Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sridattadev: on 9/27/11 at 15:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Gevin, You and I are united with the universe in our soul forever....

Georgina Parry: on 8/5/09 at 1:44am UTC, wrote Gevin, How then do you propose the universe proceeds from its new ordered...

Georgina Parry: on 3/12/09 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Above post was by me.

Anonymous: on 3/12/09 at 9:44am UTC, wrote Perhaps I should have added in my opinion, of course. The universe clearly...

Georgina Parrry: on 3/1/09 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Having read all of the above replies, I thought I should check out the...

Reason McLucus: on 5/29/07 at 5:51am UTC, wrote The CMB as a result of the Big Bang would only seem possible in the context...

paul valletta: on 5/27/07 at 11:13am UTC, wrote The observer Time has another paradox, or it may be my lack of...

Anthony Aguirre: on 5/25/07 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote Reason: It's not crazy to think this (in fact I heard a similar...



FQXi FORUM
April 23, 2017

ARTICLE: What Makes Time Tick? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Gevin Giorbran wrote on May. 7, 2007 @ 04:43 GMT
It is simply a huge mistake to imagine the cosmos as rushing from order to chaos. We know today in science that the expansion of the universe is accelerating directly toward absolute zero. The only question is whether time reaches zero in infinite or finite (big rip) time. Absolute zero is neither chaos nor disorder. Absolute zero is perfect balance.

If we limit ourselves to thinking purely...

view entire post


attachments: densitygradient.gif, allstatesbig.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Gevin,

You and I are united with the universe in our soul forever. Hopefully the rest of the scientific community will wake up to this absolute truth of

zero = i = infinity as well.

absolutely nothing = relatively everything.

Universal I or singularity is the absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

attachments: 7_UniversalLifeCycle.doc

report post as inappropriate


Reason McLucus wrote on May. 14, 2007 @ 05:19 GMT
One the ideas that attracted me to physics as a high school student in the sixties was George Gamow's discussion of time as a dimension of reality. Recently I have become skeptical of the idea of time as a dimension. What we call "a moment of time" may actually be the temporary intersection of various different processes and events.

Or, perhaps it is just that we assign too many actions to time that are not really time related. For example, the reason an egg doesn't unbreak is not because of time, but because a specific process is necessary to produce an egg and a different process breaks the egg. It is not time that doesn't go backward, but the processes themselves that don't. The process that breaks the egg cannot construct an egg or anything else. There is no physical process that can reconstruct an egg that has been broken, although feeding the components of the egg to the chicken would provide the chicken with the necessary chemicals to produce a new egg.

On the other hand, there is a process that can "unbreak" a bone in the human body. There is a machine that can restore the frame of a car that has been bent in an accident by stretching it back into shape. Certain plastics that have been bent may be restored to their original shape because they have a "memory" of that shape.

report post as inappropriate


Reason McLucus wrote on May. 14, 2007 @ 07:41 GMT
I'm concerned about the tendency to turn empirical science into a religion. Certainty in science depends on the completeness of data. The more data are available the more potentially accurate the theory.

Scientists who study the cosmos need to recognize that their theories cannot be proved with any degree of certainty. Only a god could have sufficent data to make conclusive statements such as "Since 1998 we have known the universe is expanding toward zero!" Some scientists may "believe" such a statement to be true, but too much of the available data is too old to be reliable.

Theories depend upon assumptions about data that cannot be proved. For example, if the universe is a closed system of fixed size with a reflective "wall" some of the distant galazies observed may be reflections of other galaxies. If a galaxy whose light left it 10 billion years ago reached that barrier 2 billion years ago, the information will not reach earth for at least a few billion years.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 14, 2007 @ 13:02 GMT
The answer certainly has to do with Entropy. All particles have an existence in a percieved "now", time forces everything along a dirct route into the future, why?

The future is, by fact of it's proximity to "now", the "space" freely availability for change. The past is not available for any change in any way. There are no particles available (still available), in our past, if our sun was still shining say, 1 million years before yesterday(still pushing out photons in a past as well as today), then there is no change occuring.

Thus the Arrow of time points towards Change. From the initial big-bang to the present "now" time, change has occured. The article shows the imprint of WMAP, this is close to the big-bang, but if you were around 5 billion years ago, with the same detection system, would you detect the same imprint?..or if one progresses into the distant future, would one be able to filter the CMBR to such a degree that it is identical?

The answer is of course no, there will be a lot of changes in the future, there will be none in the past, unless you class the past as being a Ghost Condensate. Infact these changes will occur at an exponential increased rate , why because the future is expanding to such a degree that all process's governing matter will experience change at an increased rate(entropic chaos). But all is not lost, there is a neat little unknown fact that the Universe's high entropic end-state, means there will be less available energy in the future that produces change, thus the remnant matter that is available will experience "rapid" changes, there lays the period for phase transition.

There can be no reverted arrow in time, there can be no symmetry, the past has no available matter in which to produce change, but the interesting thing about our future, is the expansion connects to "extra" dimensions.

The existence of "other" dimensions, not relative to "present" spacetime of course is exactly what our future will entail, these dimensions are not currently around us "now", they are coming to us from the Future, if Lisa Randall was to look closely at some basic assumptions about Time, she needs to calculate the appearance of these "future" extra dimensions, and see they do not currently pervade our "now" spacetime?

report post as inappropriate


Uncle Al wrote on May. 14, 2007 @ 16:05 GMT
The strong arrow of time is angular momentum not entropy. Feynman's sprinkler spins from emission but not in time-reversed absorption. A motion picture film can with an orthogonal port at the center of its broad face and another tangent to its edge is an absolute direction of time detector.

Fill with water then pump water center inflow to edge outflow. No problem. Reverse time - no flow! Conservation of angular momentum creates a fluid diode.

Curiously, angular momentum is the disjoint non-overlap between metric gravitation (General Relativity; Equivalence Principle = true) and affine, telparallel, and noncummutative gravitation (GR wholly contained as a restricted case; EP violation from angular momentum).

A 2-day test and a 90-day test can large amplitude decide between metric and non-metric gravitation. Both run in existing apparatus. Somebody should look: quick calorimetry experiment (html), Eötvös experiment (pdf) with overall explanation.

If the EP has a reproducible empirical parity violation then string theory (BRST invariance) is wrong. Chiral special cases throughout physics (e.g., Weak Interaction) are sourced, biological homochirality is sourced... and contingent vacuum chiral anisotropy adds a finesse to quantum field theory.

report post as inappropriate


Reason McLucus wrote on May. 16, 2007 @ 19:46 GMT
Are those who study the idea of the degree of order after the Big Bang familiar with Chaos theory?

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

Chaos theory has two very important concepts. One is the idea that there may be order in sitautions that appear disordered. The second is that even very minor changes may produce significant changes later on - "The Butterfly Effect".

The idea that study of the CMB can indicate conditions at the beginning of the universe is inconsistent with Chaos theory. There are too many variables involved for precise information to survive for so long. Radiation from the past would have had to have been reflected and mixed with other radiation billions of times. Background radiation is more likely to be only background radiation.

Those who want to assign some other significance to CMB might consider that it could be interpreted as supporting the concept of "Gaia". Some of the comments I have read by supporters of this concept in other forums indicate that Gaia, or Earth Mother, might be some form of energy field.

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on May. 25, 2007 @ 19:38 GMT
Reason:

It's not crazy to think this (in fact I heard a similar 'impossibility' claim from a rather eminant physicist lately). But it isn't correct either. It is true that details regarding, say the *exact* orbits of stars in the Milky way could not be predicted from the cosmological initial conditions. But the CMB can be, largely because the fluctuations start our so small. In chaos terms, you might very roughly think of as the Liapunov time (the characteristic timescale over which initially similar trajectories diverse exponentially in time and in their initial separation) being much longer than the time between the formation of the perturbations and the observations of the CMB.

Moreover, CMB photons interact very weakly with neutral or very diffuse matter. The CMB is considered to have 'formed' when the universe became almost entirely neutral. After this, so only ~10% of CMB photons reaching us

have interacted with the matter at all (this happened when the universe became reionized much later and with much lower density.

I won't comment on the Gaia hypothesis except to say that I can't believe Gaia would be so cruel to cosmologists as to create a CMB so very much like the one predicted in detail from cosmologists' models.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 27, 2007 @ 11:13 GMT
The observer Time has another paradox, or it may be my lack of understanding?..but I reason there must be an observer dependance for large as well as small scale measurments.

Take this example:You look out across space at a distant Galaxy, you as the observer note that you are looking across a "past", the Galaxy you observe is defined as being in the past. But if there are observers within the observed Galaxy, then they see you(in this Galaxy), in their past?

Surely if WE class them as being in "our" past, then we must be in their "Future", from our perspective we must be in their future!

Then there is the fact that Light we see is travelling towards us from this other Galaxy, again we state this Light is coming towards us from a "past", ..but as far as the Light is concerned, we are directly in it's "future" path? We are for sure in the Lights future.

Back to the two Galaxies with observers, light emminating from our Galaxy that is seen by observers at another Galaxy, is deemed to be travelling from a distant "past", yet the light itself must be travelling in an opposite direction, it is always future pointing?

It seems logical that we cannot observe our Galactic light leaving our Galaxy, if we could we would surely observe a future, stated that we collect light for observations as always from a distant past, yet light "itself" is always dependant on heading towards a future?

There is a comparable Quantum "time" dependancy, albeit in scale. Looking for a "quantum" needle in a Macro Haystack, who detect who first?

It takes "time" to locate and detect a quantum needle, but by fact of scale, a "Quantum needle" will detect me long before I can detect it!

report post as inappropriate


Reason McLucus wrote on May. 29, 2007 @ 05:51 GMT
The CMB as a result of the Big Bang would only seem possible in the context of an aether comprised of photons. Even a drop of water falling into a completely still pool will create a disturbance that will last for a noticable amount of time.

There is a common myth in physics that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of an aether. The reasoning behind the experiment suffereed from several logical flaws and scientists didn't learn a critically important fact about water waves for another century. The development of sensitive equipment to measure the precise location and time of underwater earthquakes allowed discovery of the fact that the speed of the resulting high speed tsunami waves depends only upon the depth of the water and gravitational constant. If the velocity of water currents doesn't affect the speed of high speed water waves than the velocity of any "aether wind" would be unlikley to affect the speed of light.

The Michelson-Morley experiment also suffered from logical flaws. For example, an aether might on only transmit light waves through space with air being the medium within the atmosphere. Thus an aether wind if it existed would not be detectable at the earth's surface. Any aether in an enclosed space would move at the same velocity (earth's rotation, orbit of the sun, etc.) as the room itself and thus not affect the speed of light within the enclosed space.

Understanding of light has been complicated by the false controversy of "Light IS a wave" v. "Light IS a particle". It is unlikely that light IS either a wave or a particle. Instead light is a form of energy that may be transferred from one location to another by waves or particles.

Kinetic energy is not waves or particles, but can be transferred from one location to another by either. A thrown baseball transfers the kinetic energy produced by the motion of the pitcher to the catcher's mitt or bat. A txunami wave transfers the kinetic energy produced by an underwater earthquake to distant shores.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parrry wrote on Mar. 1, 2009 @ 04:40 GMT
Having read all of the above replies, I thought I should check out the original article. I got as far in the article as "Einstein showed that time is relative, but it is still going forwards. But no one can say why?" or words to that effect.

No one is an outrageous assumption to make given the billions of people in the world. Shouldn't that read "To the best of my knowledge no one recognised by the elite of academia can say why?" The Prime Quaternion model clearly shows why the subjective experience of time is one way only. I have explained elsewhere on this site how subjective time occurs and why it is one way only.I do not wish to get overly repetitive.

This is no longer an unanswered fundamental question.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 12, 2009 @ 09:44 GMT
Perhaps I should have added in my opinion, of course.

The universe clearly isn't progressing from order to chaos but vice versa. It is becoming more complex and ordered. Chaos and complexity theory combined with use of quaternion fractals for modelling will,in my opinion, be more useful than ordinary mathematical equations, as the process of creation and development of structure can be observed and variables altered to get realistic simulations.

Quaternion mathematics is already used for various dynamic simulations in various fields of study.Currents, eddies and vortices will be part of the dynamics occurring within 4 dimensional space as matter moves along the 4th dimension, which can be simulated. The direction of flow within a vortex will probably be able give handedness to molecules.

All of the matter of the universe is progressing along the 4th dimension, that is going from higher to lower potential energy. Light is also progressing along the 4th dimension at the same pace or would no longer be visible in 3D space and by intercepting and processing this EM radiation an image of the universe can be seen spread out in 3D space.

It is only an image of the universe that is seen. The material universe does not exist in the same state or position as observed.Its image will always appear to be in the past relative to the observer. Everything that is observed is observed as being in the past, because it takes time for light to be intercepted and processed to form the image. This is subjective reality. It is not the objective material reality. Each observer will form their own subjective reality from the input they have received.

Our universe can be visualised as a spherical slice of a hypersphere and all of the matter within our slice passes along the 4th dimension. We can not see afore or aft of our 3D spherical slice. So if this 4th dimension is called time, which I do not agree with, this translates as we can not look into the real future or the real past, we can only see the image of our universe. It is not the material past, it is a distorted electromagnetic image.

On the question of aether... it is becoming apparent that something exists within the void in objective reality. Whether that something is called quantum fluctuation, quintessence, aether, Sophia or Prime Subatomic Condensate should make no difference. Just because it can not be detected does not mean that it does not exist. If no information from it is transferred across the Prime reality interface there can be no direct knowledge of it, although it may be inferred from models, calculations or theoretical speculation.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 12, 2009 @ 10:04 GMT
Above post was by me.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 01:44 GMT
Gevin,

How then do you propose the universe proceeds from its new ordered state, at absolute zero,in your model? Does it remain in its new state unchanging once acquired? Perfect balance is eternal death for the universe, without any energy for further change. How can energy re-infuse the cold universal corpse and reverse the changes?

In my opinion there has to be an asymmetry that enables energy to be supplied continuously to the universe for the creation of matter and organisation of structure.This energy is due to all matter within the universe moving along a 4th spatio-energetic dimension. As the matter (forming the spherical slice of hypersphere) that is our universe, contracts towards the interior of the hypersphere.

All matter will eventually come together to form a critical mass or new singularity and the process of birth of the new universe will initiated as the old universe reaches its final state. At this point matter is destroyed and the mass energy is released. Via big bang through 3d space or preferably,if mathematically possible, by instant inflation by passing through the singularity to arrive back at the exterior.(Squeeze the water snake toy and the interior becomes the exterior.This is a 3d visualisation of the 4d process.) The interior becoming the exterior and being ripped apart in the process.

I agree that the direction of change is from disorder to order. I believe entropy to be a red herring. The motion of all matter along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension continues to supply the universe with energy until its final state and destruction. So it will not die a cold death at absolute zero.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'X' and 'Z':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.