0 members (),
515
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
This thought experiment involves a friction-free snooker table, in a vacuum. The cue-ball is alone on the table, placed centrally on the balk cushion.
At t=0 the cue strikes it, sending it straight up the table at constant velocity, v, with constant momentum, p. At t=1 it crosses the green spot. At t=2 it crosses the blue spot. At t=3 it arrives at the pink spot; at which point, time is reversed.
It crosses the blue and green spots at t=2 and t=1, respectively. What happens to v and p, both are vectors, so at t=2 and t=1, in reversed time, the ball is travelling towards the balk cushion, but the vectors point away from it?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
the green , blue and pink spots are not lined up with each other. the 3 spots are not in a straight line so the ball would experience a change in velocity if it did cross the green spot and the blue spot and then it vectored to the pink spot. however you can buy more pink spots and place another pink spot on the table lined up with the other 2 spots and then they would all be in a straight line. or you could simply exchange the green spot with the brown spot in the OP if thats the way you do things.
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
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
What happens to v and p, both are vectors, so at t=2 and t=1, in reversed time, the ball is travelling towards the balk cushion, but the vectors point away from it? Now place yourself at the other far end bounce cushion and time is always running backwards according to you even when you are waiting to strike the ball ... you may need to think about it for a second Time only goes the right way when the ball has bounced and is on it's way back. Bill S new word for the day to learn about => Hamiltonian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanicsThe time evolution of the system is uniquely defined by Hamilton's equations You have created a Hamiltonian description and it's just a mathematical description. The article even tells you how to deal with your vector descriptions and the physical meaning. Want me to prove to you that your description is completely meaningless ... pick up the ball somewhere in it's travels. So which way is your time running when I pick the ball up?
Last edited by Orac; 06/15/16 02:37 PM.
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 |
oh , Im on orachnids ignore list ... LOL you may need to think about it for a second
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
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
At t=1 it crosses the green spot. Of course, that should have been the brown spot! Peter Ebdon plays snooker (very well) in spite of being colour blind; but even he would not put the green on that spot.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Now place yourself at the other far end bounce cushion and time is always running backwards according to you even when you are waiting to strike the ball ... you may need to think about it for a second I thought about it for a few seconds, but wherever I stand, time runs the same way. Thanks for the link. I understand that Roger Penrose's father tought him calculus the evening before he started it at school. It would take me a lot longer, and I don't have the time; so if there is something there that would enlighten me, it will need to be simplified. Lots! So which way is your time running when I pick the ball up? Same way it was before you picked it up.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
is this your thought experiment or someone elses?
the reason Im asking is because if it were possible to reverse time then both v and p would be in the reversed direction.
my reasoning on this is that when the ball strikes the cue at the balk cushion its momentum would be transferred into the cue due to its v and mass.
if the experiment is only referencing time as in a frame by frame event such as a video that is stopped as the ball reaches the pink spot and then reversed frame by frame then in that case both v and p would still point the same way.
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
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Thanks for the link. I understand that Roger Penrose's father tought him calculus the evening before he started it at school. It would take me a lot longer, and I don't have the time; so if there is something there that would enlighten me, it will need to be simplified. Lots! Instead of using the colors on the table make it a distance from the point you choose (you selected the cushion) and write the equation for speed and time. The formula is straight forward: distance = speed ball hit at * time from ball strike That is the hamiltonian you are describing in your thoughts. So select a table a length (say 2m), select a suitable speed say (0.25 m/sec) now write the distance for each of the 10 seconds following the ball strike. Do you see the problem with your hamiltonian ... => time from ball strike only conceptually only goes forward then your distance can only ever get bigger. When the ball hits the time reversal pink spot the distance actually starts decreasing the weird behaviour you think is strange. So what is required is to negate one of the terms in the hamiltonian at the point of reversal. That can be done in one of TWO WAYS. 1.) Turn speed into a velocity one way being +ve the other -ve 2.) Invert time at the reversal point, notionally its zero at the reversal point so time has a +ve and -ve component Surprised me but Paul correctly worked that out but he went for both, they don't both reverse you get to choose one. The problem is there exists no selective process you can choose that tells you which is right or wrong or even if it has physically correct meaning. What I was trying to get you to realize in your thought experiment was that your statement time reverses at the pink spot is totally SUBJECTIVE. I can solve your problem in two other ways than your choice 1.) By simply putting time = 0 at the pink spot and it doesn't matter which way time runs the calculation will work. So time is zero at the pink spot and radiates out from that point. 2.) I can simply have an invisible bumper at the pink spot and the ball actually bounced inverting it's velocity. So even if I could physically do your experiment and view it I would not in any way deduce time had reversed and it introduces no anomaly. Same way it was before you picked it up. So now we take the other choice you didn't consider that when the ball reached the pink spot you the observer started going backward in time. If the pink ball is a point with a time reversal why can't the point you are observing from be one. Picking up the ball is a metaphor for some event that is nothing to do with what is being observed but what the observer does or has done to them. Your experiment assumes you the observer are GOD and know exactly what is actually happening .. an impossibility for us mere mortals.
Last edited by Orac; 06/17/16 07:15 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
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
the reason Im asking is because if it were possible to reverse time then both v and p would be in the reversed direction. For the sake of discussion, I'm accepting relativity. This means that t=2 (for example) is an immutable spacetime event. It cannot occur with v and p running R to L, then L to R.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Your experiment assumes you the observer are GOD and know exactly what is actually happening .. an impossibility for us mere mortals. This is more-or-less my starting point. There are too many impossibilities to allow physical time reversal to work. Or are there? Do we impose the "impossibilities" through our own maths and physics. BTW; I am "god"; so are you; but that's a whole different line of logic.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
is this your thought experiment or someone elses? It's my thought experiment, but I got the idea from somewhere. I'll let you know if/when I remember where, because I'm fairly sure there were other time related issues there as well. Yes - you are "god", too. Feels good, doesn't it?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
well if its about "spacetime" then I personally dont care.
I just cant think of a valid reason to care.
right , thats it.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Yes - you are "god", too. Feels good, doesn't it? at first when I read that I pictured a fish swimming in a stream minding his own business carrying out his daily routine who was startled by a plopping sound as if something had been thrown into the stream ... and I can see through the eyes of the fish as he swims over to the location where he heard the sound coming from ... hes looking at a shinny bright metallic object with a big fat juicy worm dangling from it ... the shinny metallic object and the big fat juicy worm then begin to jump up and down as if it ha been startled by the fish , and then the fish sees a tiny clear plastic line that is attached to the bright shinny object that leads up and out of the stream. at first the fish was hungry but now hes curious so he quickly darts through the water following the plastic line then suddenly he is out of the water flying through the air and out of one of his eyes he sees a man standing on the bank holding a fishing rod and quickly tugging it up and down with a really big grin on his face ... and standing just behind the man is a really huge grizzly bear who towers high above the mans head and to the right of the mans head is a brown blur that is quickly approaching the mans head the fish glances at the bears head , the bear has a really big grin on its face. about that time the fish plops back into the stream and as he does he hears a extremely large splash and feels a jolt as he is swimming back to where the bright shinny metallic object was he notices that the plastic line is now laying flat on the bottom of the stream and the worm has crawled off of the bright shinny metallic object ... the fish swims over to the worm and asks the worm if he would like to see the inside of his stomach and the worm said that was exactly what the man asked you when he saw you just before he tossed me into the stream. as the fish is looking at the worm crawling away , the water is quickly changing to a bright shinny red color the next thing the fish feels is something hes never experienced before ... there is no water ... he cant breath .. then . he sees the bears teeth he both hears and feels a loud crunch and then darkness. the moral of this story is that theres always something bigger than you are. and of course the bait got away.
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
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
OK, forget about spacetime, if you wish.
At t=2 the ball crosses the blue spot, R to L.
At t=3 it arrives at the pink spot; at which point, time is reversed.
At what time does the ball cross the blue spot, L to R?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
if time could be reversed then the measurements would also be reversed.
t=2
time is a measurement and nothing else.
so its like using a measurement tape.
measured out to t=3 then back to t=2
why?
because if time were forwarded again at the blue spot
then history would repeat in the same order.
and the ball would once again approach the pink spot or t=3
else
if you advanced the time measurement to t=4 as the ball crosses the blue spot then time could not repeat if the time were forwarded at the blue spot because the next available time measurement would be t=5
and only 3 units of time would have occured.
t=1 t=2 and t=3
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
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
For the sake of discussion, I'm accepting relativity. This means that t=2 (for example) is an immutable spacetime event. It cannot occur with v and p running R to L, then L to R. immutable spacetime event???? ... in relativity? Really? Refresher ... Newtonian physics has immutable space and time events. Einstein wanted that feature in Relativity but he lost the argument and eventually worked it out that observers may see things differently. To be blunt unless you are god you can't even identify that the ball didn't just go past t2 and keep sailing on and you started observing it go backward ... in a nutshell you have no way to know your observation is "absolute" or "real". This goes back to the time problem at the event horizon and you wanting to make it real. You need to stop making things "real" and "immutable" just because you observe them. Go and read Einsteins train thought experiment. I can tell you from your setup I can't determine a thing, I don't have enough information.
Last edited by Orac; 06/19/16 02:17 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
This is more-or-less my starting point. There are too many impossibilities to allow physical time reversal to work. Or are there? Do we impose the "impossibilities" through our own maths and physics. In your experiment there is no way to sort forward from backward time in your experiment, you haven't given me enough to sort that out. The biggest problem with your experiment is the result, which starts from an out there suggestion of a point at which time reverses. So to make the "result fit" I am thinking what motions could happen to "observe that", and more direct out there results would be things like enter a worm hole and come out at the same entry point but going backwards. You are constructing the far out idea of a point at which time could reverse so I assume I am allowed to put a wormhole there as time is going backwards. So I believe in worm holes no but nor do I believe in points at which time reverses. You need to have it clear in you mind when you talk of reversing time are you talking of really doing that or just reversing event order because the two things are not the same. Reversing event order is reasonably easy to do, reversing actual time not so much. Paul correctly worked the LOGIC fail, that you can't be talking about real actual time as you won't go backwards because through the same section of space you initially were going forward. So why didn't you go backwards when coming thru the same section of space originally. If this was your start point I think you need a new one
Last edited by Orac; 06/19/16 02:26 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
To be blunt unless you are god you can't even identify that the ball didn't just go past t2 and keep sailing on and you started observing it go backward ... in a nutshell you have no way to know your observation is "absolute" or "real". While this is all, undoubtedly, true; games of snooker are played, and they are subject to the laws of physics. If you apply your reasoning to the events of the macro-world, how would a player know what any ball was going to do?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
If this was your start point I think you need a new one A tourist in Ireland stopped his car and asked a local man: “Could you direct me to Ballynanty?” The man thought for a moment, then said: “Ah, to be sure, if I was going to Ballynanty, I’d not start from here”.
Last edited by Bill S.; 06/20/16 09:27 AM.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|