0 members (),
93
guests, and
0
robots. 
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod



Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
Frank Wilczek has done a quality article for Quanta Magazine, and when Frank writes it's always worth reading. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160107arrowoftimeaxions/Marosz: if you spam the thread just because it has the word time, I am going to ask AR2 to take action against you. You already have 50 odd threads all containing the same children drawings, which make sense to only you.The definition of SPAMMING .. sending the same messages repeatedly on the same site.
Last edited by Orac; 01/12/16 01:55 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 
in order to reverse time the arrow must reverse direction. spinning the electron in the opposite direction but the charge itself + and  will flip as electron spin changes direction. in order to change the electron spin without also flipping the charge what must you do? do you know? can you think about our sun as being an electron in our galaxy? what causes our suns charge to flip?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
Your question Paul is with respect to what are you going to reverse it .. nominate the reference point? You have chosen a very physical interpretation, which from your beliefs I wasn't really expecting. You can't use space itself because you argued against Einstein You got yourself stuck again .. same situation as having no fixed speed of light yet still believing you can have a doppler effect. You have two very incompatible things going on in your physics again. So care to elaborate the reference or you going to hand wave again? If you want a suggestion make direction relative to a persons conscious that is always a good way out and science can't test it.
Last edited by Orac; 01/13/16 01:48 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
And You not like my drawing ? I can't remotely understand it for two reasons. 1.) The discussion is time reversal symmetry and we have a plane wing ... what is the relevance to this thread ????????? 2.) Even if we were discussing aerodynamics and Grover Swartzlander theory it works nothing like what you have drawn. So a normal person would create a thread with JUST THAT ONE IMAGE not all your other spam images. Then they would need to explain the idea because no sane person is going to remotely understand what you are saying as presented. It sort of comes across like you expect the light to be deflected down from the wing shape like air does creating lift ... most people would know that is wrong, so they will be totally confused. Beyond all that whichever way you look it, your drawing doesn't belong in this thread and has nothing to do with time reversal symmetry (the topic). We do however thankyou that is was at least only one image completely off topic rather than the usual 3 pages.
Last edited by Orac; 01/13/16 01:35 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 
Oh sorry sometimes it is hard to understand me HOW YOU WAN TO MEASURE TIME ?Symetry in physics ? mass m and mass m ? how heavy is mass m ? m>>V .........V<<m ???? m........<<<<<V HOW HEAVY IS ELECTRON !!! 2,18 * 10^6 m/s (hydrogen ) SYMETRY ???
Last edited by newton; 01/13/16 06:26 AM.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
Oh sorry sometimes it is hard to understand me It's always hard when you don't communicate in the manner you are finally doing now. We don't understand your drawings at all. HOW YOU WAN TO MEASURE TIME ? Well historically it has usually been a pendulum, a vibration or a mechanical movement (a clock). There is no other option in classical physics because time is created by induction from the above time base. Now if you want to look at advanced sciences like QM there are far more fundamental ways but that is a whole other story. For you a pendulum will do, link what you are trying to say to a pendulum movement. mass m and mass m ? how heavy is mass m ? What has mass got to do with time? I know you don't believe in Einstein so I can't even connect it that way. Why so many drawings, they make no sense at all? If you must ONE DRAWING and then WRITE to us what it shows ABOUT TIME, which is our topic. We all know there are lots of symmetries in physics and we don't need drawings to explain that. Anyone will tell you that we understand your english better than your drawings. I replied to each of you written comments because I can understand them. I can't talk about your drawings because they are just confused messes. You have been told that repeatedly on many many sites. I am struggling to link anything in any of your discussions to time. Write it, do not draw it and I might actually understand you. Out of that entire post and all your drawings all I got was Marosz recognized there are Symmetries in physics. You said that 3 words in the 3rd sentence and I understood it and it needed no drawings.
Last edited by Orac; 01/13/16 09:49 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 
You can't use space itself because you argued against Einstein Im almost certain that Einstein was real , so I didn't argue that he was real or unreal , I argue that his usage of optical illusions to try and prove a theory is obviously flawed. space is real but illusion is not real. so if I choose to use space then I can without any reference to some illusion that only attempts to prop up several of Einsteins flawed theories. You got yourself stuck again .. same situation as having no fixed speed of light yet still believing you can have a doppler effect. You have two very incompatible things going on in your physics again.
that makes no sense as a Doppler effect would not require a set speed of light , even a slow moving light through a medium would present a Doppler effect if the medium containing the slow moving light were traveling towards you or away from you. the same applies to light traveling faster than the speed of light. do you see the problems that your brand of physics accompanied by theory supporting optical illusions and fake math cause in actual physics.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.




Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar

Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 
Orac, I'm sorry I didn't get to delete Marosz's posts sooner. I have been offline for 6 days because my computer barfed on an update and ended up costing me more than I can afford to fix. I thank you for your restraint in dealing with him. We can only hope he can be taught at some point.
Amaranth
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. A Rose




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
This from a mathematical Luddite!
Given that x does not = y, are the following equations mathematically valid?
(1) x^0 = 1
(2) y^0 = 1
Given that (1) and (2) are valid, neither is reversible. Presumably this makes them time asymmetric.
Is this because information is not conserved in these actions?
There never was nothing.




Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 
Both of those statements are mathematically valid. But: The problem with your question is that you are looking at a mathematical statement, and trying to make it be a physical statement. While mathematics is used to express physical facts there are a lot of mathematical facts that don't necessarily apply to physics. I kind of hate to sound like Orac, but try to think of a physical measurement where a^0 has any meaning. Right off the top of my had I can't think of one.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
Not much of a mathematical Luddite let me rewrite the problem for you to make whats wrong with his answer clearer x^0 = y^0 y^0 = x^0 Is x < y or is y < x ????? Given x and y are representing time that is what we are checking is reversible. Ask him to prove x is less than y from his proof which is what he has to be assuming. To show him the problem set x = 3sec and y = 1sec. X comes before Y for him and so now time goes backwards to him The fact he can't separate x from y is what he actually proved ... he scored an own goal Even in the purest version of mathematics positive and negative is a convention not something that can be proved. One mans positive is another mans negative. I had ten dollars, when I give it to you I am $10 but you are +$10 dollars. The plus/minus is totally point of view there is no absolute ... yeah relativity again. If he is layman naive what he will do next is claim he measures time x before y so he will try to exclude your reversal of y and x If he doesn't get it ask him to put his car in reverse and ask him to describe which way is forward and which is backwards using his maths. His forward will have all negative signs and so we can conclude forward means negative sign which wont work when actually driving forward. See the problem of using measurement to establish direction. The connection between convention in maths and convention in physics reality is a very slippery slope even in high energy physics we have a thing called west coast and east coast convention because people took different points of view. Disagreement about sign conventions is a frequent source of confusion, frustration, misunderstandings, and even outright errors in scientific work. In general, a sign convention is a special case of a choice of coordinate system for the case of one dimension. Measuring time X coming before Y doesn't prove that it does it just establishes a convention based on your sign choice of how you saw it unfold, and certainly doesn't prove it can't be reversed. There is no way into the problem with mathematics he can't even prove to me 1 is greater than 1, they are both one unit from any zero. We choose in some instances that 1 is greater than 1 by definition of number set order, it is not something you can prove. It like car driving direction is simply a convention based on how we usually see things.
Last edited by Orac; 02/03/16 01:09 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
I kind of hate to sound like Orac, but try to think of a physical measurement where a^0 has any meaning. Right off the top of my had I can't think of one. You may hate to sound like me but you are spot on and then you are left with the tricky problem described above prove the order x < y or y < x which you have to do to prove non reversible time. I guess those who follow Max Tegmark and his Mathematical universe hypothesis, may try and give some physical meaning to mathematics but they are a little short on any sort of evidence. The biggest issue with it is, the same as above directions are totally arbitrary so why don't some parts of the universe run backwards and some forwards to the absolute universal mathematical zero. There exists matter/anti matter so why no time and antitime? The problem that crops up is 0^0 is technically undefined it isn't really one. Nothing like a universe built on an undefined I once asked Max to solve that problem, he sidestepped, he knows the problem his universe is built on consensus. 0^0 is still a very contentious issue in some circles in mathematics it was set to one by consensus not proof Background: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.htmlConsensus and lack of proof is easy when the thing you are working isn't real, which is the heart of your correct answer.
Last edited by Orac; 02/03/16 04:25 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
Both of those statements are mathematically valid. But: The problem with your question is that you are looking at a mathematical statement, and trying to make it be a physical statement. While mathematics is used to express physical facts there are a lot of mathematical facts that don't necessarily apply to physics. I kind of hate to sound like Orac, but try to think of a physical measurement where a^0 has any meaning. Right off the top of my had I can't think of one. I don’t know about sounding like Orac; in pointing to the distinction between mathematical and physical truths, you have climbed onto one of my “soapboxes”.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
Not much of a mathematical Luddite let me rewrite the problem for you to make whats wrong with his answer clearer
x^0 = y^0 y^0 = x^0
Is x < y or is y < x ?????
Given x and y are representing time that is what we are checking is reversible. Just to deconfuse the issue: I was referring to myself as a mathematical Luddite. Also, I was not necessarily regarding x and y as times. The line of reasoning went like this: If x^0 = 1 and y^0 = 1, then neither equation can be worked in reverse, because, starting with “1”, there would be no way of knowing if one should arrive at x or y. Thus I reasoned that neither equation (nor any n^0) would work if time were reversed. I progressed to asking myself what it was that caused this apparent time asymmetry. The answer seemed to be nonconservation of the information: did we start from x or y?
There never was nothing.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
I don’t know about sounding like Orac; in pointing to the distinction between mathematical and physical truths, you have climbed onto one of my “soapboxes”. So you want to go down this path? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
If x^0 = 1 and y^0 = 1, then neither equation can be worked in reverse, because, starting with “1”, there would be no way of knowing if one should arrive at x or y. Even as events you are going to end up with X/Y as some complex function including time. Lets throw a rock off a cliff and give you two functions one from the start and one from the end function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2); Definitions:m = horizontal velocity I threw rock at u = vertical velocity I threw rock at (unlikely I got it perfectly horizontal) a = gravity AKA 9.8 m/s/s t = time from launch function Y = function(mt, ut  1/2at^2); It's the car in reverse problem again see the appearance of the negative signs. Time still goes forward but your motion numbers need negatives. Now lets write a function Z from the END TIME so time will go backwards function Z = function(mt, ut  1/2at^2); Here t = time from land ... so launch time 5 seconds. This one is a mix of signs created because the square of a negative number is positive t^2 The point here is Function X, Y & Z are all perfectly valid mathematical functions describing our observation and nothing in mathematics is going to help you work out which way time should go. Thus I reasoned that neither equation (nor any n^0) would work if time were reversed. Do you see you kicked an own goal .. what you actually proved was you can't distinguish Function X ^ 0 = Function Y ^ 0 = Function Z ^ 0 = 1 The answer seemed to be nonconservation of the information: did we start from x or y? That is the problem but you haven't solved it and about now you should realize there are infact infinite functions not just X & Y. You snubbed all the points in the middle who are demanding they are actually the start, and time runs both ways. I mean Bill S has a history and a future, you even measure them from present (10 min ago, 15 minutes from now etc) In classical physics they bring in cause and effect. So time starts at a cause and and effect follows. Many layman get comfortable and trapped in that, the Flat Earth effect what you sense does not make it so. So we need to look at all data and make sure it isn't an illusion, yourself is the easiest person to fool ringing in our ears. Relativity brings in the problem that one mans cause is another mans effect, two observers don't see things the same. So we put the restriction cause must precede effect only according to inertial observers. So you will see cause before effect only on things in your inertial frame. Einstein struggled with anguish over some of this stuff and where it lead himself because he wanted to keep cause and effect. QM introduces us the waveform and it connects the cause and effect and as per Relativity in some instances they can be in reversed time order, making the two theories at least compatible at this level. The connection between two events is the QM wave and it doesn't have an absolute direction that must come from elsewhere. Now those new B meson experiments are the first sign of hope that we can identify microstate processes that are not time symmetrical and the compounding effect will explain the direction of time for macro objects like us.
Last edited by Orac; 02/04/16 07:22 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
On the contrary; I think mathematics emerges from reality (whatever that might be) via rational thinking. The universe does not emerge from mathematics, but mathematics is the best descriptive tool we have yet discovered with which we can formulate tentative descriptions of what we observe.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 
Im not even sure that the below IS math ... what purpose does the comma (,) between the mt and ut serve. when writing a mathematical question you should give the values of the elements involved so that your answers can be checked , also you should give your answers so that they can be checked. Lets throw a rock off a cliff and give you two functions one from the start and one from the end
function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2);
Definitions: m = horizontal velocity I threw rock at u = vertical velocity I threw rock at (unlikely I got it perfectly horizontal) a = gravity AKA 9.8 m/s/s t = time from launch
function Y = function(mt, ut  1/2at^2);
It's the car in reverse problem again see the appearance of the negative signs. Time still goes forward but your motion numbers need negatives.
Now lets write a function Z from the END TIME so time will go backwards
function Z = function(mt, ut  1/2at^2);
Here t = time from land ... so launch time 5 seconds. This one is a mix of signs created because the square of a negative number is positive t^2
The point here is Function X, Y & Z are all perfectly valid mathematical functions describing our observation and nothing in mathematics is going to help you work out which way time should go.
from the gibberish above that you wrote how did you get that time is equal to 5 seconds? Im curious about this. what sort of math is this. is it mainly for conversation purposes? function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2); function X = function ( a number or a letter?) what was your answer or should we guess? humor me , what were your answers for function X function Y function Z nothing in mathematics is going to help you work out which way time should go.
if the rock landing time was 5 seconds then the (5) tells me that if you begin with 5 then time will go backwards starting from 5 seconds. what is so hard about that , in fact every element involved can be precisely calculated if needed to millionths or billionths of a second or pick any amount of time increment you desire , the heat generated from the impact as the rock impacts the earth , the amount of wind that the rock will generate , any possible element you desire to include can be precisely calculated not just predicted. using actual physics. LOL 1/2at^2 1/2 gravity x time ^2 gravity x time ? you should have said "nothing in actual mathematics because actual mathematics involves actual math not fake math like you are trying to push off on us" excuse me that LOL should have read ... ROTFFLMAO
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
Thus I reasoned that neither equation (nor any n^0) would work if time were reversed. Do you see you kicked an own goal .. what you actually proved was you can't distinguish Function X ^ 0 = Function Y ^ 0 = Function Z ^ 0 = 1 Bull'seye! You tend to over think some of my naïve posts. My point was that if you could not distinguish between two different equations that produced the same answer, from two different starting points, you could not reverse the process. Thus, even if you could reverse time, you would have no way of knowing if 1 (your answer) was derived from x or y by raising it to the power of 0. My next step was to reason that information had been lost. I’ll leave it to Paul to discuss the maths, because I don’t see what the dangerous practice of throwing stones off cliffs has to do with this. BTW, Paul, does my reasoning above make sense to you, or am I talking rubbish?
There never was nothing.




