Direction of Time (as a starter)

[geordief]

Perhaps a poor question but I would be interested in any answer.

 

There is some debate as to whether there really is any direction to Time (whether the universe could run backwards just as well in theory)

 

Without being competent too address that point, can I bring up what I think may be a similar situation - the way a logical sequence is ordered in the mind (and on paper).

 

We have mathematical proofs as one type of example among many: we start with an axiom ( a starting point) and build incrementally until we have constructed (in this case) a hopefully self consistent edifice.

 

This can (I think) only be done in one direction : we cannot start with the conclusion and work back to the axiom.

 

So my question is really (as I say ,perhaps an unsubstantial one) :is there any lesson that can be drawn from these two sets of circumstances where things only work in one direction and never in reverse? Is there a connection between them? Maybe none?

 

Perhaps to simplify the question ,is (the direction of)Time and (the direction of) Logic connected?

 

ps : I put this in "Other Sciences" . Hope that works.

Edited January 23, 2016 by geordief

[EdEarl]

I think the strongest evidence against time running backward is that time slows down as ones speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, which implies that time stands still for things going the speed of light. Hence, if something could go faster than the speed of light, time might run backward. However, nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

 

Entropy increases, with local temporary exceptions, which requires time to increase.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

 

Since we live in a four dimensional world, x,y,z and time, we are constrained to therein, which is why our thought processes and logic are ordered by time, IMO.

[geordief]

 

 

Since we live in a four dimensional world, x,y,z and time, we are constrained to therein, which is why our thought processes and logic are ordered by time, IMO.

Interesting,does your answer hinge on the close (identical?) connection between our thought processes and "logic" ?

 

My lazy assumption that logic might be "free standing" may have led me to overlook an obvious connection between time and logic ?

[studiot]

 

Interesting,does your answer hinge on the close (identical?) connection between our thought processes and "logic" ?

 

My lazy assumption that logic might be "free standing" may have led me to overlook an obvious connection between time and logic ?

 

 

Neither Nature, nor our thought processes are exclusively sequential.

 

For example in Nature the stress tensor is an example of many different things (nine in 3D) acting together in a connected way.

Man models this by using a matrix representation, that is non sequential.

 

In Man's thought processes we look at an engineering drawing and (some) can appreciate the whole subject at once, without sequentially working out the botoom, sides , top etc.

[geordief]

 

Neither Nature, nor our thought processes are exclusively sequential.

 

For example in Nature the stress tensor is an example of many different things (nine in 3D) acting together in a connected way.

Man models this by using a matrix representation, that is non sequential.

 

In Man's thought processes we look at an engineering drawing and (some) can appreciate the whole subject at once, without sequentially working out the botoom, sides , top etc.

A pity I have to excuse myself from my own thread as I am not familiar with stress tensors (I have heard of them). There are likely to be other examples that might also go over my head.

[studiot]

Don't worry, understanding a (stress) tensor is the easy part, you only need to duck out if someone asks you to calculate one.

 

It's simply a posh word for several things happening at once (together), like if you squueeze an orange around the middle it gets longer the other way and eventually bursts if you squeeze hard enough.

 

[EdEarl]

Interesting,does your answer hinge on the close (identical?) connection between our thought processes and "logic" ?

 

My lazy assumption that logic might be "free standing" may have led me to overlook an obvious connection between time and logic ?

IDK mathematical rigor, but logic is reasoning about things and processes in space time. I wouldn't say logic and time are identical.

[michel123456]

I think the strongest evidence against time running backward is that time slows down as ones speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, which implies that time stands still for things going the speed of light. Hence, if something could go faster than the speed of light, time might run backward. However, nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

 

This is wrong.

Observer A who is "at rest" observes the other one (observer B) traveling at almost SOL, and for the one who is "at rest" it looks like the time of the traveling one is slowing down. For the one who travels (B) nothing changes, his own time does not slow down. And in the unphysical event where B is traveling faster than light the traveler would not observe his own time going backwards nor he would observe reverse entropy. Backwards time would be observed by the other one (A) who is "at rest". And symmetrically, the one traveling (B) may believe he is the one "at rest" and that the other one (A) is in fact traveling.

Perhaps a poor question but I would be interested in any answer.

 

There is some debate as to whether there really is any direction to Time (whether the universe could run backwards just as well in theory)

 

Without being competent too address that point, can I bring up what I think may be a similar situation - the way a logical sequence is ordered in the mind (and on paper).

 

We have mathematical proofs as one type of example among many: we start with an axiom ( a starting point) and build incrementally until we have constructed (in this case) a hopefully self consistent edifice.

 

This can (I think) only be done in one direction : we cannot start with the conclusion and work back to the axiom.

 

So my question is really (as I say ,perhaps an unsubstantial one) :is there any lesson that can be drawn from these two sets of circumstances where things only work in one direction and never in reverse? Is there a connection between them? Maybe none?

 

Perhaps to simplify the question ,is (the direction of)Time and (the direction of) Logic connected?

 

ps : I put this in "Other Sciences" . Hope that works.

"Logic" is peculiar sometimes. For example, "logic" would say that heavy objects sink in water and that a light objects float. That is not the case.

So I believe that "logic" is a kind of extract of the physical world. It is a way to explain, it is not the reason why things happen.

Edited January 24, 2016 by michel123456

[geordief]

This is wrong.

Observer A who is "at rest" observes the other one (observer B) traveling at almost SOL, and for the one who is "at rest" it looks like the time of the traveling one is slowing down. For the one who travels (B) nothing changes, his own time does not slow down. And in the unphysical event where B is traveling faster than light the traveler would not observe his own time going backwards nor he would observe reverse entropy. Backwards time would be observed by the other one (A) who is "at rest". And symmetrically, the one traveling (B) may believe he is the one "at rest" and that the other one (A) is in fact traveling.

 

Is there anything to add (yes your explanation accords with my own understanding) in the case where the time effects are being caused by acceleration and not simply relative movement?

 

"Logic" is peculiar sometimes. For example, "logic" would say that heavy objects sink in water and that a light objects float. That is not the case.

So I believe that "logic" is a kind of extract of the physical world. It is a way to explain, it is not the reason why things happen.

 

To say that logic is an extract of the physical world may be true but it is also true to say that it is part of the physical world. Is the relationship a hierarchical one?

 

Logic ,as a phenomenon only arises when the world is structured in such a way as to allow it to (attempt to) "look back at itself" but is it wrong (almost hybris) to posit that logic is foundation of the universe per se? (allowing us to imagine an entirely anarchic universe in theory)

 

In passing, those happen to be the opening words of the Bible ("In the beginning was the word (=Logos in Greek) )...

 

I didn't follow your heavy objects/light objects example , but doesn't logic always (by "definition" ) get the right answer eventually? Doesn't it just mirror the "outside" world albeit in a convoluted ,roundabout manner?

Edited January 24, 2016 by geordief

[michel123456]

_As acceleration is involved, I am not an expert. From what I know the effects would be the same with the exception that if the one who travels accelerates, he should know that he is traveling by feeling a force acting on him.

 

_Your second question is philosophic IMHO. As science progresses, it looks more and more that we are indeed inside a "chaotic" universe but at the same time that some kind of patterns appear to emerge from this almost mythological chaos. As if laws and logic could come out of anarchy (which is not exactly a "logical" causal sequence).

However I like the idea that the Universe must follow some kind of logic.

[EdEarl]

This is wrong.

Observer A who is "at rest" observes the other one (observer B) traveling at almost SOL, and for the one who is "at rest" it looks like the time of the traveling one is slowing down. For the one who travels (B) nothing changes, his own time does not slow down. And in the unphysical event where B is traveling faster than light the traveler would not observe his own time going backwards nor he would observe reverse entropy. Backwards time would be observed by the other one (A) who is "at rest". And symmetrically, the one traveling (B) may believe he is the one "at rest" and that the other one (A) is in fact traveling.

"Logic" is peculiar sometimes. For example, "logic" would say that heavy objects sink in water and that a light objects float. That is not the case.

So I believe that "logic" is a kind of extract of the physical world. It is a way to explain, it is not the reason why things happen.

Agree. Except, observers would see nothing as speed approaches SOL because red shift would make them invisible, and at extra SOL light waves could never reach an observer. This exercise in logic of the absurd suggests logic and time are not "connected."

[michel123456]

Agree. Except, observers would see nothing as speed approaches SOL because red shift would make them invisible, and at extra SOL light waves could never reach an observer. This exercise in logic of the absurd suggests logic and time are not "connected."

That is an interesting question.

I believe at extra SOL light would still be visible (because C is a constant*) but the redshift would increase. There would be no invisibility. But I may be wrong on this.

I am thinking that extra SOL is being called physically impossible, so the question is moot.

 

----------------------

(edit)

*I mean C is the constant of Speed Of Light (in void), which means it cannot go faster, it cannot go slower, it cannot change of direction just like that: it is C. Point.

Edited January 24, 2016 by michel123456

[EdEarl]

That is an interesting question.

I believe at extra SOL light would still be visible (because C is a constant*) but the redshift would increase. There would be no invisibility. But I may be wrong on this.

I am thinking that extra SOL is being called physically impossible, so the question is moot.

 

----------------------

(edit)

*I mean C is the constant of Speed Of Light (in void), which means it cannot go faster, it cannot go slower, it cannot change of direction just like that: it is C. Point.

As speed approaches C, redshift of visible light becomes infra-red, then microwaves, then long waves, and at epsilon from C the wavelength approaches infinity and requires a ridiculously large antenna to receive. However, none of these waves are visible light.

[michel123456]

The spectral lines are redshifted. The entire radiation spectrum is there, traveling at C. That would make the receding object still visible.

[EdEarl]

Are you using visible to mean detectible, or visible as being able to see visible light that is red shifted, because red shift can make any wave length EMF, even gamma rays shift below visible light (i.e., C-10^-googleplex); thus, making it impossible to see (i.e., not visible).

[The Angry Intellect]

I think the strongest evidence against time running backward is that time slows down as ones speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, which implies that time stands still for things going the speed of light. Hence, if something could go faster than the speed of light, time might run backward. However, nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

 

Entropy increases, with local temporary exceptions, which requires time to increase.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

 

Since we live in a four dimensional world, x,y,z and time, we are constrained to therein, which is why our thought processes and logic are ordered by time, IMO.

 

 

Just some food for thought, None of this has been proven as of yet, but researchers are still looking into these possibilities:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

 

Just remember, these are "possible" theory's that are still under research to either confirm or deny of the existence of such "faster than light" particles. To this date, I do not believe any researchers have discovered hard evidence to support this theory.

 

Some researchers have once "found" evidence and have done the tests time & time again to confirm it, but in the end, I think it was a glitch in their optical timing equipment that caused all their results... The research still continues..

[ajb]

Just remember, these are "possible" theory's that are still under research to either confirm or deny of the existence of such "faster than light" particles.

The experiments suggesting that (standard SM) neutrinos travel faster than light have now been shown to be wrong.

 

Also, tachyons in quantum field theory are known to be unstable and so not really expected to be part of nature. If realised they would decay very quickly into standard particles.