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 blogger 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

Amrit Sorli: on 1/19/15 at 16:32pm UTC, wrote that story of arrow of time makes no much sense, bacause UNIVERSE IS NOW.

Anonymous: on 12/18/14 at 0:24am UTC, wrote Eckard, Keep in mind that duration does not exist external to the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 12/17/14 at 6:05am UTC, wrote Thanks Georgina, for the detailed explanation. I think I know what you...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/16/14 at 8:19am UTC, wrote Jonathan, Writing "the now is at odds with Einstein's...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/16/14 at 2:05am UTC, wrote Perhaps I should have said -This particular bipartate structure of reality...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/15/14 at 20:41pm UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, thanks for thoughts. In regard to uni-temporal -Now; it has...

Jonathan Dickau: on 12/15/14 at 16:52pm UTC, wrote Georgina, I wanted to expand on Eckard's comment above, that your...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/14/14 at 9:55am UTC, wrote Things I like in the scientific American article "2 Futures Can Explain...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "I am aware that Max Tegmark is the director of the organization that runs..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: ""We saw early on that as conformed by countless experiment, there is no..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Ian Durham: ""Loony" Max Tegmark is the director of the organization that runs this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
August 25, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Janus Universes and a Gravitational Arrow of Time [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 2, 2014 @ 19:54 GMT
Janus, Vatican museum, photo by Loudon Dodd
We can always count on FQXi member Julian Barbour to raise the tone of the conversation, this time by referencing the Roman two-faced god Janus with his new theory that explains the origin of time's arrow, using gravity (Phys. Rev. Letts, 113, 181101).

I've just opened a thread on for discussing our latest podcast (29 November 2014), but I neglected to open one for the previous podcast, which featured an interview with Barbour and his colleague Flavio Mercati, who spoke about their new model. According to them, the big bang gave rise to two back-to-back "Janus universes," with arrows of time that run in opposite directions. Their model also runs counter to the usual conception in which the arrow of time tracks *increasing* entropy in the universe; they argue instead that as time progresses, the universe's entropy *decreases*.

Since that podcast interview was posted in October, Barbour's model has been gaining interest. The APS highlighted the work with a Viewpoint piece, in which Steven Carlip provides commentary on the paper, describing mysteries about the arrow of time that must still be addressed (such as why the arrows that arise from different physical phenomena, not just gravity, all point in the same direction).

Bob Yirka at phys.org has also written an accessible account of the team's research.

So, if you haven't already, please do go back and listen to Barbour's interview with us, from October.

What do you think? Is this enough to solve the problem of the origin of time's arrow?

In the same edition you can hear another expert on the physics of time, Paul Davies, talking about something quite different: his atavistic model for cancer, which he likens to a cell's "safe mode" that's triggered when the cell faces an environmental threat and reboots itself. For more on this topic, you can also see a news item that I wrote for Scientific American: "Did Cancer Evolve to Protect Us?"

Physical Review Letters


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 2, 2014 @ 20:47 GMT
Julian Barbour used to claim that absolute simultaneity can be restored without abandoning Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? Time will not be fused with space but emerge from the timeless shape dynamics of space. Absolute simultaneity restored!"

The idea is obviously absurd and I thought it was forgotten but now Lee Smolin is advocating it:

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts, Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada, pp. 386-387: "In general relativity two clocks traveling different paths through spacetime will not stay synchronized. But their sizes will be preserved... (...) But the amazing thing is you can get to general relativity by trading the relativity of time of that theory for a relativity of spacial scale... (...) The resulting theory is called shape dynamics. (...) This means that there is now a physical meaning to the simultaneity of distant events."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 05:10 GMT
Pentcho, All, it is absolutely not absurd to have total simultaneity and non simultaneity in the same universe.

IF there is an Object universe where the objects, atoms and other particles exist without temporal spread ie everything existing exists at the same and only time; ( Presentism but preceding the observed /experienced present) AND IF within that Object universe there...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Dec. 3, 2014 @ 16:20 GMT
The authors' paper concludes that "all the solutions of a time-symmetric dynamical law suited to approximate our Universe have a strongly time-asymmetric behavior for internal observers. So far as we know, this conclusion is new."

As far as I know, that conclusion is as old as the discovery of the time-symmetric laws. It has long been obvious, that all observable "complex" objects tend to behave in time asymmetric fashion, in spite of the time-symmetric laws.

"We conclude that the origin of time's arrow is not necessarily to be sought in initial conditions but rather in the structure of the law which governs the Universe"

I would conclude otherwise; that the structure of the law, with its low-information-content, is not sufficient to "determine" the behavior induced by the high-information-content of almost any set of initial conditions.

As an analogy, I would point out that knowing the structure of the JPEG image compression algorithm, is not sufficient to "determine" what any JPEG compressed image looks like. It is not the "law", which "determines" how complex entities behave or appear.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 5, 2014 @ 18:01 GMT
Rob,

Well, the laws of nature don't reflect the information on the direction of time. Differential equations got their symmetry by abstraction. You mentioned the "discovery of the time-symmetric laws".

Who did so and when?

The notion of symmetry is not always only used in the sense of mirror symmetry. While the use of negative numbers was still fairly new in science at the time of Descartes who initially hesitated using it, at least the Christian numbering of years from eternity to eternity, i.e. BC from minus infinity to AD up to plus infinity was perhaps much older.

May I ask you to comment on Fig. 1 of my (link:http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1364] 2012 essay (topic 1364)? Only the laws are valid in excess of now. Future data don't yet exist in advance. You will hopefully agree on this.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 6, 2014 @ 01:01 GMT
Eckard,

I would have to say that Newton was the first to discover a time-symmetric law of Physics: F=ma, although one might argue that Kepler's Law of Areas is an earlier time-symmetric law, or perhaps the quantitative descriptions of Galileo's inclined plane experiments. But it was Newton's development of Calculus and Differential Equations, that resulted in explicit, quantitative equations, with time as a variable, in Mathematical Physics.

I don't see the issue of positive versus negative numbers, for temporal variables, as of great import. For any finite duration of observations, one can always add a sufficiently large time-offset, so that all the times are positive. In the paper, the term "time-symmetric" merely refers to the fact that the equations of Mathematical Physics, seem to work just as well for decreasing values or time, as for positive values. In other words, studying the properties of the equations alone, might cause one to believe that the observables described by the equations ought to be observed running in "time-reversed" directions, just as often as "time-forward", but that is not the case. The equations seem to be missing something rather significant. I think that missing "something", is information; the information provided by the initial conditions.

I do agree that future data does not yet exist. But the laws often enable one to predict the values that will be observed in the future. As you have noted, such "laws are valid in excess of now".

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 6, 2014 @ 02:27 GMT
Robert wrote "The equations seem to be missing something rather significant. I think that missing "something", is information; the information provided by the initial conditions."

I think what is missing is the recycling of what is into the new what is, erasing he reverse time path. Whatever change occurs it is the next iteration in the sequence of configurations, whether going back to a previous configuration or going to a new configuration. As the sequence of configurations gives passage of time , passage of time is always positive. The sequence of configurations that has already existed can not be undone, they no longer exist to be changed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 03:29 GMT
So what is the "arrow of time?"

All structure, form, order, events, etc. recede into the past, as the energy manifesting it creates new, thereby moving into the future. Like motion, it is relative. What can we really say about the direction of the arrow, except that it moves relative to context.

Our point of observation is the present, while what we observe recedes into memory. The linear sequence only emerges in hindsight, as we try to assign agency to form. The range of possibilities coalesces into the events of the moment, yet the energies precipitating that lack of solidity do not diminish and the seeming clarity of the moment and determinism of the past are ephemeral, as only the trajectories of the energy are affected these events and by reviewing and thus measuring, we are actually changing the form of these memories.

So now our grandest minds and high priests of order are off exploring the multiverses and their acolytes eagerly await dispatches. This is a speculative bubble and they tend to end messy, but not until all energy available is consumed. When the tide turns, future generations of physicists will not spend their careers on blatantly idle speculation and the alternative will be dissect all that came before.

Empires fall. Especially when they have been hollowed out from within.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 07:19 GMT
"the model in this paper is Newtonian—it is not yet clear whether it can be extended to a more realistic general relativistic description"

Obviously, PRL and FQXi are nonetheless supporting Barbour because his denial of time and now his suggestion of an additional backward directed future look like ingenious maneuvers to somehow maintain Einstein's denial of the distinction between past and future.

I see all that based on a philosophical restriction: Theoreticians dislike the possibility that nature cannot at all be completely reduced to laws of mature if the entity of influences is too large.

Robert,

I wrote influences, not initial conditions, because the latter belong to theory, not to the conjectured causality.

Georgina,

Fig. 1 in this essay might be close to your view.

Pentcho,

I hope you will perform the requested check before again claiming that c isn't constant.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 07:35 GMT
Mercati wrote: "No spacetime covariance (and no local Lorentz invariance) has been assumed."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0105v1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 09:51 GMT
Pentcho

I do not understand why you said 'Fig. 1 in this essay might be close to your view.' I have looked at the essay and find no fig 1. in it. There is mentioned Shannon's statement "We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it."

Which is then split into two statements by the author Eckard.

1) The future can be influenced, in principle,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 09:53 GMT
Anonymous replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 09:51 GMT, that was me, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 11:03 GMT
I would also point out the gravitational arrow of time is implicit in Einstein's notion of gravity causing collapsing space. Meanwhile Hawking argued the expansion of intergalactic space constitutes an arrow of time. So we have that arrow of collapsing structure, balanced by an arrow of expanding energy. Could they simply be reflections of that all too evident convection cycle of collapsing mass and expanding energy we exist in and fundamentally witness?

So structure falls into the past, as energy radiates out to the future.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 16:15 GMT
For the record,

I've not read Barbour, Koslowski, and Mercati's paper for detail yet, but I wanted to comment that my cosmology based on the Mandelbrot Set has some similar features. Specifically; time is the first symmetry broken, in what we see as the universe's first instant, where form splits into two branches of opposite chirality. So; the Mandelbrot Set Cosmology also depicts a universe with Janus-faced time, and in that framework the underlying (and changing) morphology of local space is what shapes the evolution of the cosmos and of natural law (similar to shape dynamics).

In the attached file, the Mandelbrot Set is shown inside out or unrolled - such that concentric circles about (0,0i) are turned into lines or rows of pixels. The cusp at (0.25,0i) is the peak of the mountain - representing the highest energy state of the universe - and the point (-2,0i) at the tail of M is shown at both the lower left and lower right corners. So there you have a Janus-faced Mandelbrot Set.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

attachments: MandelbrotUnfurled72dpi.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 17:23 GMT
Jonathan,

One serious issue I have with the entire Big Bang Theory, which no one has resolved, only ignored, is that when it was discovered all those distant galaxies appeared to be moving directly away from us, it was reasoned that this cosmic expansion was a relativistic expansion of space and that every point would appear as the center. The flaw in this argument is that the speed of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 18:45 GMT
John M,

I didn't quite get what you meant by, "...the speed of light would have to increase proportionally, in order to remain constant to this dimension of space, for it to be relativistic. Unfortunately that would negate explaining redshift"

Could it not be or is it not because the speed of light refused to increase despite the increase in space that makes it appear to be redshifted? Redshifting being the optical effect resulting from reduced resultant velocity of light. In the usual Doppler shift, this arises from receding observer and source causing reduced resultant velocity, but in the Hubble shift same principle is at play, but this time attributed to the medium and not the observer or source's motion. I may be wrong or not getting you correctly.

The other issue for contemplation is how to distinguish the two. That is, on observing a redshift, how do you differentiate or know that it is a result of your receding from the source or a result of expansion of the space between you and the source? Any ideas?

(The same would apply to a blue shift. How can you differentiate that it is a result of source and observer moving towards each other and not a result of collapsing of the space between them?).

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 23:15 GMT
Akinbo,

In order for the doppler effect to work, there has to be a stable medium in which the transmitter and receiver move. With the example of the train moving away and its whistle becoming a lower frequency to the person at the station, it is not that the space, as measured by the tracks, is expanding, since the tracks are not stretched. The train is moving away along those tracks and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 6, 2014 @ 10:39 GMT
I have taken a look at the abstract. Talks about the n body problem, interesting. Have found out more about that. Don't know why the abstract talks of two outcomes building to form records having the same origin. Is this because the physics is reversible so there is a negative and positive solution? Anyway it is a subscription only article and so I am not allowed to read anymore. So its a pity there wasn't more written about it in the FQXi article to get our teeth into or to enlighten us. (Funny things happen to the FQXi site on my computer after visiting that link, lots of the writing missing. )

It makes sense to me that we could regard the action of gravity as an arrow of time.I can't know the raison d'etre of the two solutions without explanation here or by being able to read what they have written. IF it is negative and positive solutions to the equations giving a phantom time reversed universe I think it is the maths tail wagging the physics dog.I don't want to be really negative about something I haven't had the chance to find out about. Can someone who has read the paper give us anymore information from it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Dec. 6, 2014 @ 15:09 GMT
Georgina,

The Viewpoint article by Steven Carlip gives a useful synopsis. I would refer back to the discussion I mentioned in my recent post, about the debate over reductionism. The problem is they are looking at it as going one direction, but the deeper reality is a dichotomy, going both directions at once.

From the second to last paragraph in Carlip's article:

" We’re...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 8, 2014 @ 04:06 GMT
"its typical solutions all divide at a uniquely defined point into two halves" contradicts to Euclid's definition of a point as something that has no parts.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 8, 2014 @ 18:33 GMT
The state of concern is the now which is sliding along the abstract scale of time. In so far, the "excitingly new" Fig. 1 corresponds to my Fig. 1 in topic 1364.

The three authors just added mirror symmetry with respect to the now. To EEs like me, it is common practice to calculate with imagined mirror charges behind reflecting boundaries. Heaviside replaced the not yet existing future with a mirror picture of the past. So I am not impressed. I recall a teacher of art telling "symmetry is the art of the primitives". As Zeh's book on the arrow of time illustrates, Schwarzschild solutions show what is called our world mirrored at infinity.

What about the zero split into halves, I see this an indication of nonsensical putative rigor in mathematics which was already ridiculed by the metaphor of Buridan's donkey.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Rick Searle wrote on Dec. 8, 2014 @ 18:03 GMT
Here's a link to Lee Billing's piece on this in Scientific American:

http://t.co/sEl4BR5glA

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 10, 2014 @ 18:15 GMT
Billing's article reveals to me how intentional Barbour's speculations are.

Most contributions in the discussion are even worse in my eyes.

In what sense is the universe a closed system?

Isn't the model just a snapshot, bound to a single moment?

I see the past as the final for good causal order of event but the future belonging to possible continuation of what results from that order:

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 13, 2014 @ 09:22 GMT
I would like to add that a past that ceases to have material existence, (except within fallible records and memories and fictional accounts and as relics, all existing -Now), makes it safe from any possibility of factual alteration.

The causal order in foundational Object reality can not be altered though there can still be non-simultaneity of experienced events for different observers due sensory data processing, which can give different apparent order of events and so possibly different presumed causality.

It is not necessary for a future that is only possibilities and probabilities,a future as yet unwritten, to have material existence prior to actualization as what exists -Now. And what is -Now is not the future.

With nonexistent past and (unwritten) future there is only uni-temporal -Now, in which there is sensory data from which different present experiences can be fabricated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 13, 2014 @ 10:49 GMT
Georgina,

What does material existence mean? In this case I see indeed two each other complementing aspects, forward and backward application of causality as defined by Shannon.

Incidentally, be aware, what you are calling the now is at odds with Einstein's (de)-synchronization.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Dec. 15, 2014 @ 16:52 GMT
Georgina,

I wanted to expand on Eckard's comment above, that your formulation of "the now is at odds with Einstein's (de)-synchronization." I think what Eckard is saying is that it is not solely a matter of "sensory data processing" at work, but that all electromagnetic vibrations including light must obey the laws of optics, and so follow the laws of Optical Geometry. Even empty space behaves like a kind of light glass, in that it imposes a maximum speed limit and the curvature of the medium (the vacuum plus gravitational fields) can bend the light. This gravitational lensing effect is well documented.

In the context of this discussion; physicists talk about the advanced and retarded waves corresponding to the propagation forward and backward in time. I would highly recommend H. Dieter Zeh's book on the direction of time, for a detailed discussion of this. Although it gets pretty technical in places, it is worth taking the time to digest, and I note that Barbour and colleagues reference that work. So while Quantum Mechanics does leave some things indeterminate in the absence of observers, there is also the matter of the order in which vibrations arrive - determining what input is available - which can be turned into sensory data.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 15, 2014 @ 20:41 GMT
Hi Jonathan, thanks for thoughts.

In regard to uni-temporal -Now; it has nothing to do with sensory data processing or EM radiation transmission or the properties of waves.It is not fabricated from received data of any kind but is the source of EM and other potential data.

The Present is the output of sensory data processing, a space-time output, Image reality.It has a time...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 16, 2014 @ 02:05 GMT
Perhaps I should have said -This particular bipartate structure of reality overcomes a number of longstanding physics questions.

The explanatory framework can be regarded as having a tripartate structure, with sensory data (the data pool) mediating the emergent output reality, from the foundational source reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 16, 2014 @ 08:19 GMT
Jonathan,

Writing "the now is at odds with Einstein's (de)-synchronization" I referred to Van Flandern's notion (de)-synchronization, Einstein's paper "On Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and the late Einstein's confession that the now worries him seriously which I found quoted in Zeh's book you quoted.

Attributing to her "object reality" the "uni-temporal -Now", Georgina refuses accepting the very basis of Einstein's Relativity. Instead she takes the good old Newtonian view that there is no plurality of times but just a single natural measure of duration everywhere. For a reason that might remain unknown forever, the world may be coherent in that the duration of equal processes is the same at every location.

When Einstein introduced the perception by an observer he argued that a measure requires measurement. I consider this wrong and misleading. Georgina correctly distinguishes between the primary reality and the perceived/measured apparent one which differs from the former.

Einstein's Poincaré synchronization destroys the reasonably assumed symmetrical causal order: From A via B back to A is not always equal to from B via A back to B. Einstein just managed to formally justify Lorentz contraction, and their mutually excluding nonsenses benefited from trust in the experimental confirmation that the Lorentz factor fits to electromagnetic mass. I am not aware of any direct measurement of length contraction so far.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 19, 2015 @ 16:32 GMT
that story of arrow of time makes no much sense, bacause UNIVERSE IS NOW.

attachments: 2_The_Physics_of_NOW.pdf, naslovnica_the_physics_of_now.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.