Entropy and the arrow of time

[someguy]

someguy

 

because you can't unmove. you can only move. moving is time. so it must be forward.

 

Time is not directional it changes on th spot. It is convenient to measure time numerical as history. In reality only one point of time actually exist. You can refer back historically but not in reality (i.e directionally) because the historical point referred to no longer exists (it's history).

 

 

time is indeed directional. it is the increase in entropy. and that increases. yes you can go BACK historically to refer to a state of the universe where entropy was lower and disorder of energy lesser. but that was back where things were. and now, from moving, no matter which way they move the disorder is greater and thus it is a further point in time. to reach a previous state of entropy of the universe you need for everything to unmove, an impossibility as far as we know. it was a previous point of motion. motion causes all things to become into more disorder. thus time is directional in the forward way. because by virtue of motion the universe must increase in disorder.

 

no motion it would stay at the same state of disorder. some motion, the disorder increases, to reverse the process you need that which does not exist. unmotion. time moves forward, and you can measure it. and it moves forward the more that things move. if a group of things all move faster their relative motion remains the same, but the relative motion of their parts compared to a system exactly the same moving at a slower speed is slower.

 

Farsight, YOU don't understand.

 

and where is your post that defends your position on energy?

 

you barged into this site saying you had all the answers and you "explained" all these things and you "know" all this stuff. and yet you cannot make it past the second post of scrutiny. maybe other people know better than you.

[Norman Albers]

Someguy, what do you think about entropy if the universe were cyclic?

[someguy]

i think that's a good point. you're right it would mean you would need to be able to reduce entropy without unmoving so that you could start the universe again at entropy zero. I do think that a big crunch could achieve this, however i think this or something very similar would be the only way.

 

i'm not certain of the sorts of pressure needed, so perhaps this could be possible in a black hole or maybe just the whole universe? i don't know. but i think that if it would happen the body would need to explode again, kind of bouncing of rock bottom, so maybe not a black hole. but whatever the body may be i think that there would come a point where pressure of a large enough's own body would cause itself to revert back to the simplest form of energy in the universe, the most dense. if there is a big crunch i think it would need to crunch to the most dense and most compressed the universe could possibly go, that means, that it would need to be its most basic most compressible form, and the mere pressure of the body would incite this conversion. then you would have to say i think that since it is the most compressed clump of energy possible that it is completely uniform. if the most basic form of energy in the universe is uniform, then entropy would need to be at zero. it is similar to saying that, true if you break glass you cannot put it back, however if you melt it all down, you can start anew again. that's the way i look at it. the main difference is that glass is not the most elementary form of energy therefore even remelting the glass and putting it back has increased entropy, you have not reversed time, stopped time, nor began it again.

[Norman Albers]

Thirty years ago at a colloquium at Princeton someone described the most dense state as a single quantum from which would bounce forth a further evolution. Pretty heady stuff and I'm sure people are still thinking here, though I've not read much lately.

[elas]

someguy

 

time is indeed directional. it is the increase in entropy.

 

This is but one of a number of explanations of time. It relies on the truth of the claim that particle decay. On another forum I show that there is only one elementary particle that changes its state. At all states the contents of the particle remain unchanged; that leaves your statement open to challenge. My proposal has not been peer reviewed and therefore I appreciate its lowly position; but by submitting it to SFN I hope to obtain some straight forward opinions and avoid submitting a flawed paper, please join in and continue to debate this point. (this forum is threatened with closure)

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

[Norman Albers]

This is worth carrying on elsewhere if you care to.

[swansont]

Split from the farsight thread

 

time is indeed directional. it is the increase in entropy. and that increases.

 

Entropy is a quantity that becomes apparent only in collective systems. In individual interactions it's kinda meaningless, and there are precisely the ones where you can reverse time and they look no different. i.e. you can't look at a scattering reaction involving two particles and know if it's running in the forward or backward direction, and it's in that context that a positron looks like an electron going backwards in time. It's when you have extra places for energy to go (more particles or more states) that entropy becomes meaningful and is the arrow of time.

[someguy]

someguy

 

time is indeed directional. it is the increase in entropy.

 

This is but one of a number of explanations of time. It relies on the truth of the claim that particle decay. On another forum I show that there is only one elementary particle that changes its state. At all states the contents of the particle remain unchanged; that leaves your statement open to challenge. My proposal has not been peer reviewed and therefore I appreciate its lowly position; but by submitting it to SFN I hope to obtain some straight forward opinions and avoid submitting a flawed paper, please join in and continue to debate this point. (this forum is threatened with closure)

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

 

I don't mean to be rude, but i would much prefer if you posted your ideas individually rather than reading them all at once, that way i can ask questions about specific points. and you will have a better opportunity to explain your ideas in terms i can better understand.

 

if by decay you mean that particles must become not particles then yes that does rely on that fact. but since all matter is energy just as everything else in the universe this is not a far stretch at all. i didn't read your entire pdf document, so i can't really comment on any of the specifics about it. except for

 

We observe that light passes through an atomic nucleus at about 94 mph but to

someone living in the nucleus that would be the speed of light and nothing would

travel faster within the sphere of the observer s obervations (i.e. nucleus).

Everything outside the nucleus is travelling faster than the speed of light and is

therefore, unobservable; it happens faster than time.

 

i'm not sure if this is completely sound. I don't think those things necessarily follow.

 

as far as most elementary energy is concerned, I would intuitively think that this would not be a particle at all. since particles could not completely compress to fully uniform state. I think it would need to be more basic than that. but at the same time, it is gravity holding the whole thing together so you would think that whatever the big crunch is made of it must have gravity. unless perhaps at the very last moment of homogeneity. like if the particles were squished and squished until they popped went uniform and then re-exploded. knowing exactly what gravity is i think would really help. perhaps even the universe could coil in on itself and is compressing in a manner similar to spinning your fork in spaghetti, in that case maybe you would not need matter to promote the crunching after a certain point. right now i think we can only say that matter, made of particles can bend space and therefore have gravity. however if we knew how this gravity was caused we may discover that under certain conditions non-particles can cause gravity.

 

I once considered that gravity was not a function of matter at all. and that in fact it was a function of all types of energy. however, only matter is high enough concentrations of energy to allow us to observe these warps in space-time. but other things like magnetic fields and electrical fields could maybe somehow be smaller ripples energy can cause, but nothing on the scale of matter. I have not yet found a reason why this can't be but i am not especially knowledgeable about electrical fields or magnetic fields either.

 

Split from the farsight thread

 

 

 

Entropy is a quantity that becomes apparent only in collective systems. In individual interactions it's kinda meaningless, and there are precisely the ones where you can reverse time and they look no different. i.e. you can't look at a scattering reaction involving two particles and know if it's running in the forward or backward direction, and it's in that context that a positron looks like an electron going backwards in time. It's when you have extra places for energy to go (more particles or more states) that entropy becomes meaningful and is the arrow of time.

 

 

what do you mean? forward and backward compared to what? what makes a positron look like an electron running in reverse? how does the charge change? how can you know it is reverse and not just motion back from where it came from? what looks like reverse and what actually is are not the same thing. how can you reverse time to make them look different?

 

clearly if you had just one particle that was completely uniform and only two positions available for it to exist, entropy could not really be the arrow of time since the future and the past will be exactly the same. so whether you are going back in time or going into the future, it's all the same. but the universe is infinite in non-uniformity and in positions, wherein the difficulty of undoing arises. particularly because even if you did figure out where and the way everything should be so you know what to undo you would end up doing something else, somewhere else, and thus time marched on, though perhaps if you figured a way to analyze and then manipulate our environment so perfectly you could possibly create a "bubble" of past. but then you run into problems like the uncertainty principle.

 

is that something like what you meant? or was it completely different?

[elas]

someguy

 

You are defining changes within a system; I am defining changes within a particle. In the CLF model Linear force X mass X constant = E the constant is needed to convert arbitrary units into joules.

The Standard model formula does not define mass or energy (except as measurements).

The CLF model defines each item as follows:

Linear force is the vacuum force on the shortest radial.

Mass is a measurement of the maximum anti-vacuum force.

Anti-vacuum force is the elasticity of matter.

Energy is the impact force of matter.

It follows that in the CLF model the vacuum force is the fundamental force of creation; that is to say that creation starts with nothing. If you are going to argue that creation starts with energy you have to state how energy exists without being created.

 

Vacuum force originates from a (dimensionless) point. In order for space to have volume and for points to be points; points of infinity (Vacuum Zero Point) must be separate from each other. Thus the creation of dimensionless points leads to the creation of vacuum fields. To put it another way, a volume of absolute nothing is impossible because space cannot be a point (i.e. without dimensions).

 

The contents of each particle are unchanging although they can assume a number of different states. There is no entropy within a particle; when each particle reaches a state of maximum expansion (i.e. when the universe ceases to exist), each particle will still have the same quantity of vacuum force, mass and energy; it will simply be spread over a larger volume than at present and the particle will be in its maximum expansion state waiting for the next creation. Time is infinite because it is always now; in reality there is no other time, only a record of other nows which for the sake of convenience are cataloged in numerical order (i.e. time).

[swansont]

someguy

 

You are defining changes within a system; I am defining changes within a particle. In the CLF model Linear force X mass X constant = E the constant is needed to convert arbitrary units into joules.

[/i]).

 

We're not discussing CLF here; you have other threads for that, and have already noted the existence of one in a previous post. If you wish to discuss entropy in terms of CLF, please do it in a CLF thread.

[elas]

swansont

 

This forum starts with a criticism of my work by someguy and I think is is up to the moderators to decide what is and is not permissible.

[someguy]

just for the record i never really critized your work except for that part about being in a medium which light moves through slower means that all things outside the medium where light moves more quickly are unobservable since those things are happening faster than time.

 

you commented on what i said by sourcing your work. and i suggested that it would be best to discuss your ideas point by point. i did not read all of your work, i am in no position to comment on it as a whole.

 

however i can comment on your last post.

 

Linear force is the vacuum force on the shortest radial.

Mass is a measurement of the maximum anti-vacuum force.

Anti-vacuum force is the elasticity of matter.

Energy is the impact force of matter.

 

I can't really comment on these things i don't really know what you mean. I've got to say though, that so far i'm not convinced.

but i can say that i don't think that energy is the impact force of matter. it cannot be anything of matter it is a more general state than matter. matter is a type of energy. just like everything else in the universe.

 

i think the point of what i'm saying is that energy cannot exist by being created. it just exists. you can't make it. you can't ask where it came from. it is where. you can't really ask when it was created, it came from whence there was no time. it is the ability to create thus cannot be created. it either exists or not. to say taht something came before it and made it means that something must have existed prior to energy, but since energy is all that which exists, including any vacuum type thing you could think of then it would have preceded its own creation in that case. I cannot be my own father, energy cannot create itself. if it doesn't exist then nothing exists. i'm not sure how you can claim that you can make something out of nothing. you have neither "material" with which to produce things nor time with which to produce them. if anything exists then you have energy, that which exists.

 

in short, you have asked me what created the ability to create. and you have said that it was created before the ability to create existed.

 

perhaps there are higher dimensions energy comes from, but i think you would still end up with the same problem in the end. unless you end up somehow with something cyclical from dimension to dimension type thing.

 

the universe is not in a place it is not created before or after anything. it doesn't come from anywhere. it is time, it is creation, it is place, it just is.

 

that's the way i see it anyways.

[elas]

someguy

Thanks for the reply, I will not press you further with my theory.

regards

elas