Time

[Speakpigeon]

Hmm. Google translate literally translates versé as versed (practiced), which makes more sense to me. Anyway... Context detection?

I would guess more trivially that someone just forgot that in French one could be 'versé' in, say, Russian literature, Greek philosophy or Japanese 能 (Noh).

What option was left was just the trivial spilled milk.

Nothing more wrong than that, sure, but fun, too.
EB

 

[DBT]

The laws/principles of physics are probably Universal as a consequence of the BB (a Multiverse, depending on the model, may contain 'universes' with different law/principles), but what we call time is relative to the observer/mass/velocity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Physicists continue their efforts in search of a theory that would justify the lack of reversibility of the time variable.

Justification for lack of reversibility of time variable: more than one actor. Mystery solved.

So what?

Could you please explain what's an 'actor' in Relativity?
EB

A simple example of an actor would be an object with inertia in some direction (non relativistic is fine). If you have just one object, you still need another source of energy to reverse that object's direction of movement. So for it to go back to a previous point, it needs some force to change it's direction. Not only that, it needs a force to change the direction of every particle within it as well....

Going back in time requires every particle in the universe to abruptly reverse inertia (direction of inertia). A funny consequence would be that a human mind would not be able to tell whether it was in a universe that was going forwards or backwards in time, because every state (assuming we leave out QM bullshit about non-determinism for now) would be exactly the same going forwards or backwards (assuming conscious observers aren't parity violators or something).


Or you can just check out entropy. The complexity of reversing entropy (or time) is that you have to do it at every scale, everywhere, at once.

That one protein fold that you forgot about, or that one particle in the fold? Well, that could have large effects over time (reversed or otherwise).

I think that's just one aspect of the question.

To go back in time, i.e. for the past to occur again but in reverse, would require reversing the movement of each one fundamental particle in the universe, which I agree seems an impossible feat to achieve, and certainly not something that would occur naturally.

However, this is not really the question. The question is: Why does entropy only increase over time if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

However, this is not really the question. The question is: Why does entropy only increase over time if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

Why would you assume that it isn't the case at the quantum level?

 

[Malintent]

I am of the opinion that in the absence of any event, we have an absence of "time".

That's also my view but without time we need something else to explain the facts, I think. So, how do you explain that the same species of atoms located billions of light-years appart should nonetheless be seen as emitting exactly the same light?

They are following the same 'rules'. I don't feel like I need an explanation for why things act consistently.. it is my default expectation. If atoms just 'did whatever they wanted to'. .acted differently for no apparent reason / cause... that for me would require some explanation.

How it is possible for this absolutely huge universe to vibrate at exactly the same rate everywhere without a master clock?

How is it possible for objects to fall at precisely the same rate of acceleration proportional to mass everywhere without there being a master speedometer?

Philosophically, the vibration of the universe IS the master clock... at least, it defines the length of the plank second... and the speed of light (??)

As long as the recording speed matches the playback speed, the record will sound just fine... so whether our universe was set at 33, 45, or 78 RPM, The Beatles' Helter Skelter will still be in the key of G.

 

[Speakpigeon]

However, this is not really the question. The question is: Why does entropy only increase over time if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

Why would you assume that it isn't the case at the quantum level?

I don't assume the answer. I'm asking the question.

I thought that much was obvious.

My point is that observers only see entropy going up. Why is that, if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

They are following the same 'rules'.

Why is that, do you know?

And how would rules be enough to set the same rate across the universe.

I don't feel like I need an explanation for why things act consistently.. it is my default expectation.

Maybe it is but why is that do think?

How it is possible for this absolutely huge universe to vibrate at exactly the same rate everywhere without a master clock?

How is it possible for objects to fall at precisely the same rate of acceleration proportional to mass everywhere without there being a master speedometer?

Yep, exactly.

So, why is that?

Philosophically, the vibration of the universe IS the master clock... at least, it defines the length of the plank second... and the speed of light (??)

First time I hear about the "vibration of the universe".

Could you refer me to any science website explaining this? All I get from Google are Yogi and other spiritual sites.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

However, this is not really the question. The question is: Why does entropy only increase over time if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

Why would you assume that it isn't the case at the quantum level?

I don't assume the answer. I'm asking the question.

I thought that much was obvious.

My point is that observers only see entropy going up. Why is that, if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

I think maybe you are confusing terms. The concept of entropy doesn't really make much sense at the quantum level. For example; how does entropy address the behavior or properties of an isolated electron?

 

[Treedbear]

Why would you assume that it isn't the case at the quantum level?

I don't assume the answer. I'm asking the question.

I thought that much was obvious.

My point is that observers only see entropy going up. Why is that, if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

I think maybe you are confusing terms. The concept of entropy doesn't really make much sense at the quantum level. For example; how does entropy address the behavior or properties of an isolated electron?

I think you're right. I think entropy is a macroscopic effect. But even at that level it's an issue of probability. There are just many more ways for entropy to increase rather than decrease. If you place a drop of food dye in a glass of water what are the chances that it will eventually all come together again in a different location?

 

[Kharakov]

To go back in time, i.e. for the past to occur again but in reverse, would require reversing the movement of each one fundamental particle in the universe, which I agree seems an impossible feat to achieve, and certainly not something that would occur naturally.

However, this is not really the question. The question is: Why does entropy only increase over time if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?

Because we aren't dealing with the quantum level- we're dealing with reality. And decreasing entropy is not just as probable at the quantum level- unless you throw out the correspondence principle.

Anyways, it's not just one actor (particle, or whatever) that has to have its momentum reversed:

The concept of entropy doesn't really make much sense at the quantum level. For example; how does entropy address the behavior or properties of an isolated electron?

 

[Malintent]

Why is that, do you know?

And how would rules be enough to set the same rate across the universe.




Maybe it is but why is that do think?

How it is possible for this absolutely huge universe to vibrate at exactly the same rate everywhere without a master clock?

How is it possible for objects to fall at precisely the same rate of acceleration proportional to mass everywhere without there being a master speedometer?

Yep, exactly.

So, why is that?

Philosophically, the vibration of the universe IS the master clock... at least, it defines the length of the plank second... and the speed of light (??)

First time I hear about the "vibration of the universe".

Could you refer me to any science website explaining this? All I get from Google are Yogi and other spiritual sites.
EB

This is generally the point at which I tend to bow out of philosophical discussions... when we get down to the, "yabut... what is IS, then".
Why is there something instead of nothing, domain.... why is there consistency rather than randomness...

short answer... if there wasn't consistency in universal laws we wouldn't be here to ask about it.
Why? why not?

Regarding the "vibration of the universe".. you are right. If you Google that phrase you get the silliest nonsense. Things like finding god through sound frequencies and such...

Instead, try "M Theory vibration".

M Theory says the most fundamental particles that make up existence are in constant motion, vibrating at a specific frequency that is universal. I didn;t bring that up, though... another poster did, and I used that thought in one of my responses, because it was supportive of my understanding of time... such as that is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think maybe you are confusing terms. The concept of entropy doesn't really make much sense at the quantum level. For example; how does entropy address the behavior or properties of an isolated electron?

And I seem to be fairly certain you understand diddly-squat as to the question I submitted.


Anyway, thanks for your eagerness to contribute your expertise.

Try again, and then again.

Maybe one day you'll make it safely onto the other side.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't assume the answer. I'm asking the question.

I thought that much was obvious.

My point is that observers only see entropy going up. Why is that, if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?
EB

I think maybe you are confusing terms. The concept of entropy doesn't really make much sense at the quantum level. For example; how does entropy address the behavior or properties of an isolated electron?

I think you're right.

What!?

I think entropy is a macroscopic effect.

Sure.

Let's move on.

But even at that level it's an issue of probability.

Well... Do you know of any causally effective property other than quantum physics that could explain entropy at a macroscopic level?

If not, how does quantum physics explain the entropy we see at a macroscopic level?

That's my question.

There are just many more ways for entropy to increase rather than decrease.

Really?! Is that so? Is that a scientific result?

Do you know it is or are you just making this up?

If you place a drop of food dye in a glass of water what are the chances that it will eventually all come together again in a different location?

Sure, it's what happens. We all know that. The question is how does QM explain that if it does.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

I think maybe you are confusing terms. The concept of entropy doesn't really make much sense at the quantum level. For example; how does entropy address the behavior or properties of an isolated electron?

I think you're right.

What!?

No need for the drama.

I think entropy is a macroscopic effect.

Sure.
Let's move on.

What-ever.

But even at that level it's an issue of probability.

Well... Do you know of any causally effective property other than quantum physics that could explain entropy at a macroscopic level?

If not, how does quantum physics explain the entropy we see at a macroscopic level?

That's my question.

You said: "My point is that observers only see entropy going up. Why is that, if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?"

It was your premise. Where is your evidence?

There are just many more ways for entropy to increase rather than decrease.

Really?! Is that so? Is that a scientific result?
Do you know it is or are you just making this up?

I'm not a statistician but that's where I would look for support. It seems self evident enough for now.

If you place a drop of food dye in a glass of water what are the chances that it will eventually all come together again in a different location?

Sure, it's what happens. We all know that. The question is how does QM explain that if it does.
EB

I don't know. But I wasn't the one who suggested that time is causally effected by entropy. The point I made is that both time as well as entropy are the result of probabilities. Statistical probabilities.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is generally the point at which I tend to bow out of philosophical discussions... when we get down to the, "yabut... what is IS, then".
Why is there something instead of nothing, domain.... why is there consistency rather than randomness...

short answer... if there wasn't consistency in universal laws we wouldn't be here to ask about it.
Why? why not?

Obviously, I'm bound to be disappointed but I'm not too surprised.

Basically, you just don't know.

Regarding the "vibration of the universe".. you are right. If you Google that phrase you get the silliest nonsense. Things like finding god through sound frequencies and such...

Instead, try "M Theory vibration".

M Theory says the most fundamental particles that make up existence are in constant motion, vibrating at a specific frequency that is universal. I didn;t bring that up, though... another poster did, and I used that thought in one of my responses, because it was supportive of my understanding of time... such as that is.

Alright, very interesting, but this does not answer my question I think.

Thanks, anyway.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If not, how does quantum physics explain the entropy we see at a macroscopic level?

That's my question.

You said: "My point is that observers only see entropy going up. Why is that, if a decreasing entropy is just as probable at quantum level?"

It was your premise. Where is your evidence?

I don't have any evidence. I'm just repeating what I think I understood science is saying. That's science as I know of it. Entropy can decrease locally, but only at the expense of an equal or larger increase in some larger system. Overall, entropy can only remain stable or increase.

Is that not true, you think?!

Really?! Is that so? Is that a scientific result?
Do you know it is or are you just making this up?

I'm not a statistician but that's where I would look for support. It seems self evident enough for now.

I don't know. For any given state and for every possible evolution of this state, there must be a mirror evolution where each particle is moving in the opposite direction.

If you place a drop of food dye in a glass of water what are the chances that it will eventually all come together again in a different location?

Sure, it's what happens. We all know that. The question is how does QM explain that if it does.
EB

I don't know. But I wasn't the one who suggested that time is causally effected by entropy. The point I made is that both time as well as entropy are the result of probabilities. Statistical probabilities.

I never suggested anything like "time is causally effected by entropy". That idea seems idiotic to me.

For the rest, maybe somebody else knows the answer.

Thanks anyway.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

nm (until I read last responce)

 

[steve_bank]

Entropy is a number.

The Laws Of Thermodynamics apply to a bounded system like a computer or refrigerator. As the bounds are expanded to infinity, as in an infinite universe, the principles break down. Such as the idea of the entire universe reaching equilibrium, or thermal death. All activity and motion ceases.

A master clock of the universe? Timing devices measure change. Why matter attracts at constant rate of acceleration is not know, we observe that it does and we quantify with timing devices.

 

[Malintent]

If I may interject into this part of the conversation...
I do not think that anyone stated that entropy affects time.
My understanding was that one could reference the vector of change in energy as the direction and magnitude of time. So, a possible answer to the question, "what is time", could be "the direction of entropy". I thought that was a very interesting way of phrasing it.
It still comes down to a relationship between two values... distances, energy levels... etc.


I feel like the conversation is dipping into something like, "what is the number 4". The number 4 is a representation of lots of possible things... like the representation of 1 more than 3. But "4" isn't "out there" waiting to be discovered, defined, or otherwise described as an independent entity.

...and neither is time.

 

[fast]

Entropy is a number.

The Laws Of Thermodynamics apply to a bounded system like a computer or refrigerator. As the bounds are expanded to infinity, as in an infinite universe, the principles break down. Such as the idea of the entire universe reaching equilibrium, or thermal death. All activity and motion ceases.

A master clock of the universe? Timing devices measure change. Why matter attracts at constant rate of acceleration is not know, we observe that it does and we quantify with timing devices.

Entropy is information, well, according to Leonard Susskind anyways.