Time, as we understand it, moves from the past to the future irreversibly. But now, an international trio of theoretical physicists is suggesting that there’s more than one future. Two parallel universes were produced by the Big Bang: ours, which moves forward in time (pictured above), and another where time moves backwards. These findings were published in Physical Review Letters in October.

more

…. yeah I only asked this question how many years ago? Anyway, this brings up another recent observation which is that the arrow of time is not reliant on entropy.

Viewpoint: Arrow of Time Emerges in a Gravitational System

……. pretty sure I remember saying common terms needed redefining.

Time doesn’t have a direction it has a refresh rate………

What exactly do they mean moving backwards in time?
Is this parallel universe going from highly complex organised structures to something less so

Cymek said:

What exactly do they mean moving backwards in time?
Is this parallel universe going from highly complex organised structures to something less so

It is an explanation for the missing anti-matter from the BB. The hypothesis is that matter and anti-matter exerted seperate fields and took opposite directions in spacetime.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

What exactly do they mean moving backwards in time?
Is this parallel universe going from highly complex organised structures to something less so

It is an explanation for the missing anti-matter from the BB. The hypothesis is that matter and anti-matter exerted seperate fields and took opposite directions in spacetime.

So its not actually moving backwards in time which the headline suggests.
So this contradicts the theory that matter and antimatter annihilated each other at the big bang and the tiny surviving normal matter created our universe.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

What exactly do they mean moving backwards in time?
Is this parallel universe going from highly complex organised structures to something less so

It is an explanation for the missing anti-matter from the BB. The hypothesis is that matter and anti-matter exerted seperate fields and took opposite directions in spacetime.

So its not actually moving backwards in time which the headline suggests.
So this contradicts the theory that matter and antimatter annihilated each other at the big bang and the tiny surviving normal matter created our universe.

Yeah pretty much. Backwards and forward are only relative to space and momentuum so it is misleading. The only truly definable property of time I have assessed is dilation.

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

It would interesting if alien beings had a completely different perception of time to us and either had thought/communication patterns vastly slower or faster than our own.

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

I would agree but am not absolutely intimate with the academic definitions…..

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

It would interesting if alien beings had a completely different perception of time to us and either had thought/communication patterns vastly slower or faster than our own.

I think the perceived ‘rate of time’ is largely defined by two factors

• the length of our life spans
• the speed at which we can conduct most normal tasks

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

So some sort of spacial/time coordinates relate to specific events in time and space.

Time dilation- to a particle, a slower time dilation represents a greater degree of freedom than a more rapid time dilation. The particle will freely travel from a more rapid time dilation to the slower resolving the time disparity as spatial acceleration. A particle requires external input to reverse the journey.

This explanation is the basis of a presumption that gravity is mediated by time dilation and when extrapolated provides the basis for a dual universe travelling in opposing directions. When created within our current universal momentum antimatter will anhilate. At the momentum of BB momentum has not been established to interfere with the paths of the created particles allowing room for matter and anti-matter to develop individual fields and paths.

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

No definitely momentum of ionic dissonance

(Making shit up with scientific words is fun)

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

I was of the understanding that astrophysics doesn’t require an ‘arrow of time’ and that time is merely a means to locate events in 4D space-time

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

Thankfully we only have to obey the laws of thermodynamics

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

No definitely momentum of ionic dissonance

(Making shit up with scientific words is fun)

helps if your word combination is coherent……..

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

I know what ‘arrow of time’ means; ‘origin direction of momentum’ make no sense what so ever as far as I can see – especially in a thermodynamics context.

According to BC the arrow of time is a result of entropy ..

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

yes CPT. I believe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

No definitely momentum of ionic dissonance

(Making shit up with scientific words is fun)

helps if your word combination is coherent……..

Sure, but give it time, you’ll get there

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

No definitely momentum of ionic dissonance

(Making shit up with scientific words is fun)

helps if your word combination is coherent……..

That leads us back to Do, Re, Mi, Fa, So, La, Ti, Do

there is no time dilation observable until the accelerated particle is compared to the non-accelerated particle.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

yes, and that is why I stipulated astrophysics and not thermodynamics

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

I know what ‘arrow of time’ means; ‘origin direction of momentum’ make no sense what so ever as far as I can see – especially in a thermodynamics context.

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

I know what ‘arrow of time’ means; ‘origin direction of momentum’ make no sense what so ever as far as I can see – especially in a thermodynamics context.

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Time has a direction to observers though, past, present, future

Boris said:

there is no time dilation observable until the accelerated particle is compared to the non-accelerated particle.

and an action is counted with all and every comparison…….

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

‘Arrow of time’ should be scrapped and replaced with ‘origin direction of momentum’.

I know what ‘arrow of time’ means; ‘origin direction of momentum’ make no sense what so ever as far as I can see – especially in a thermodynamics context.

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Arrow of time isn’t an anthropogenic concept, it’s a thermodynamic concept and is defied as the direction of increasing entropy. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘space has momentum’ because by all conventional (astrophysics) definitions, ‘space’ (or moreover space-time) relates to the 4D coordinate system that we use to describe physical events.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I know what ‘arrow of time’ means; ‘origin direction of momentum’ make no sense what so ever as far as I can see – especially in a thermodynamics context.

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Time has a direction to observers though, past, present, future

Momentum has an origin and generally a result. In between it can be re-directed………

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I know what ‘arrow of time’ means; ‘origin direction of momentum’ make no sense what so ever as far as I can see – especially in a thermodynamics context.

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Arrow of time isn’t an anthropogenic concept, it’s a thermodynamic concept and is defied as the direction of increasing entropy. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘space has momentum’ because by all conventional (astrophysics) definitions, ‘space’ (or moreover space-time) relates to the 4D coordinate system that we use to describe physical events.

Physical events require momenta. Space as in opposed to time. I guess I am quibbling if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Time has a direction to observers though, past, present, future

Momentum has an origin and generally a result. In between it can be re-directed………

what, exactly, are you talking about?

what, exactly, are you talking about?

i’ve been asking that for a few years now.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

i intended to include ‘and’ between origin direction. The phrase ‘arrow of time’ is obsolete and an indulgence of anthropogenic perceptions. Time doesn’t have direction. Space has momentum which has a definable direction. As far as being a functional reference, origin and direction of momentum is more immediately applicable to the technicalities.

Arrow of time isn’t an anthropogenic concept, it’s a thermodynamic concept and is defied as the direction of increasing entropy. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘space has momentum’ because by all conventional (astrophysics) definitions, ‘space’ (or moreover space-time) relates to the 4D coordinate system that we use to describe physical events.

Physical events require momenta. Space as in opposed to time. I guess I am quibbling if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity.

what do you mean by “Physical events require momenta” and “ if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity”

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Time has a direction to observers though, past, present, future

Momentum has an origin and generally a result. In between it can be re-directed………

what, exactly, are you talking about?

In hindsight it’s probably more a case of whinging rather than talking…..

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Arrow of time isn’t an anthropogenic concept, it’s a thermodynamic concept and is defied as the direction of increasing entropy. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘space has momentum’ because by all conventional (astrophysics) definitions, ‘space’ (or moreover space-time) relates to the 4D coordinate system that we use to describe physical events.

Physical events require momenta. Space as in opposed to time. I guess I am quibbling if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity.

what do you mean by “Physical events require momenta” and “ if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity”

I am glad it’s not just me that doesn’t understand what he means

postpoc… momentum (at least the classical definition of the term) is a consequence of a moving mass in space time – it’s the product of the mass and velocity of the object. An object can be at rest and have no momentum – it’s not a “requirement” of anything.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Momentum has an origin and generally a result. In between it can be re-directed………

what, exactly, are you talking about?

In hindsight it’s probably more a case of whinging rather than talking…..

whinging about what, exactly?

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Arrow of time isn’t an anthropogenic concept, it’s a thermodynamic concept and is defied as the direction of increasing entropy. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘space has momentum’ because by all conventional (astrophysics) definitions, ‘space’ (or moreover space-time) relates to the 4D coordinate system that we use to describe physical events.

Physical events require momenta. Space as in opposed to time. I guess I am quibbling if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity.

what do you mean by “Physical events require momenta” and “ if time is applied within the term as a result rather than a quantity”

I meant that I realised that if the arrow of time term originated with thermodynamics then it is deliberately generic in it’s context and I am simpl;y experiencing dissonance with the term at a time I am defining properties of time that are specific to time. I withdraw the objection………

diddly-squat said:

postpoc… momentum (at least the classical definition of the term) is a consequence of a moving mass in space time – it’s the product of the mass and velocity of the object. An object can be at rest and have no momentum – it’s not a “requirement” of anything.

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum. Anyway I’ve withdrawn my objection and subsequent verbosity. Do you have any comments regarding dual-parallel universii?

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

what, exactly, are you talking about?

In hindsight it’s probably more a case of whinging rather than talking…..

whinging about what, exactly?

insufficient reference material………

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

Michael V said:

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

Relative velocity wink

Michael V said:

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

a particles internal velocities do not count as momenta?

Dropbear said:

Michael V said:

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

Relative velocity wink

you don’t have any relatives left do you?

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Michael V said:

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

Relative velocity wink

you don’t have any relatives left do you?

Not with much Velocity anyway

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Relative velocity wink

you don’t have any relatives left do you?

Not with much Velocity anyway

I would assume Velocity is essential for dropbearing. Is trade better in numbers or does being on your own mean your reap all the bearnefits?

Postpocelipse said:

Michael V said:

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

a particles internal velocities do not count as momenta?

Two billiard balls sitting still next to each other on a pool table. Do they have momentum relative to each other?

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Michael V said:

except that mass itself is a mode of momentum
—-
Only if that mass has velocity.

a particles internal velocities do not count as momenta?

Two billiard balls sitting still next to each other on a pool table. Do they have momentum relative to each other?

no they don’t but they may have momentum relative to something else in a non-stationary FoR

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

a particles internal velocities do not count as momenta?

Two billiard balls sitting still next to each other on a pool table. Do they have momentum relative to each other?

no they don’t but they may have momentum relative to something else in a non-stationary FoR

Well yes, but I’m talking about the balls on the table..

The answer is, of course no, for that FOR as p=mv

As for internal velocities, in a solid, there are vibrations, but that’s about it..

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Two billiard balls sitting still next to each other on a pool table. Do they have momentum relative to each other?

no they don’t but they may have momentum relative to something else in a non-stationary FoR

Well yes, but I’m talking about the balls on the table..

The answer is, of course no, for that FOR as p=mv

As for internal velocities, in a solid, there are vibrations, but that’s about it..

Chirality is a form of angular momentum…….

Postpocelipse said:

Time, as we understand it, moves from the past to the future irreversibly. But now, an international trio of theoretical physicists is suggesting that there’s more than one future. Two parallel universes were produced by the Big Bang: ours, which moves forward in time (pictured above), and another where time moves backwards. These findings were published in Physical Review Letters in October.

more

…. yeah I only asked this question how many years ago? Anyway, this brings up another recent observation which is that the arrow of time is not reliant on entropy.

Viewpoint: Arrow of Time Emerges in a Gravitational System

……. pretty sure I remember saying common terms needed redefining.

Awful physics. To summarise:
“The evolution of a system of masses interacting via Newtonian gravity contains a unique moment of lowest “complexity,” a point they identify as a “past” from which two distinct (and more complex) “futures” emerge.”

Shudder. There’s nothing even remotely new in that, but treating a random “minimum entropy” state as a small scale analogy to origin point for a universal timescale is ridiculous.