• [deleted]

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

  • [deleted]

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

  • [deleted]

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

  • [deleted]

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

  • [deleted]

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

4 months later
  • [deleted]

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

5 years later

I started reading the book, very good so far.

Re "there still would be uncountable numbers [of worlds] in which he was not only happy but his theory won the Nobel Prize"

Not too similar to this world, where the Nobel Prize is never given for theoretical speculations unconfirmed (in this case perhaps unconfirmable) in the lab.

See also the film "Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"

https://vimeo.com/58603054

9 months later
  • [deleted]

There is a good reason why scientists cannot detect a spirit world. After all, there is no conflict if one exists. Consider that physics constants c, speed of light, and h, Planck constant, are arbitrary values. One might expect nature to produce universes as big bangs for all possible values of c and h. We can't measure them because virtual photons of different characteristics are not likely to interact, except under mysterious conditions.

    If our universe is fine tuned for life, it could be that all sets of physics constants big bang into existence. They might even overlap. We might share space with ghostly universes that we do not interact with (mostly) as part of a multiverse.

    While spirit universes have not been proven to exist (yet), they also have none of the paradoxes that time travel has. They are paradox free.

    a year later
    • [deleted]

    Amazed and grateful that a professional investigative journalist has taken the trouble to look into the life of one of science's lesser-sung heroes.

    Congratulations and thanks, Mr Byrne!