Readers' Choice: The Many Lives of Hugh Everett III

ahahah it's always the same with you, ok and this and that or I suspect that or I guess if ....it's you who doesn't understand time.

You don't understand also the relativity, general or special.

You think you can voyage in time TH , return at reason please .

If these persons think that also thus I suspect a real problem for curses and learnings at universities or schools.

We can't teach these stupidities.

You confound the virtuality(computing for example) and the reality, the objectivity is always the driving force at my knowledge.

The datas and experiments are ok I beleive with this rationality.

Where are the symmetries of time ??? Give me some examples and I will answer you and I will demonstrate you these irreversibilities.You can take all the examples you want Th,perhaps if you call Chronos the god of duration, you shall check time.Or perhaps if Doc exists really!!!

Perhaps if you contact the board of time.UTC TU GMT ....Mr Kant will accept the concept of time, perhaps the intuition is just subjective....many questions in fact.

You can't confound dear TH,the batch processing and our universal dynamic.The linearity seems lost in your ocean of confusions.

If the concept of conjecture about the chronology is inserted, where are the rationals???

IN RESUME WHERE IS THE VIOLATION OF CAUSALITY ???

Steve

Ahahhah I guess the best for you is to restudy your foundamentals , and perhaps you can try to encircle the real sciences.

At this momment all is pseudos sciences, it's not interesting in fact really.

The only thing I find interesting is to proove you what all is false about your line of reasoning.It's logic you confound all.

Sincerely

I will arrive for this theorem..she showed what ??? a time machine, don't misinterpret her theory !.the conservation of energy you say, well think about ROTATING SPHERES AND THEIR IRREVERSIBLE MASS ALSO AS TIME.I Guess you haven't studied evolution,if it's the case, don't hesitate to study it.

HIHIHI

Steve

Steve,

In all the dialogue I've engaged in here, I have not once spoken on the subject of time travel. It doesn't interest me.

Your blind spot in failing to understand the conservation laws of classical physics, however, will inhibit your understanding of Prigogine's result in non-equilibrium thermodynamics. He saw his research program as an extension of general relativity, where time symmetry is important.

Tom

I think you does not capture the substance of my remarks.

It does not matter.

You confuse as much entropy as its Laws.

Conservation is rational when proportions are respected.

I see nowhere in your thermodynamics temporal symmetries.

Reread Prigogine because it's not that.

You use, awkwardly, your thermodynamical coordonates.

It's a big mistake to include these non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Your equilibrium conditions, mechanical and thermal, do not respect these coordonates.

The order always retakes its road and thermodynamic in not equilibrium are only moments or experiences WHERE THE TIME IS IRREVERSIBLE.

Dissipative structures always return to the order and balance.

You must rethink your Stationary states and thus your time.

???? dx/dt =o and of course without time???? What are you saying Th,really???

Steve

It's interesting that.

you say "She showed that symmtery under time translation implies energy conservation"

Well that needs explainations because if the evolution isn't inserted ,thus could you develop???

THE LAWS OF CONSERVATION.......WHERE IS TIME ???

In fact you must consider that the invariance by translation in time implies a conservation of E.Ok for the motion and angular moment and thus my spheres ....but where do you interepret that time is as you say,

when Eisntein said that this concept was splendid ,that do not stipulate what you say about time.

You can use it for spaces or mass or charges or....the symmetries are ok but not for the reversibility of time as a dimension.It's purelly not possible sorry but it's as that.

Steve

Noether's Theorem

You are comic, it's all your answer ?

Think by yourself dear TH really ,I insist about conservations of E ,read above and answerhihihi

Steve

Steve,

You shouted at me, "THE LAWS OF CONSERVATION.......WHERE IS TIME ???"

In the link I provided, if you read the material under "Neother's first theorem" you will have your answer.

If you know it all already, then you should know that your assumptions are wrong.

Tom

ahahah you are a specialist of irony.

My assumptions, mine are rationals.

Yours no.

You bad interpret this theorem.And lika all people I learn all days.But not these stupidities.

The conservation of laws, equations,constants,E, motion, rotations, moment........are so importants.You confound a graphical symmetry and our evolutive symmetries of time.The relativity dear TH helps to see our past and to see the real dynamic of evolution.But never we have reversibility of time,you confound a picture of our history and the reality objective of our Universe.

The translation of time and the conservation is logic in an evolutive point of vue,but not in your reasoning.

Steve

" ... one can prove that in any arbitrary volume the net outflow of energy across the boundary is equal to the time rate of decrease of energy within the volume." (p. 8)

Steve,

I expect that you just don't grasp the mathematical meaning of continuous functions in classical physics.

Tom

AHAHAH I know my maths better than you.Your only answer is to try to conclude with maths but where are them TH ??? let's go here now , where are your maths.

Let's begin with analyze, algebras, geometry, dericvation, integration, limits, domains, ......

Show me your model

Well,

First you must differanciate the maths and physics.

Indeed if we take the energy of a condensator for example or a bobin ....we have indeed a continuous function of time in a mathematical point of vue.We understand thus why we haven't a discontinuity.

Now for your understanding, let's take a function ,continuous, in a physical point ofr vue,thus where time is independant.This value is stationarry at my knowledge???

Think about fourier tranformation in a real and rational topology.

Steve

mathematics of time, classical & irreversible

Well here is their conclusion

"In this paper, we have outlined a general systems theory framework for thermodynamics. The proposed macroscopic

mathematical model is based on a nonlinear compartmental system model that is characterized by energy

conservation laws capturing the exchange of energy between coupled macroscopic subsystems. This dynamical system

formalism captures all of the key aspects of thermodynamics, including its fundamental laws, while providing a

mathematically rigorous formulation for thermodynamical systems out of equilibrium. While it seems impossible to

reduce thermodynamics to a mechanistic world picture due to microscopic reversibility and Poincaré recurrence, our

system thermodynamic formulation provides a harmonization of classical thermodynamics with classical mechanics

by developing clear connections between system irreversibility, absence of Poincaré recurrence, the second law of

thermodynamics, and the entropic arrow of time."

The entropy is indeed parallal if you prefer with time.If we take all our dynamics, time is constant .And the entropy increases on this timeline.It's pure thermodynamics, Boltzmann will agree.

If you think that at the Planck Scale you shall check Time.It's time to return at reason.

If you think that our psychology is different than our physicality, I suspect a problem of objectivity.The universe is more than a computer.

If you see well the timeline, you shall see the increase of entropy due to evolution, but never this timeline can be extrapolated in this no sense(its reversibility).

The Determinism for time is essential.

In Biology ,the irreversibility is evident.

If as Prigogine said, for physics time can be reversible, don't misinterpret his words,....you must differenciate your philosophical perception and our reality and the allow of time.

Steve

Steve,

Our psychology is most definitely and demonstrably different from our physicality, or else the overwhelming majority of our objective knowledge would not be counterintutive. The language of nature is so much larger than our information processing capacity. We "fill in the blanks," so to speak, with what we _believe_ to fit, prior to making a measurement. This realization led me to write ("time barrier," 2.5): "We conjecture that just as we 3-dimensional creatures with 4-dimensional brain-minds arrive at such statistical results as central limit and regression to the mean by sampling large numbers of time-dependent events, Nature arrives at order by sampling large numbers of hyperspatial events that we interpret as the flow of time."

"Hyperspatial" in this limited context does not imply more than the simple time metric of dynamic interaction, though I do later extend to n-dimensional continuation, showing time identical to physical information.

Tom

Your relativistic view is interesting.

That said the synchronization of the Objectivity and subjectivity are essential for real psychological observations of our Universe.

The physical information,in a gravitational point of view, is sorted for a deterministic evolution.

Your hyper dimensions do not exist.

It is obvious that these dimensions are jut a bad fractal evolutionary time.

The irreversibility of time, indeed, will remain proportional to the entropy.

This increase in mass is crucial for this development and therefore the interpretation of constants of evolution.

Your conjecture can not be interpreted objectively.

It is an extrapolation of the mind where never we will have reversibility of time in the pure and objective reality.These psychological worlds are just personal interpretations.We aren't at the center of our Universe.

OUR UNIVERSE IS A SPHERE IN OPTIMIZATION WITH ITS CENTER,THE BIGGEST VOLUME AND ALL TURNS AROUND .....ALL SPHERES....QUANTIC COSMOLOGIC....AND ITS LIFES ...WE EVOLUVE INSIDE A BEAUTIFUL SPHERE IN 3D AND A TIME CONSTANT.THE ENTROPY AND THE ALLOW OF TIME PROVE THAT.

Steve

Everett's view is compelling in providing an alternative to the "lets give up trying to explain what we observe" Copenhagen interpretation, but if the universe splits at every possible alternative quantim event then the number of realities becomes almost infinite and then we cannot analyze or predict the outcomes we observe, so again we are left with a meaningless non-physical theory. Roger Penrose is more likely to be on the right track...

Well done; I've written a three act play about this unique life, and its progeny---both literal and otherwise (his kids are prinicipal players).

Unlike Dr. Strangelove, I rather see him as a buddhistic fellow, contemplating the truest nature of 'reality', within the very Tree of Knowledge, trapped in its least interesting 'branch'.

J.B. Pravda