time cannot be circular?

[Thelema]

Hi all you physics-heads,

I just had a thought about the eternal-return model of time curved back upon itself...

wouldn't this violate the second law of thermodynamics?

Therefore time must be non-closed.

[Undergrounder]

Can you explain it for the non-physics-heads like me as well? I like time.

On time: another major problem of time bi-directionality is the inability of running a projection operator backwards. As well as entropy and decay that's another problem. Are there any others? I'm reading Lee Smolin's "The End of Time" at the moment.

Also can you tell me why isn't the case of a nebula cloud collapsing under its own weight and combusting to form a star, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Energy tends to move towards equilibrium, right, but isn't that the opposite of what happens when a star is born? ie: Gravity pulls all matter that is otherwise in equilibrium together and then BOOM. So the big bang for instance isn't the beginning of time, just the start of entropy again, until gravity pulls everything back together, big BOOM, time goes back to the beginning, and on we go...

Edited October 28, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Legba]

Therefore time must be non-closed....

...providing that there are no laws or forces we do not know of influencing the situation.

[Thelema]

meaning of course, that provided the second law of thermodynamics holds, and there is no unknown law or force that might invalidate it as a law.

[ballzac]

The way I see it, the laws of thermodynamics must be violated. If the universe began, then the first law is violated. If the universe has existed eternally, either in a linear or circular fashion, the second law is violated.

[Conan Troutman]

I assume your referring to this dimension of time space..?

grab some Hawking and 200mic of sid...should help you on your way.

Oh yeh, Laws are made to be broken

[cycle]

My experiences lead me to believe that time is not uni-directional and linear as we tend to assume it is. Sheldrake suggests that the physical "laws" may be more like tendencies rather than laws, which implies they can change.

[Gunter]

time is instant and resonant, like a vibration in a bell

perception of tone is linear, but represents incrementalized observation of the instant

the intervals of reaction are percieved and thus artifacts

no true line of demarcation or interaction exists

this is also why instant values such as pi occupy infinate linear time to articulate

all observational laws apply, but are incremental and relative to the context and means of observation

all static data has the flaw of being unable to account for the continuity of time/space/temp/mass and the particle as such is an effect of observation that relates to an infinate instant non-linear time state

this also provides explaination for uncertainty, however

linear math is composed of arbitrary static values, thus there is no mathematic proof, however due to the nature of harmonic interactions a proof can be approximated and symbolized, but cannot be static and coherant.

So time is not linear, nor is it circular, but the context of its measure can be either, but not both at the same time

edited to add this is my best explanation of what I have found coherant in relation to time

Edited October 31, 2008 by Archaea

[devance]

I saw the clouds stay in place,

But I think I stayed in place not the clouds.

A different outlook but I don't think it was a haullenoginic.

So can chemicals and shamanism really know the difference.

A chemical and godless outlook that be grafted to socialism.

'You can still anally fornicate but can you get the money for education.'

'You will have to be tolerate and show the opponent[ the aweful military male creatures with their penises and guns] are the problem.

So far only the state, which is U.S. economics has been shown to be corrupt.

A way of being screwed by propaganda. [state and propaganda.]

and so as shown and everyone will have to go home after a savage economic screwing.

[devance]

I got off topic.

I think time is a spiral loop.

Which means is goes smaller or larger.

Not a circular loop.

Larger loop is my opinion.

I saw such and it was repeated like a sea shell like looking at a different spirals of a sea shell and not frozen.

For a mind insult [as a frozen time freeze] is impossible and frightening for good reasons as not organic.

Not possible with hallucenogens as not organic but would be stressful as a impossibility as conception.

But a good way to stress someone out. [Demonically]

[The Dude]

I got off topic.

haha, that made me genuinely lol. Was thinking wtf does corrupt U.S. economics and being screwed by propaganda have to do with the 'shape' of time.

I think time is a spiral loop.

Yeah I can see that. I tend to 'model' its shape on the idea of a mobius strip. Where our perception of the journey appears unidirectional but in reality it may well be flowing in and out of higher spatial (or temporal) dimensions. We are moving through a multidimensional reality we call subjective perception of the passage of time, where our subjective timeline is simultaneously shared and intersecting with other observers such as fellow humans, pan-dimensional beings, or maybe merely ourselves living a different piece of this multidimensional pie.

If vortexes and feedback loops and fractals are the essence of being.. it seems, than just as matter falls into these preset forms, maybe so too does the structure of time. The flow of time may have more of a fluid dynamic with ripples or folds of space/time being all part of a larger web. I do not see the merits of discussing n-dimensional realities without first finding consensus on what the fuck that really means, and I aint no theoretical physicist so this is essentially a bunch of wank.

a tab + psychedelic music + intense introspection of my life thus far... and some kind of memetic behavioural loops which, seemed predestined to get me onto this ranting wankery again... had me unlock an understanding of space/time and identity as a juxtaposition of these jewel-like multifaceted symbols and influences everywhere. Like the greeks established with their myths of the psyche, they are Archetypical forms or characters or predispositions of behaviour that come and go like loops in time. With our very experience informing their being too. Or like the Jewish Merkaba Mysticism with it's paths of creation representing again aspects of the self as archetypical behavioural patterns. They reflect my struggles as an ego, as a community, as a planet, as a universe, as a god. Personal development is a transcendental adventure when we realise our common identity.

For the purposes of evolution, the particle (you) must accelerate at each interval of the loop and become a spiral motion... or insanity ensues "trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". This is totally a participator / creator universe and time may well be as multi-dimensional or spiraly or loopy as ones perception allows. When it seems it's all coming back around again, you will have the choice to repeat it all again, Or taking that leap of faith, manifest your true will.

-something about subconscious processes keeping us trapped and only by heightening perception of them, may we metaprogram our higher self and, keeping with the holographic principle, manifest this will collectively.

Edited November 10, 2008 by The Dude

[The Dude]

So I made the most fucked up error of not really reading the question before spurting above nonsense.. so in relation to the second law of thermodynamics.

The law of entropy is more or less the empirically tested and proved theory that within a closed system all differences in energy / pressure / states will reach an equilibrium. Does this mean that all energy will eventually cease to exist as a flux of forms and reach the mythical Omega point, the form of forms is it? or just inert matter floating through space like lifeless satellites? This of course would fly in the face of the first law stating that energy never begins nor does it ends and is eternal. Well maybe not, i guess if Energy is = to Matter x the speed of light, then Energy and Matter are the same thing and they trade states... until the final point where energy is fully consumed by the succubus of life force that is evil evil matter. to get all gnostic on yer asses again, it seems the idea of energy confined to these shells is a fallacy. To get back to the Alpha for a second and think of the hypothetical before time, as all physically recorded data suggests an initial point of singularity... smaller than a pea supposedly. How did lifeless inert matter become energised into this seperation and state of flux in the first place? the mythical banishment from non duality in the garden of eden?

Now wait a second now... I got distracted again. I thought this applies only to closed systems whereas the universe last i heard is ever expanding.. so does that mean that the original source of energy is dispersed further and further into more mediocre and lifeless forms, or is it a continual evolution energised by our will. The same will that miraculously conceived an existence out of non existence and transcends any confines of observable law. Anybody ever observed the very idea of existing at all, explain that with some rational logic please

"...And this perpetual motion machine she made is a joke! It just keeps on getting faster and faster! Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of Thermodynamics!"- brilliant line.

Life itself is an example of perpetual motion: as that fella from ghost in a shell 2 says: "The human being is a robot that winds it's own spring".

This rollercoaster ride of life is 100% FUBU, for us by us. enjoi!

Edited November 10, 2008 by The Dude

[ballzac]

Does this mean that all energy will eventually cease to exist as a flux of forms and reach the mythical Omega point, the form of forms is it? or just inert matter floating through space like lifeless satellites? This of course would fly in the face of the first law stating that energy never begins nor does it ends and is eternal.

I may be misinterpereting what you are saying, but it sounds like you are confusing energy with exergy. As entropy increases, the actual energy in existence is conserved, it is only the energy available to do work (the exergy) that is lost.

[The Dude]

I may be misinterpereting what you are saying, but it sounds like you are confusing energy with exergy. As entropy increases, the actual energy in existence is conserved, it is only the energy available to do work (the exergy) that is lost.

so Exergy is potential energy I guess. Yeah I fucked up in my ramblings but quickly cleared myself up and realised that energy IS matter. So even stationary matter and a static world is full of energy in the form of matter. I just cannot see a final ceasure to our world being so lame. I'm thinking that before we need endure the long slumber, we always have the ability to re-animate dead matter. I'm of the thinking that our minds are full of a potential energy, Information is the 'stuff' of life. It is what inspires (energises) and how we perceive everything. And where the fuck do IDEAS come from.. not to mention time/space and physics. The very act of self creating ourselves originally implies we may continue to do so.

In a symbolic sense I believe time to travel in any way we direct it for ourselves, memes and meanings and archetypical forms are a 'location' of time that we may be trapped within, or even wander freely through each room opening and closing all sorts of doors of perception.. Subjectively we may be flatlanders, or insane and loopy, or progressing through time. Seeing as it's passage is a subjective illusion totally relative to other peoples positions in time/space and an arbitrary measure of time is impossible as it is all only cross-referenced and .. relativistic, an objective answer on it's shape in terms of physical causality or symbolic meaning causality is unnattainable. I do like this image though, on the idea of the beholder choosing their own reality tunnels, and hence timelines.. together with their shape.

[ballzac]

so Exergy is potential energy I guess.

Um...not quite. Potential energy is something else. If you hold an object in the air, it has potential energy equal to its mass times its height times the acceleration due to gravity. For example, a kilo at one metre above the earth will have potential energy of 9.8 Joules relative to the ground. If you drop it, the potential energy will decrease as it gets closer to the ground, and the kinetic energy will increase as the speed increases. The total energy will remain the same if you include the small amount of energy that becomes the kinetic energy of molecules in the air due to friction. However, the energy that is lost due to friction cannot be retrieved, this means that the exergy diminishes slightly. As the object reaches the ground, it no longer has potential energy, and all of its energy is now kinetic. Without potential energy, it still has exergy, because it is capable of doing work. If it hits the ground, it will lose its kinetic energy, but there will be thermal (also a type of kinetic) energy, and sound etc. so the energy has not been lost, it has just been changed into other forms. But the exergy has been lost, because the object is no longer capable of doing work.

[The Dude]

Um...not quite. Potential energy is something else. If you hold an object in the air, it has potential energy equal to its mass times its height times the acceleration due to gravity. For example, a kilo at one metre above the earth will have potential energy of 9.8 Joules relative to the ground. If you drop it, the potential energy will decrease as it gets closer to the ground, and the kinetic energy will increase as the speed increases. The total energy will remain the same if you include the small amount of energy that becomes the kinetic energy of molecules in the air due to friction. However, the energy that is lost due to friction cannot be retrieved, this means that the exergy diminishes slightly. As the object reaches the ground, it no longer has potential energy, and all of its energy is now kinetic. Without potential energy, it still has exergy, because it is capable of doing work. If it hits the ground, it will lose its kinetic energy, but there will be thermal (also a type of kinetic) energy, and sound etc. so the energy has not been lost, it has just been changed into other forms. But the exergy has been lost, because the object is no longer capable of doing work.

So... the original exergy was really the person picking the object up

anyway I understand the basic mechanics of physics.. learned about potential/kinetic etc.. playing this really cool educational video game in primary school.

Anyhow you more or less said that an object can have gravitational potential energy, due to its displacement from the gravitational body. So it has potential to do work and transform energy into other forms. Is this not the same as exergy? the potential to do work? I mean energy is never lost, but potential energy is transfered, ie: it turns into something else, this is the exact same thing as exergy being transfered into non exergy, ie: potential to do work, into other forms of energy.. such as, matter for instance.

anyway physics shmysics, the point I'm labourously trying to articulate is that all these ideas on physics and material sensory experience are nothing but subjective decisions on filtering the infinite, creating our own reality tunnels out of what IS. so any theories on physics and the philosophy of time and all that wank are to be transcended like our ideas on everything else, for a more in-tune idea of what time is. I guess I don't know, but the ebbs and flows of incidents happening through time, seems coreographed by some giant cosmic magnet, who's will is transcendent, a larger perspective allows some kind of abstract symbolic intuiton about larger frameworks of co-inciding ripples of time, it is a participatory process and time is what you make of it. I'm feeling a bit loopy myself returning to this forum though.

[ballzac]

So... the original exergy was really the person picking the object up

Well, I gues the ORIGINAL exergy was really the big bang...or whatever came before that

Anyhow you more or less said that an object can have gravitational potential energy, due to its displacement from the gravitational body. So it has potential to do work and transform energy into other forms. Is this not the same as exergy?

No. When all of it's energy is potential, the exergy and potential energy of the system are equivalent. But as I said before, at the bottom of its fall, the object has NO potential energy, yet it still has exergy. Exergy is not the same thing as potential energy, but they can sometimes have the same value.

Edited November 11, 2008 by ballzac

[The Dude]

...as I said before, at the bottom of its fall, the object has NO potential energy, yet it still has exergy. Exergy is not the same thing as potential energy, but they can sometimes have the same value.

Which is inconsistent with your previous explanation. Where it looks like you're confusing the two.

[after the fall of the object] the energy has not been lost, it has just been changed into other forms. But the exergy has been lost, because the object is no longer capable of doing work.

So its potential energy is not lost, it changes forms, but we cannot call it potential energy anymore, so as a potential it is lost into discrete specific action, much like exergy -> actual energy. From abstract potential, to tangible experiential being.

I don't think I have the exergy for explaining that... potential energy = ability to do work AND exergy = potential to do work.

...they seem to be the same thing, maybe semantic difference in their usage in scientific theory, but I can't be anused looking shit up now. I thought this topic is about time anyway?

Edited November 12, 2008 by The Dude

[ballzac]

Which is inconsistent with your previous explanation. Where it looks like you're confusing the two.

Sorry. I must have made an ambiguous statement as I would never have intentionally claimed that they are the same thing. Can you show me which particular statements led you to this conclusion?

So its potential energy is not lost, it changes forms, but we cannot call it potential energy anymore, so as a potential it is lost into discrete specific action, much like exergy -> actual energy. From abstract potential, to tangible experiential being.

Well, if we can no longer call it potential energy, then potential energy IS lost. Your statement is like saying that matter is not annihilated in a nuclear explosion, it just changes form and we no longer call it matter. In reality the matter IS annihilated. It is the energy that changes form, from matter to radiation.

...they seem to be the same thing, maybe semantic difference in their usage in scientific theory,

Semantics = definition.

Defining concepts is of fundamental importance in physics. If we don't have clear and agreed upon definitions of the words used in physics, then how do we know what we are talking about, or that two physicists are talking about the same thing? The actual choice of words may be largely arbitrary - you could call 'energy' 'potential energy', and call potential energy 'glibglob' - but the fact is that these different terms have come about due to necessity because they apply to specific and distinct quantities that are required in calculations. It's like if you say that there might be some semantic difference in the usage of the terms 'gas' and 'hydrogen' in chemistry. Two different terms used to describe two different substances, although they can sometimes be the same thing.

I thought this topic is about time anyway?

Time and exergy are very closely related. In fact many claim that entropy (and hence exergy) defines the flow of time. Besides, the OP specifically asked for responses from physics heads relating to the second law of thermodynamics. If this is not what you want to discuss, then perhaps you are in the wrong thread!?

Edited November 12, 2008 by ballzac

[The Dude]

ok you're right. cool. I think that raps up that chapter, everybody clear on the defintion of time now? good.

[The Dude]

Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light and it seems that this limitation means that no material tool will transcend the bounds of supposedly unidirecional time. Physicists are only as 'scientific' and empirical as their tools allow, but it seems those dealing with n-dimensional quantum physics go off the far end talking of potentials and abstracts and imaginary numbers and dimension that account for the behaviour of reality in the dimensions we physically perceive.

It is the physical effect that implies its' cause <-- which itself is consigned to a mechanism of an imaginary dimension. If anybody has ever heard of problem solving, or model building, or.. connect the dots, we can extrapolate theories on the hidden substance of being by that which IS revealed. Be it logically extrapolated by some quantum physicists with all their forces and constants worked into the model.. or written up by a poet or writer. Tolkien and the writers of the Bible, and the Mayans and a shitload of people before our time.. trusted their intuiton as being true. Everyone else nowadays seems far too cynical of their own senses.

I like myth and fiction because it's truth can reach all without smarmy smartarse intellectualists shitting all over its non-integration to their mode of thinking, it just bypasses it all very nicely:

Time Variance Authority

[Undergrounder]

Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light and it seems that this limitation means that no material tool will transcend the bounds of supposedly unidirecional time. ... n-dimensional quantum physics go off the far end talking of potentials and abstracts and imaginary numbers and dimension that account for the behaviour of reality in the dimensions we physically perceive.

It is the physical effect that implies its' cause <-- which itself is consigned to a mechanism of an imaginary dimension. If anybody has ever heard of problem solving, or model building, or.. connect the dots, we can extrapolate theories on the hidden substance of being by that which IS revealed. Be it logically extrapolated by some quantum physicists with all their forces and constants worked into the model.. or written up by a poet or writer. Tolkien and the writers of the Bible, and the Mayans and a shitload of people before our time.. trusted their intuiton as being true. Everyone else nowadays seems far too cynical of their own senses.

I like myth and fiction because it's truth can reach all without smarmy smartarse intellectualists shitting all over its non-integration to their mode of thinking, it just bypasses it all very nicely:

Time Variance Authority

But its our trusted intuitions that are clearly wrong. If a physical effect implies a cause, and causes cannot travel faster than the speed of light, then how can we account for the "causation" that instantaneously collapses a particle on the other side of the universe when one on this side of the universe is measured? And what causes its value to be the opposite of the value of the one here? (Edit: I figured you'd know what i was talking about but just in case for reference im referring to the EPR Paradox / Nonlocality / Entanglement). It's instant causation without regard to time or space.. At the very least, locality has been thoroughly crushed by QM, QM is an indeterministic theory, so determinism is on shaky ground, and the causaton of the EPR paradox is of the kind that cannot be explained in terms of cause --> effect in adjacent frames of time at the same space. I used to be a big determinist by the way so this is kind of new ground for me. Determinism seems to be completely intuitive in every respect to the point that it should be a fundamental way the world works. But if you accept that QM affects our world (like Schrodinger's Cat example), then you have to accept that the truth of determinism (and causation) as its classically stated is looking pretty unfounded.

Im not 100% agreeing with it, but our classical intuitions seem to need a radical updating. They are, in the end, purely psychological/social phenomena that is built on the subjective world that we see, so its not too hard to see where the flaw in intuitions could come from.

[The Dude]

Im not 100% agreeing with it, but our classical intuitions seem to need a radical updating. They are, in the end, purely psychological/social phenomena that is built on the subjective world that we see, so its not too hard to see where the flaw in intuitions could come from.

hehe, smartarse, my intuition is off the hook bruv, don't ever doubt it. I would not say that a soley new agey intuition worldview is needed. Logic and Reason is the foundation of our collective understanding, for there's these mechanical systems that exist that we can agree on time and time again as working logically. However when these systems seem to feed into a transcendental meaning, cause -> effect within the seemingly unidirectional vector of time, can be seen as cross-referenced and self referential across many points of supposedly successive history. The cause of inspiration can be seen as 'timeless'.

The sensory feeling of "shit i just unlocked this hidden truth of the universe" is quite a strong emotion, one that can easily override the previous conviction in the systematic logical universe as infallable, instead their is an holistic reconnection between logical and emotive faculties and the simultaneous feeling of understanding / mystification. You are still a part of the systems and loops in place.. but there is a memory of transcendence, which as an understanding does not ignore or bypass these systems, it integrates them into making the impossible possible.

"all I know is that I don't know nothing" could be said to be an absolute of existence, everything else is just an approximation to that, as this long winded discussion seems to be proving.

I cannot really argue much using scientific terminology, it seems you know more hard facts about physics and materialist convictions. Then you also claim to have once been a full blown determinist. I'd suggest instead of swinging into the extremes of either belief, to integrate the two as paradoxically complementary aspects of each other. I mean it's random and chaotic as fuck, but it was all meant to be.

I'm sure you've heard of Gödel:

Although [Gödel's] theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. ... to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

[edit] UG, you did twist my head a bit with the idea of non-causation. Which would seem a type of just-being-ness. <-- if that makes sense. However I'd say the cause... of causation is the subjective eye of the beholder, manifesting the divine spark into approximations of it in physical form.

Edited November 13, 2008 by The Dude

[Undergrounder]

The sensory feeling of "shit i just unlocked this hidden truth of the universe" is quite a strong emotion

i think your spot on there --if i get your meaning right--, but im not sure if i do. Are you saying that this intuitive "holy shit!" moment of transcendence is a signifier of some eternal truth? Or are you saying that this moment is not to be trusted because its just an emotion and plays more to self-esteem than to the truth? I might have read more into it... i tend to think the second though. I think the transcendental moment (glimpse of truth) thing MIGHT be valid, mainly because i can see no other good reason for it, and its pretty open to interpretation. But all in all i try to remove any motivation behind me believing something because it seems like a trap. Sometimes that makes me disbelieve some things perhaps a little too much though. ie: Chi i don't believe in because its existence could be said to be incredibly self-affirming, and that makes me wary. I don't want to believe in something because its existence benefits me, i want to believe in something because it is true.

I hadn't heard of Godel but in that link i recognise the problem of proving even the most basic mathematical principles. That's an interesting point about being liberated about never knowing absolute truth. Im not sure if i agree but that's for another thread.

Just to be clear on my thing about determinism, i find it incredibly naturally intuitive. I remember having a big argument with someone at the shroomery on determinism about this time last year (hint hint: philosophy essay writing time), and he tried to argue that QM violates cause and effect and i tried to argue against it. Personally i think that it just makes sense that planes continue to fly and this computer works because every part of it is compeltely determined. On the subject of free will i therefore believe that free will is an illusion, and the path of the future is completely set in the causes of the past. I still believe this but there are issues central to quantum mechanics that pose a significant threat to this view. Namely its basis is entirely probabilistic at a fundamental level - in SOME significant examples. Secondly, the EPR paradox expressly implies that things can go faster than the speed of light, and that the one effect is determined by two causes simultaneously. Normal cause --> effect does not allow for this. In an extreme account, cause and effect are completely meaningless, and causes IN THE FUTURE are suggested to influence EFFECTS IN THE PAST.

The only saving grace i can see is twofold: 1. QM is still a highly debated theory with many philsophical interpretations and mathematical problems, so it is not definitive (although it is close). 2. Although QM violates determinism, cause and effect and locality (as well as other fundamental principles) is certain circumstances, it is unclear whether this has any -real- effect on the macro world we live in. We could be happy to say that the mechanics behind determinism is completely chaotic (as is implied in the theory), although this chaos sorts itself out to make sense, perhaps in the same way i can never predict the flip of a single coin, but for all intents and purposes i can predict with almost determined certaintly, the AVERAGE outcome of the flips of that coin over 1000 trials.

So i'm not really flip-flopping, i still call myself a hard determinist, and i think eventually the mysteries of QM will explain how the world can be determined while the mechanics seem to be chaotic.

I actually need to finish an essay tomorrow on this very subject (The Effect of the Bell-Wigner Inequalities (ie: the EPR paradox) on determinism, locality and quantum holism). So it's all kind of buzzing around in my head. Maybe by tomorrow night i will know which way to go

Edited November 13, 2008 by Undergrounder

[ThunderIdeal]

can't read latest posts right now, but this trips me out a bit.

the lorentz attractor, which plots the course of a complex system over time.. it sort of has a pattern but it never repeats itself. i guess it could have just as easily been drawn as a normal figure eight, but the weird thing is that it's our symbol for infinity. MAYBE time is like a lorentz attractor, regularly flipping back on itself but never in quite the same way, never stopping or coming to a regular equilibrium. just a silly thought.