Martin Karne on 12/1/2007 at 21:56
Yeeeesss?
Raven on 12/1/2007 at 23:29
I am a physicist... err was one, err at least was.. i mean am qualified in it.
Quote:
I'll believe that when the laws of thermodynamics are broken. I'm not holding my breath.
those laws are merely statistical
Quote:
There is a theoretical symettry to time but unfortunately it does have a direction enforced on it by entropy
again away with you and your limited thinking - your entropic increase has no fundamental bearing.
I ban any continued physics discussion unless people start referencing respected scientific texts/journals... and yes that rules out wikipedia.
Deep Qantas on 13/1/2007 at 00:10
Quote Posted by Pyrian
The Anubis Gates did it infinitely better. In that book, the main character goes back in time and writes a poem from memory - a closed temporal loop. If he wrote it from his memory of his own writing, where did the words come from?
He stole it from someone who can actually write poems during the 0th loop, that plagiarizing bastard!
Quote Posted by raph
I'm not a physicist but isn't symetry a characteristic of finite objects? I mean, if we consider time to be infinite, that is, with no beginning and no end*, then we will not be able to define any 'middle' with which in turn we could start assessing symetry.
We could say it is symetric only with us as point of reference and infinity both before and after us, but that is not the same thing, as far as I know.
Hm. We can always divide time into discrete chunks. If each chunk is identical, time is symmetrical. Just like a racing track. Each lap around the track is the same.
Of course, hm. Things that go round are by definition finite.
We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a circular finite time and a forwards proceeding infinite time with identical chunks just by experiencing time, of course (even supposing we can live thru the whole loop). We'd need some other insight as to the shape of it.
So I suppose such identical chunks would either prove that time is circular or that given the same starting point the outcome of the universe is already determined without any of that quantum state bullshit (think procedurally generated). Don't really see a third option.
I just love armchair physics. :p
Don't take the fun away, Raven.
Ultraviolet on 13/1/2007 at 02:39
FLUX CAPACITOR
Dia on 13/1/2007 at 03:28
BlackErtai wins.
TheGreatGodPan on 13/1/2007 at 07:54
E-mail the guy who runs (
http://www.mjyoung.net/time/index.htm) this site. He's a nice smart dude who was willing to talk to me about portrayals of time-travel in fiction.
Pyrian on 13/1/2007 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Raven
those laws are merely statistical
Heh, more so I suspect than you think. That being said, they still run one way and not the other (even if "merely statistical", a merely statistical difference is a difference nonetheless), and your comments do nothing to address that.
Quote Posted by Raven
...your entropic increase has no fundamental bearing.
True, it's in all likelihood a separate root cause, however entropic increase does demonstrate empricially that time does have an arrow. The burden of proof is on you.
Quote Posted by Raven
I ban any continued physics discussion unless people start referencing respected scientific texts/journals... and yes that rules out wikipedia.
Then cite some yourself, hypocrite.
st.patrick on 14/1/2007 at 16:18
XI: THOU SHALT NOT ENRAGE A STAR TREK NERD
Raven on 14/1/2007 at 17:13
Quote:
True, it's in all likelihood a separate root cause, however entropic increase does demonstrate empricially that time does have an arrow.
- no only that our perceptions have an arrow, hence my bit about limited human concepts.
jeez
When you scoff and say "more so than you think" - Do you mean the fact that the laws are statistical because the probability of increase far out weights the probability of decrease so much that our empirical (inaccurate) observations in macroscopic systems lead to the so called laws which become inapplicable at microscopic levels? Perhaps your apparent rebut should read "heh, yes, you are correct on that assertion".
Time at it's best is merely a measurement of change in a system - it isn't even a full operand when working with Heisenberg's and Schroedinger's. If you could please explain the transition between quantum microscopic and macroscopic or refer to definitive/conclusive published work about quantum decoherance, then you can start waxing lyrical about time's arrow. Untill then back off!
I am not going to bother backing my statements up as there is no contention (in current thinking from the relevant fields of study) in anything I have said so far; the burden off proof is on me only if you are ignorant about the topics at hand, and for that my suggested reading list would be any course on statistical thermodynamics.
