What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#9,681
British theoretical physicist Dr Julian Barbour disagrees with Lee Smolin that time is real and insists that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation reveals the truth about time i.e. time simply does not exist!
He (Barbour) argues that the Universe is really a vast, static array of ‘nows’, like frames on some cosmic movie-reel. At any given moment, or ‘now’, time does not need to be factored in to explanations of how the Universe works. The sense of time passing comes from our minds processing each of these frames – or ‘time capsules’, as Barbour calls them. Time itself, however, doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Barbour is saying that time is an illusion. Although the laws of physics create a powerful impression that time is flowing, in fact there are only timeless 'nows'.
In this timeless world where all possible instants coexist, complex mathematical rules of quantum mechanics bind together a special selection of these instants in a coherent order that consciousness perceives as the flow of time.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_(book)
 

Attachments

  • The End of Time.jpg
    The End of Time.jpg
    132.9 KB · Views: 69
#9,682
I still have a question then about entropy. It might be to inanimate objects there is no sense of time, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that I can look at a star 1000 LY away and know that that I am seeing it in the past surely means there is a time aspect to the universe.

Many physical processes are expressed mathematically without any time element - the best example being Maxwell's equations which are written in terms of force. Same for Newton's equations. But is that not because humans don't think of time as anything but something that just flows and everything happens against the backdrop of that, and thus formulate their world view on that basis? What if you could reformulate Maxwell's equations in terms of time, at the fundamental level?

The fact that theoretical physicists can't agree on this signals the discussion is right for a breakthrough either way.
 
#9,685
Coming back down to Earth (or more correctly Mars), Professor Brian Cox has spent a week following the NASA team who guide the Perseverance rover and the Ingenuity helicopter during their mission on Mars.

The programme can be seen tonight at 9pm on BBC2.
 
#9,686
Bonsai said:
I still have a question then about entropy. It might be to inanimate objects there is no sense of time, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that I can look at a star 1000 LY away and know that that I am seeing it in the past surely means there is a time aspect to the universe.
Click to expand...
Veritasium may end up proving you're not looking into the past at all...just the breakthrough you're looking for.
 
#9,687
Bonsai said:
I still have a question then about entropy. It might be to inanimate objects there is no sense of time, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that I can look at a star 1000 LY away and know that that I am seeing it in the past surely means there is a time aspect to the universe.

Many physical processes are expressed mathematically without any time element - the best example being Maxwell's equations which are written in terms of force. Same for Newton's equations. But is that not because humans don't think of time as anything but something that just flows and everything happens against the backdrop of that, and thus formulate their world view on that basis? What if you could reformulate Maxwell's equations in terms of time, at the fundamental level?

The fact that theoretical physicists can't agree on this signals the discussion is right for a breakthrough either way.
Click to expand...
Entropy is not difficult, just a question of looking at it the right way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Any moderately competent Mathematician can calculate it. Along with other Mathematical things:

Gaussian Curvature in Geometry.jpg


It's Physics I wish I had never got involved with. TBH, the Riemann Hypothesis interests me more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis
 
#9,688
Bonsai said:
I still have a question then about entropy. It might be to inanimate objects there is no sense of time, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ....
Click to expand...
An object at 0K exists but has no movement/energy. But it still has mass. E=mc2 -> 0=mc2 -> m>0 so -> c=0 i.e. time stand still. Entropy is not defined at this state as

∆S = qrev,iso/T

gives a divison with 0. But just before going 0K, the entropy was low i.e. low disorder i.e. cold. or 🙂

https://www.britannica.com/video/222310/Your-Daily-Equation-32-Entropy-and-the-Arrow-of-Time

//
 
#9,690
TNT said:
An object at 0K exists but has no movement/energy. But it still has mass. E=mc2 -> 0=mc2 -> m>0 so -> c=0 i.e. time stand still. Entropy is not defined at this state as

∆S = qrev,iso/T

gives a divison with 0. But just before going 0K, the entropy was low i.e. low disorder i.e. cold. or 🙂

https://www.britannica.com/video/222310/Your-Daily-Equation-32-Entropy-and-the-Arrow-of-Time

//
Click to expand...
What the heck is this nonsense? 🤣

I was brought up a Mathematician. We sign off with QED:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

quod erat demonstrandum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom