Entropy is not an absolute (or is it called conservative, hmm) quantity, you can set the zero point as you will. In a singular state the universe is not in a process of change, so the entropy is also not changing. But there's one other thing I don't understand. The time arrow is defined by increasing entropy. If the universe starts collapsing, does the entropy begin to decrease, meaning the time will reverse its direction? That doesn't make much sense...
ahh yes that old chestnut.
methinks it is a load of rubbish
although each persons perception of time is changing, time as a coefficient is not changing.
take for example a clock, with 1000 photons bouncing off it a second and into two peoples eyes. if one person moves away from the clock rapidly, then photons seem to arrive more slowly, and time 'slows down'. does it bollocks. 1000 photons are still bouncing off. perceived 'time slow down' is just that, perceived.
relativity is just that, relative. time is a universal coefficient. relativity does not apply properly.
but then i am not einstein, and majoring in chemistry not physics.
methinks it is a load of rubbish
although each persons perception of time is changing, time as a coefficient is not changing.
take for example a clock, with 1000 photons bouncing off it a second and into two peoples eyes. if one person moves away from the clock rapidly, then photons seem to arrive more slowly, and time 'slows down'. does it bollocks. 1000 photons are still bouncing off. perceived 'time slow down' is just that, perceived.
relativity is just that, relative. time is a universal coefficient. relativity does not apply properly.
but then i am not einstein, and majoring in chemistry not physics.
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Just a note in passing: the 'laws' of thermodynamics do not apply to near Big Bang events. They did not exist at that time. All the talk of entropy leading to increased chaos, a common creationist argument, only applies to closed systems. Our universe is not a closed system. For example, due to quantum physics, particles and energy spontaneously come into existence within it. While we do not yet understand it, the so-called blueprint for complexity does appear to exist. We just have to find the 'laws' that govern the infinitesimal matter, time and space in order to understand this propensity to self-organization.
The Wizard (Uriah Heep)
The Wizard (Uriah Heep)
<< Einstein showed through special relativity that time passes differently at different velocities >>
define velocity. oh yeah, distance over TIME. velocity cannot exist without time
velocity obly works if you have TWO objects. you need a datum point, ie a distance marker. thats why it is relative. i believe in the separation of time and space
The time is to an observer exactly what he measures it. Why would the time from the viewpoint of the still observer be 'the real time' and the time of a moving observer be 'the perceived time'? Why not vice-versa? This is the whole point of relativity.
<< All the talk of entropy leading to increased chaos, a common creationist argument, only applies to closed systems. >>
i think that the universe can be considered a closed system, as presumably there was nothing and there was a singluarity, and such the 'edge of the universe' as defined by the time since the creation of the universe multiplied by the speed of light can be considered an adiabatic wall, where no energy or matter can travel through.
the adiabatic wall would therefore be a sphere surface about the centre of the universe.
EDit: hubble constant swapped for speed of light after thinking about it a bit
<< This is the whole point of relativity. >>
and this is what i am far from convinced by.
if i am watching a funny film, and the time flies by, but my friend is doing 100 maths questions, and time seems to be passing really slowly, are either of these the real time?
remember, Einstein did not beleive quantum physics to be true
<< god does not play dice with the universe >>
The oscillating universe (rubber band) theory was discredited in the 1800's. It's funny that so many people see the big bang theory as the opposite of "creation". Einstein resisted the big bang as stringently as he could until the evidence became so overwhelming that he had to accept it.
Why did he resist? Because he said a beginning, any beginning, implied the existence of God so strongly that in order to believe in the big bang he would have to believe in God! BTW, Einstien wasn't totally against the idea of God altogether. But like most people he'd had some bad experiences with people who believed in God among other reasons.
The whole tornado/trailer park analogy is more applicable to biology than cosmology. The "blueprint" idea is quite an interesting aproach, as Michael Behe has pointed out that information appears to be infused in every living thing. But that's another topic.
Why did he resist? Because he said a beginning, any beginning, implied the existence of God so strongly that in order to believe in the big bang he would have to believe in God! BTW, Einstien wasn't totally against the idea of God altogether. But like most people he'd had some bad experiences with people who believed in God among other reasons.
The whole tornado/trailer park analogy is more applicable to biology than cosmology. The "blueprint" idea is quite an interesting aproach, as Michael Behe has pointed out that information appears to be infused in every living thing. But that's another topic.
The idea of a oscillating universe is intruiging but it has a few things against it. First, the universe would have to contract into a big crunch. Even if we take into account all this dark matter that is suppose to be out there, we can't be sure whether the universe is dense enough. Also there is the recent discovery that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion. If this is true then it would almost rule out a big crunch.
But even if there were a big crunch there is no really compelling reason to believe that this will be "followed" by a big bang(assuming that time "survives" the big crunch) other than the fact that its a neat idea. It is tempting at this point to then invoke Occam's razor.
But even if there were a big crunch there is no really compelling reason to believe that this will be "followed" by a big bang(assuming that time "survives" the big crunch) other than the fact that its a neat idea. It is tempting at this point to then invoke Occam's razor.
Thom:
'if i am watching a funny film, and the time flies by, but my friend is doing 100 maths questions, and time seems to be passing really slowly, are either of these the real time?'
Yes, OK, but this is not physics any more
'remember, Einstein did not beleive quantum physics to be true'
Yup, and he also invented the cosmological constant...
'if i am watching a funny film, and the time flies by, but my friend is doing 100 maths questions, and time seems to be passing really slowly, are either of these the real time?'
Yes, OK, but this is not physics any more
'remember, Einstein did not beleive quantum physics to be true'
Yup, and he also invented the cosmological constant...
I don;t believe big bang and creation are perceived to be at odds. I think the catholic church was actually quite supportive of the whole idea. I certainly don't buy big bang-creation argument but thats another story.
Yes, I do...but some higher power may have caused the creation of the universe by starting the big bang.
Thorn- experiments HAVE been done that prove time is not constant. Relativity predicts that time will pass more slowly on a rapidly moving object. So, what some scientists did was take two atomic clocks. One sat on the earth, and one flew around in a plane at a high rate of speed. When the clocks were compared, the one that had been in the plane was BEHIND the one that had been on the ground. And what do you know, that agrees perfectly with relativity. This "chestnut" has been proven via real world experiments. Care to show your ignorance any further?
<< I think the catholic church was actually quite supportive of the whole idea >>
you are joking right? the catholic church only acknowledged that the world was a sphere in 1992.
round the earth? moron, they did a bigger journey with a set of clocks too. around the moon in fact during the apollo missions, and guess what? NO CHANGE
<< Care to show your ignorance any further? >>
I think Thom is perfectly aware of relativity... the interpretation is what we seem to differ on.
I would argue that space and time are intricately linked.. ie)that they are 2 facets of the same thing... like matter and energy.
So at a singulariy where space does not exist, at least not according to our current theories, time will not exist either. I don't think that time is above everything else.
I would argue that space and time are intricately linked.. ie)that they are 2 facets of the same thing... like matter and energy.
So at a singulariy where space does not exist, at least not according to our current theories, time will not exist either. I don't think that time is above everything else.
about the catholic church.. i thought i read it in Hawking(Brief History) but perhaps i was wrong
javelin - i argue the crux of the word relativity.
that for any relativity to work you need a datum point.
'distance' required a start and a finish.
'time' requires a beginning and a conclusion.
I do not consider the latter to be correct. that is my point in a nutshell.
that for any relativity to work you need a datum point.
'distance' required a start and a finish.
'time' requires a beginning and a conclusion.
I do not consider the latter to be correct. that is my point in a nutshell.
I have a physics text sitting my lap stating this. College level textbooks don't include lies. What's YOUR reference, O Master of Physics?
From here:There are some instances, however, in which the effects are observable. There are subatomic particles which are unstable and decay (the process by which they decay is irrelevant) in a very small time interval when measured in the laboratory. It has also been found that high intensity radiation coming from space and hitting the upper atmosphere generates these same particles (again the process is immaterial). To the initial surprise of the experimenters, these particles survive the trip down to surface of the earth, which takes longer, as measured on the Earth, than the particle's lifetime! The surprise evaporated when it was noted that the particles are moving very fast with respect to the Earth, almost at the speed of light, so that a time interval which is very short when measured at rest with respect to the particle will be much longer when measured in the laboratory.
<< i thought i read it in Hawking(Brief History) >>
i well may be wrong on that mate, i would just be surprised if it were true.
<< College level textbooks don't include lies. >>
idiot
<< What's YOUR reference, O Master of Physics? >>
THINKING, using my own mind, to come up with my own conclusion and belief, moron.
i don't disagree with their evidence of such phenomena, and indeed i agree, but
<< as measured on the Earth >>
is what i am getting at.
<< as measured on the Earth >>
is not as measured absolutely.
<< as measured on the Earth >>
is what i am getting at.
<< as measured on the Earth >>
is not as measured absolutely.
They really did that experiment with the atomic clock to the moon, etc and it proved NO difference? Hmm...interesting. Any of you guys have any good links on this subject?
Time is a very complicated matter. I like Hawking's analogy the best. What happened before the big bang? What's north of the north pole? I don't think time has a beginning or an end because these very concepts are related, defined by time. So you end up defining time using time itself which will give anyone a headache.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter