tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post6187322609536521599..comments2021-01-15T10:36:20.149-08:00Comments on Dark Buzz: The future is not the pastRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-14786835962988848922020-01-24T13:30:33.602-08:002020-01-24T13:30:33.602-08:00The statement 'In the laws of physics, there i...The statement 'In the laws of physics, there is no intrinsic difference between the past and the future' which plainly reveals a rather gaping hole in the idea that physics can accurately describe reality. No surprise. Math is not reality, never was, never will be, and is especially useless in the hands of post modernist idiots who cut off their noses to spite their own faces. Math (upon which physics depends) also IS a logical construct that is utterly dependent upon a fixed sequential order (numbers mean nothing without it...and require time for sequence) and a hierarchy of logical operations (multiplication before division, addition before subtraction, etc) which it can not function without. All logical hierarchies are dependent upon sequential time, don't think so? Provide a single progression or sequence that does not require time. Can't have one without it. Bummer for the super intelligent pin heads that wish to deny the means by which their own mathematical logic functions.CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-80272721035379600512020-01-23T04:20:11.839-08:002020-01-23T04:20:11.839-08:00As to entropy, I remembered that Dr. Sabine Hossen...As to entropy, I remembered that Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder had an illuminating take on entropy. So I googled for it, and found it here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/07/10-physics-facts-you-should-have.html . See point no. 1.<br /><br />(I don't know GR so can't understand her point no. 10, but based on ontological considerations, if by "space" you mean the sizes with which spatial attributes of objects (including the aether) exist, then it would be interesting to analyze whether her point is correct or not. But no, I don't intend to study GR at all, and so, will let that point go without any definitive comment here.)<br /><br />Best,<br />--Ajit<br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttps://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-39525517896397981312020-01-23T03:59:03.103-08:002020-01-23T03:59:03.103-08:00Physics has, for the most part, used the different...Physics has, for the most part, used the differential equations paradigm for formulating the *statements* of its *laws*. <br /><br />At all other times, it has used the paradigm of integral equations. Both these paradigms are based on calculus. They both regard time as a parameter---implicitly, as a measure of motion or change (notions much more general than mere cyclical nature/periodicity).<br /><br />The way the method works, the laws are stated in the form of equations (differential or integral). Then, boundary and initial conditions have to be specified. It's only then the issue of marching in time---whether forward or backward---comes into picture. All the three things taken into account present a complete picture of the law---not just the differential (or integral) equation.<br /><br />Many times, the laws/equations, when torn out of the above complete context, *look* as if they were "symmetrical" w.r.t. a forward or backward march of time. For instance, Newton's three laws. <br /><br />However, not all laws obey this symmetry. A simple counter-example is Fourier's law of heat conduction, i.e., the diffusion equation. <br /><br />Diffusion is an important case, because the equation is *linear*, and yet, it leads to a progressive loss of a property (the local profile "curvature"s everywhere) during the forward time evolution. Hence, if you are given a profile at some time as an IC, you can't progress the solution *backward* in time---an infinity of more information would have to be supplied at each infinitesimal march backward in time. <br /><br />So, no, there is not always a time-symmetry. You don't have to make reference only to the second law or the notion of entropy the way physicists typically do. *Linear* equations like diffusion also are enough.<br /><br />Realize, what goes for diffusion also goes for one of the most fundamental physical laws we know, viz. the Schrodinger equation.<br /><br />All in all, to say that because laws appear to be symmetric in time because they treat time as a parameter is a misleading statement. Statement of laws is, by definition, only one "half" the story; the other "half" being: specification of IC/BCs and actual time-marching (and behaviour the evolution in times shows). The entire context is important; only laws cannot be torn out of this context, given the actual methodology of physics.<br /><br />I have no idea who began spreading these erroneous ideas first, but it sure was long time before Carroll. He (like many other pop-sci expositors) simply reiterates these wrong ideas, perhaps never having examined them---their nature---critically / well enough.<br /><br />Best,<br />--Ajit<br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttps://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com