| 25 april 2022. Nee, deze pagina hoort bij 2021, maar ik schrijf ze pas in 2022, vandaar. Blijdschap vervult mijn hartje. Zonder er naar op zoek te zijn gegaan krijg ik nu uit academische hoek bevestiging van het meeste wat ik verkondig in mijn theorie. Enkel nog het heikele punt dat oneindigheid een beginpunt heeft, maar geen eindpunt, is bkijkbaar nog niet doorgedrongen tot het academische niveau. Nochtans vrij eenvoudig te begrijpen. En te bedenken. Sta me toe dat ik de betreffende artikels hieronder weergeef in de taal waarin ze geschreven werden: het Engels. Ja, vrienden, luiheid siert de mens, nietwaar. Twee beschouwingen over het fenomeen "tijd", die erg goed aansluiten bij mijn uiteenzetting. ************************************************************************************************************** Time Can Actually Flow Backward, Physicists Say Stav Dimitropoulos Fri, April 22, 2022, 9:49 AM https://news.yahoo.com/time-actually-flow-backward-physicists-144900754.html A new paper suggests that time can actually flow forward and backward. Microscopic systems can naturally evolve toward lower entropy, meaning they could return to a prior state. Humans don't perceive these micro phenomenons at the quantum level. nvdr:
Belangrijk om te onthouden dat het zich hier handelt over
gebeurtenissen in microscopische systemen, op kwantum niveau dus.
Mijn stelling dat tijdreizen onmogelijk is blijft hiermee overeind. Tijd kan namelijk gezien worden als een (quasi) constante; klokken evenwel niet. Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock more or less sums up how we understand time: the arrow of time only moves forward, cruelly robbing us of the chance to revisit our past. Not everyone takes that for granted though, as evidenced by Albert Einstein, whose 1905 theory of special relativity stated that time is an illusion that moves relative to an observer. Today, physicists like Julian Barbour, who has written a book on the illusion of time, say change is real, but time is not; time is only a reflection of change. And just last week, a team of physicists published a new paper suggesting that quantum systems can move both forward and backward in time. To understand why scientists previously established that time knows only one direction—forward—we need to examine the second law of thermodynamics. It states that within a closed system, the entropy of the system (that is, the measure of disorder and randomness within the system) remains constant or increases. If our universe is a closed loop, curled up like a ball, its entropy can never decrease, meaning the universe will never return to an earlier point. But what if the arrow of time looked at phenomena where entropy changes are small? “Take the case of a gas in a vessel,” says Giulia Rubino, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Bristol, and lead author of the new paper that appears in Communications Physics. “Let’s suppose that at the beginning, the gas occupies only half of the vessel. Then imagine that we remove the valve that confined it within half of the vessel, so that the gas is now free to expand throughout the vessel.” The particles will start to move freely through the whole volume of the vessel. Over time, the gas will occupy the whole vessel. “In principle, there is a non-zero probability that at some point the gas will naturally return to occupy half of the vessel, only this probability gets smaller the larger the number of particles that make up the gas get,” Rubino says. If there were only three gas particles instead of a humongous quantity of gas (comprising billions of particles), it would be possible that these few particles ended up sitting once again in the part of the vessel from where they originally started. “The second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law,” says Rubino. “It is true on average in a macroscopic system. In a microscopic system, we may see the system naturally evolving toward situations of lower entropy.” She and her colleagues wondered about the consequences of applying this paradigm in the quantum realm. According to the principle of quantum superposition, individual units ( for instance, of light) can exist in two states at once, both as waves and particles, manifesting as one or the other depending on what you’re testing. Rubino’s team looked at a quantum superposition with a state that evolves both backward and forward in time. Measurements showed that more often than not, the system ended up moving forward in time. But for small entropy changes, the system could actually continue to evolve both forward and backward in time. So how do these complex physics notions translate to the actual human experience? Is it finally time to start packing for a trip backward in time? Hold your horses. “We humans are macroscopic systems. We cannot perceive these quantum superpositions of temporal evolutions,” Rubino says. For us, time indeed moves forward. It might be the case that the world is slightly undecided though. “At its most fundamental level, the world is made up of quantum systems [which can move forward and backward],” Rubino explains. “Having a deeper understanding of how to describe time flow at the level of these elementary constituents could allow us to formulate more precise theories to describe them and, eventually, to gain a deeper understanding of the physical phenomena of the world which we inhabit.” Not everyone agrees that the distinction between the macroscopic and microscopic is clear though. Ramakrishna Podila, an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Clemson University in South Carolina, says that many-particle statistics versus single-particle statistics is a more accurate way to describe things. Even a single particle has its own, unique microstates. Podila thinks that in our quest to understand time, we are putting equations before physical reality—and missing the point. (nvdr: dit laatste is waarmee ik mijn theorie begin. Wiskunde is volkomen logisch, maar fysieke processen zijn dat niet noodzakelijkerwijze over het hele scala van hun variabelen.) “Associating the arrow of time with entropy or a quantum mechanical system collapsing (as it is stated in the paper) are not formal statements, but popular methods that are easy to use,” he says. Even that time evolves forward is not an axiom per se, but a theory that astrophysicist Arthur Eddington coined and popularized in 1927. “That these ideas are used does not make them the truth. When we forget the real, underlying physics [the universally accepted axioms], we come up with all sorts of crazy things,” Podila says. So maybe it is time (and not space) that is the final frontier, despite what the beloved Captain James T. Kirk repeated at the beginning of each Star Trek episode. Or, perhaps spacetime, the idea that space and time fuse together into one interwoven continuum, is. Ever since Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, we stopped perceiving space as a three-dimensional figure and time as a one-dimensional one. “Time became the fourth element of a four-dimensional vector that describes space and time,” says Rubino. It’s a unified, dynamic entity we are still scratching our heads over. Een stap verder: ******************* Time Might Not Exist at All, Some Scientists Say Caroline Delbert Fri, April 22, 2022, 11:08 AM·3 min read https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-might-not-exist-scientists-160800658.html What if time is more of a human novelty than a concept in physics? Fundamental theories, like quantum gravity, struggle to account for time. We can remove gravity from the math, but that may suggest time doesn’t exist. nvdr: Zeer interessante gedachte
Shout-out to those of you who love to float between big ideas and take comfort in the gray areas. Some people like absolutes (good and evil, right and wrong), but others realize that most of our lives exist on a spectrum. Turns out, we’re actually living through one of the greatest such battles: the standard model of physics versus the quantum model of physics. And depending on how you look at the quandary, time may not exist at all. Quantum mechanics is the field of study that looks at how particles behave extremely close up, with qualities like superposition—where one particle can be in two or even “all” possible places at the same time. The famous Schrödinger’s cat experiment makes us think about superposition because the cat we cannot see is both alive and dead at the same time. The road to progress is usually bumpy, but scientists were especially unprepared for how weird quantum mechanics gets. nvdr: Vreemd,
maar bovenstaande klopt toch niet helemaal met wat Schrödinger
beweerde. Hij stelde dat je pas met zekerheid kan zeggen of de kat dood
dan wel levend is wanneer je de doos opent. Hij heeft bij mijn weten
nooit beweerd dat de kat tegelijk owel dood als levend was, alleen dat
je het niet kan weten zolang je de doos niet geopend hebt. Het komt
erop neer dat meten weten is en wanneer je meet kan je slechts één
toestand vaststellen (we spreken hier over kwantummechanica, nietwaar).
Arme kat.
Clearly, ideas like quantum superposition conflict with general relativity, which has been integrated with the standard model of physics since Einstein first articulated it in the early 1900s. General relativity—which describes how everything behaves in response to gravity, like the way time passes differently depending on where and how you’re traveling through space—is one of the keystone laws of the universe under the standard model. In a blog post for The Conversation, philosopher Sam Baron, an associate professor at Australian Catholic University, explains the state of the discourse on how to unify these two contrasting models of physics. String theorists—who believe that the universe is made up of infinite vibrating strings, smaller than atoms, which have effects in various dimensions—have tried to pull this off for decades, but to no avail. There are also still new theories all the time, one of which is called “loop quantum gravity.” Baron explains that this theory involves tiny bits of matter that form little loops. That sounds weird, but it’s not the biggest surprise here. “One of the remarkable aspects of loop quantum gravity is that it appears to eliminate time entirely,” Baron writes. “Suppose such a theory turns out to be correct. Would it follow that time does not exist?” At this point, the question is a matter of math as well as ontology, the philosophical consideration of what exists or not, and what it means to exist. (I’m being a bit facetious here, but you may have heard of ontology in relation to the idea of famous “proofs” that God exists.) The math part is simple, at least. If theories like loop quantum gravity don’t take time into consideration, then time, as a variable, simply doesn’t appear in the work. Think of a three-dimensional set of coordinates like (x, y, z) where you remove the “z” portion. You just have a different amount of math to do now, with a different outcome, and arguably “z” no longer exists. So time may simply not be a factor in these higher-order physics theories, Baron explains, just like we don’t account for chairs or tables. Yes, those things exist, but we don’t have to talk about them when we’re trying to figure out the greatest mysteries of our universe. And above all, physics is still deeply entrenched in the idea of causation—tracing one thing from one moment to the next and seeing how actions consequentially result from one another. “If that’s right, then agency can still survive,” Baron concludes. “For it is possible to reconstruct a sense of agency entirely in causal terms.” Ik ga goed slapen vannacht, met een gelukzalige glimlach op mijn gezicht. Geluk schuilt soms in een klein hoekje...
OVERZICHT VORIGE VOLGENDE |