Video Article: Evolving Time's Arrow

Amrit wrote: "The only problem with SR is that people do not get it. Craig Callender is one of them." According to the last essay's winner, Newton got it.

Eckard

Sirs,

Time and energy are the same thing. "Time" means simply that matter is enegized. Into an hypothetical system not energized, no time is elapsed.

"Time arrow" means that particles (and parts) are spinning; moving (are energized). Into spinning, they occupy different places into space in a 'before' than an 'after' (No part can occupy different places at the same time, as well as two bodies can't occupy the same space as the same moment).

So, this 'arrow of time' has no alternative. Is an 'arrow' that can just run ahead, in the 'future' direction.

Talking about 'travel to the past' is the same as talking about an smashed egg coming back to its integral form by itself. Truly impossible! A nonsense.

Time is elapsed because matter is naturally energized. Time is just an aspect of energy. Energy is motion. All matter is in motion.

Cheers,

JCN Smith,you are right.

The administration seems bizare. A lot of publicity and bizare marketing. It is sad, I beleived that FQXi was more rational and universal.

Mr Aguire and Tegmark. What do you do ?

A real sorting is necessary in your administrations and responsabilities. What is all this circus ?

You have a responsability !And the business and the monney has nothing to do with the sciences.

The evolutionary and psychological aspects of this are largely about avoiding the physics issues, as they have not been solved. So instead of admitting that the problems have not been solved, and tackling them head on, people try to explain them away by resorting to other areas, and areas that are conveniently blurred, and can't lead to anything solid. The funding sometimes goes to projects that make us feel better about the problems in physics, rather than projects that might actually lead to progress.

Prof. Callender is my Prof at UCSD and he does an outstanding job teaching the philosophy of physics, hes so great!!!

Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics' shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi "show-biz" trending viral exacerbated by online social networks veritable diarrhea via proliferation of uncritical "pop-sci" science-writers where all is spectacle versus little is truth. Lacking Kant-Popper skepticism and falsification, lemming-like stampedes infect not only "pop-sci" science-writers to the abandonment of reality, quantitatively and much worse qualitatively qualified by adverbs: might, could, should, may,... rather than a simple factual is. Scientific societies and universities and government agencies/laboratories, motivated by their mutually-interdependent but greedy financial needs/wants, are swept up in their very own hype, routinely touting by claiming that whatever is "the next big thing", "cutting-edge" bombast... ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!! Allogorically an Indian tribe where all members are chiefs, with multi-feathered bonnets versus few braves with single-feather bonnets each. The result? Lots of angry naked birds freezing in the bushes. The result turns serious physics into a mere carney sideshow, full of fury but signifying absolutely nothing(except the latest trendiness)!!! Witness recent GIGO claims that string-theory holographic-universe affects high-Tc superconductors Drude-Lorentz optical conductivity. Witness failed Anderson resonating valence-bond(RVB) high-Tc superconductivity theory, at the time denuding the Brazilian rainforest with gazillions of papers published on a mere ego-driven double Nobel prize fantasy, versus Keimer experimental discovery that all cuprates dominant intermediate-coupling-bosons are "paramagnons" aka Overhauser(RIP) spin-density waves. Witness recent Overbye NYTimes article on holographic universe (rediscovery of duality of Stokes-theorem) so full of jargonial-obfuscation to prompt many frustrated comments, including one from emeritus APS journals editor-in-chief, as to its jargonial-obfuscation unintelligibility, full of fury but signifying absolutely nothing INTELLIGIBLE! Witness Bak/BNL/DOE self-organized-criticality(SOC) "tad late" rediscovery of Newton's F = ma mere algorithmic-renaming of Barkhausen-Tatro-Siegel burst acoustic-emission! Witness 2007 physics Nobel-prize Fert-Gruenberg decade-later rediscovery without prior attribution of 1970-1977 Siegel[JMMM 7, 312(1978); https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=GIANT-MAGNETORESISTANCE] granular-GMR. Each was the trendy "latest big thing" modulo either lack of prior attribution or "inadvertent", aka out and out bombastic chicanery!!! Siegel caveat emptor "Buzzwordism, Bandwagonism Sloganeering for Fun Profit Survival and Ego" extant is classic John Bradshaw[Healing the Shame That Binds You, Hazelden(1980s)]-Brian Martin jargonial-obfuscation exacerbated sociological-dysfunctionality!!!

Physics or Schizophrenia ?

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Yet the postulates of special relativity are true, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

Pentcho Valev