Wick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Sorry, Wick, been trying to incorporate diagrams into my own TOE (without success). If there's a problem with your thread (for me anyway), it's trying to follow some very complex ideas without any diagrams to illustrate them.

I'm having the same trouble. I'll let you know if I find a good way to do it.

I don't believe that a reversal in time is possible.

Niether do I. I read your theory (need to read it again (and again) to get more from it). My math and science background is lousy so I'm taking it slow. In your theory you reject the notion that time is a dimension (so do I) and propose that time is a mechanical process (so do I). We propose different mechanical process, but both are mechanical. I find this interesting. If I understand right, the mechanical process you propose is related to the release of a specialized string with temporal qualities that leads to motion. I know I've really botched your explaination. Please feel free to correct me. The point is you try to explain time at the "quantum" level.

In my theory I differentiate between the concept of time (changes of state) and the concept of duration (temporal standards of measure). I believe that duration could be measured in a timeless universe (a universe in which there were no changes of state). So motion would be possible without time. Could you tell me if this makes sense to you?

I believe that the opposite of a black hole is a white hole - the source of the ordinary matter which we perceive but there may not be just one as in the BB scenario - there may be/have been one at the centre of each galaxy- hence their existence.

Interesting idea (apropos for a theory invoking the name of Shiva). Has there been anything observed in space that would back up this idea?

[Wick]

I've entered a new post on my blog "The Revolutions of the Univere" to provide Commentary on the 3rd Rule (Entropy and Time). Its not finished, but its a start. I'll provide Commentary on the 4th Rule tomorrow.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick Posting diagrams - I'm having the same trouble. I'll let you know if I find a good way to do it.

Ta

Originally Posted by Wick If I understand right, the mechanical process you propose is related to the release of a specialized string with temporal qualities that leads to motion.

The motion of a particle, in the quantum world, is related to the probability that the waveform will collapse at any point in the gravitational field. It takes two to tango so particles only exist in the real world at the point when they interact with eachother - which causes the collapse of the waveform by exceeding the necessary probability. I am proposing that a third ingredient is necessary for the probability to exceed the critical value and this is provided by a string which is emitted according to a regular beat. These are the 'chronons' which govern time and result in a mechanical explanation for time. They control motion rather than lead to it.

Originally Posted by Wick In my theory I differentiate between the concept of time (changes of state) and the concept of duration (temporal standards of measure). I believe that duration could be measured in a timeless universe (a universe in which there were no changes of state). So motion would be possible without time. Could you tell me if this makes sense to you??

I agree that duration is just a measure of the elapse of time but I don't believe you can have motion without time. Shiva is very explicit about this. I have yet to write up my explanation for what happens inside a black hole but will add it shortly.

Originally Posted by Wick Interesting idea (apropos for a theory invoking the name of Shiva). Has there been anything observed in space that would back up this idea?

GRB

regards
felix