An emergent property is one that can only be inferred from an understanding of the properties of its microscopic constituents.
I don't know about time, but some physicists regard spacetime, not as something fundamental in itself, but as a quantity emerging from the dynamics of some underlying microscopic theory.
Instead of being a smooth, continous fabric, loop quantum gravity (LQG) says that spacetime has structure on the smallest scales - just like zooming in on an LCD display and seeing the individual pixels.
When LQG physicists say small, they mean really small. The structure of spacetime would only be apparent on the level of the Planck scale.
All but one of the laws of physics are considered to be completely time-reversible, meaning that the same effects will occur, regardless of whether time is running forwards or backwards.
The exception is the second law of thermodynamics which says that, as time goes by, the amount of disorder, or entropy, in the Universe will always increase.
Many physicists now suspect that the forward-facing arrow of time emerges when gravity forces enough tiny particles to interact with each other, i.e., time is a property emerging from the dynamics of some underlying microscopic theory.
Is that physics or metaphysics?
"The universe, believe it or not, is nothing other than a giant musical instrument with a very special but predictable pattern of harmonically related oscillations which determine the structure of everything from galactic clusters to subatomic particles. Although this theory is properly called the Harmonics theory it may be alternatively known as the Big Bong theory!" (Ray Tomes)
That is a circular reasoning: Dark matter was thought up and introduced to explain the external motion of galaxies. However, a glance at generators (electrophysics) is enough to explain the movement.
Most important question is: Are "space" and "time" "BEFORE" "matter", "objects", OR are space and time derived during observation, description, interpretation of matter, objects, and their changes? Do only their observation and analysis lead to concepts like process, development, space, time, energy...? So also: if coordinate systems are stretched, compressed, cranked, space and time are also stretched, compressed, cranked ("Mirror testing"-)?
"Space" and "time" do not contain anything. They have no borders, boundaries;-)
"Universe" is a "collection" of ALL things - objects and concepts. Concept "collection" can not "expand". It can be completed by the things which are added, like "parallel universes"-) And no matter how the things are brought to each other "spatially" in "position": the concept "collection" does not expand. And is also not expandable. Even if coordinate systems are "expanded" or stretched;-)
"All" stands for all "things" - objects and concepts.
"Cosmos" = all "things". So also includes man, worm, microbe, society, science, psyche, feeling, street, grain of sand, flower, idea, concept, illusion...-)
"Astro-nomy" is the "science" about "stars", about a very small section of "universe", of all, of cosmos. But: if e.g. stars move away from each other, universe, all, cosmos, doesn't expand! And if "space" expands, and "time" with it, then universe, all, cosmos, does not expand;-)
"Space" and "time" do not contain anything. They have no borders, boundaries;-)
"Universe" is a "collection" of ALL things - objects and concepts. Concept "collection" can not "expand". It can be completed by the things which are added, like "parallel universes"-) And no matter how the things are brought to each other "spatially" in "position": the concept "collection" does not expand. And is also not expandable. Even if coordinate systems are "expanded" or stretched;-)
"All" stands for all "things" - objects and concepts.
"Cosmos" = all "things". So also includes man, worm, microbe, society, science, psyche, feeling, street, grain of sand, flower, idea, concept, illusion...-)
"Astro-nomy" is the "science" about "stars", about a very small section of "universe", of all, of cosmos. But: if e.g. stars move away from each other, universe, all, cosmos, doesn't expand! And if "space" expands, and "time" with it, then universe, all, cosmos, does not expand;-)
Last edited:
If you were to stop the passage of time in the universe (thought experiment), what would happen? I’d argue if nothing changed, ie everything just ‘froze’ in its position time would be an illusion.
We had a discussion many moons ago where I spoke about the outcome of acceleration being the process of expending energy to shift an objects time relationships to its surroundings and it was like ‘walking through treacle’ because you need huge amounts of energy to do that. Get up and walk to the other side of the room, go from 0-60, get in a rocket and go into orbit. All these things are manifestations of applying energy (force) and changing an objects time relationship wrt it’s surroundings. None of this viewpoint clashes with Einstein or thermodynamics other than to say time is not an illusion. You can only create time differences (use c as your ‘standard ruler’ to measure this) by expending energy.
Last edited:
Particle physicists look for a particle solution to physics conundrums (remember WIMP’s - I think they even built a probe to search for them!), Quantum guys a QM solution and maths guys like Edward Witten String theory with 10 dimensions last time I looked.
All very confusing and if Sabine Hossenfelder is right, bringing us no closer to the truth.
All very confusing and if Sabine Hossenfelder is right, bringing us no closer to the truth.
We do not get closer to the "truth" because we, or many, or most, ignore a part of "science", more precisely: because a part of "scientists" does not do "science", is even anti-scientific;-)-;
Anti-scientists! Including Sabine;-)-;
Anti-scientists! Including Sabine;-)-;
The formation of elements has always semi interested me - just wondering about it
Take an extract from here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/uranium-238
Practically all the naturally occurring atoms of uranium on earth are the uranium-235 and uranium-238 isotopes. The uranium-235 isotope has a half-life of 7.1 × 108 yr and an abundance of 0.711%, while the uranium-238 isotope has a half-life of 4.51 × 109 yr and an abundance of 99.283%. Both isotopes have been decaying since the earth formed approximately 4.6 × 109 years ago. How much of each isotope originally present has decayed, and what were the relative abundances of the two isotopes when the earth was young?
Converting the known half-lives into rate parameters λ. we find that λ=9.76×10-10/yr for uranium-235 and λ=1.54×10-10/yr for uranium238. The values of e-λu for t=4.6x109 yr are, respectively, 0.0112 and 0.493. Thus only 1.12% of the original uranium-235 is still present on earth, but 49.3% of the original uranium-238. Consequently, while the current ratio of uranium-235 to uranium-238 is 0.711 to 99.283, or 1 to 140, the ratio when the earth was young must have been 0.711/0.0112 to 99.283/0.493, or 1 to 3.2.
Elements are said to be formed by supernova due to the core changing to materials that can't fuse so can no longer support the hydrogen etc that can, Iron may be mentioned
So uranium etc must have formed before the earth did. High energy levels are needed needed. An early idea was that the planets came out of the sun when no one was really sure about just what made the sun shine etc - pre atomic thoughts. LOL I have seen coal mentioned in old books, earlier 1900's
We have something old rather close to us. Omega Centauri. Shown in a chart here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
A bit about it. Notice thoughts on how it was formed and also population II stars. Metal poor. They may get to iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Centauri
So in this view high energy levels are needed. As we look further and further away these get easier to detect. QSO's are seen as being relatively early. Black holes ???
Pass it's all beyond me but the solar system did form out of something and these processes take a rather long time.
LOL The changing of expansion of the universe and other aspects caused me to look here for an update
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Interesting read eg the section about the most distant objects detected. Other factors as well. A good summary. There can be other reasons for the microwave
background. LOL I also read early reports on the survey. Essentially help, it doesn't make sense. Maybe I shouldn't have read a book by Hoyle but I do know others had doubts and they persisted for rather a long time - now it's nearly all big bang based.
Loll 10^9 has pasted as 109.
Take an extract from here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/uranium-238
Practically all the naturally occurring atoms of uranium on earth are the uranium-235 and uranium-238 isotopes. The uranium-235 isotope has a half-life of 7.1 × 108 yr and an abundance of 0.711%, while the uranium-238 isotope has a half-life of 4.51 × 109 yr and an abundance of 99.283%. Both isotopes have been decaying since the earth formed approximately 4.6 × 109 years ago. How much of each isotope originally present has decayed, and what were the relative abundances of the two isotopes when the earth was young?
Converting the known half-lives into rate parameters λ. we find that λ=9.76×10-10/yr for uranium-235 and λ=1.54×10-10/yr for uranium238. The values of e-λu for t=4.6x109 yr are, respectively, 0.0112 and 0.493. Thus only 1.12% of the original uranium-235 is still present on earth, but 49.3% of the original uranium-238. Consequently, while the current ratio of uranium-235 to uranium-238 is 0.711 to 99.283, or 1 to 140, the ratio when the earth was young must have been 0.711/0.0112 to 99.283/0.493, or 1 to 3.2.
Elements are said to be formed by supernova due to the core changing to materials that can't fuse so can no longer support the hydrogen etc that can, Iron may be mentioned
So uranium etc must have formed before the earth did. High energy levels are needed needed. An early idea was that the planets came out of the sun when no one was really sure about just what made the sun shine etc - pre atomic thoughts. LOL I have seen coal mentioned in old books, earlier 1900's
We have something old rather close to us. Omega Centauri. Shown in a chart here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
A bit about it. Notice thoughts on how it was formed and also population II stars. Metal poor. They may get to iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Centauri
So in this view high energy levels are needed. As we look further and further away these get easier to detect. QSO's are seen as being relatively early. Black holes ???
Pass it's all beyond me but the solar system did form out of something and these processes take a rather long time.
LOL The changing of expansion of the universe and other aspects caused me to look here for an update
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Interesting read eg the section about the most distant objects detected. Other factors as well. A good summary. There can be other reasons for the microwave
background. LOL I also read early reports on the survey. Essentially help, it doesn't make sense. Maybe I shouldn't have read a book by Hoyle but I do know others had doubts and they persisted for rather a long time - now it's nearly all big bang based.
Loll 10^9 has pasted as 109.
Last edited:
The study of the physics of electrical phenomena, such as the those relating to fusion, electromagnets, etc
Your basic premise seems to be that time emerges through the expenditure of energy.
Add that to the premise that time emerges through the microscopic dynamics of gravity and I'm no further forward in my understanding of time!
There is a conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics which each regard time in a different way.
Einstein determined that time is relative while in the quantum world time may not even exist!
One thing is certain, as declared by Pliny the Younger in 105, “The happier the time, the shorter it seems.” 😎
I think this issue of relative abundance of the Elements is straightforward enough:
Stellar Fusion can only create Elements up to Iron 56, or at a pinch, Nickel 62.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-56
After that you may create higher Elements in such things as Supernovas. Which have gobs of excess Energy to over come the unfavourable mass defect.
The early Universe must have been very deficient in higher elements, being largely Hydrogen.
The newest known Black Hole, which is believed to be a Supernova remnant is SN 1979C:
Ongoing investigations:
Whilst we take that on board, I have prepared a calculation of how long @cumbb would live if he fell into a Black Hole.
Naturally we wouldn't wish that upon him... 🙄
I had thought that the existence of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) had pretty much been ruled out after decades of hunting for them.
However, it appears that the DARWIN project is still on the cards. A massive underground detector employing supercooled vats of Xenon is to be built. Physicists will watch for telltale flashes of light when Xenon nuclei recoil from their interaction with dark-matter particles.
https://darwin.physik.uzh.ch/
Regarding string theory, the number of dimensions is increasing... 10, 11 and now 12 dimensions, two of which are 'curled up'!
Attachments
Entering a supermassive black hole would be quite different from entering a black hole of just a few solar masses.
A person falling into a small steller-mass black hole will get very close to its centre of gravitational attraction before crossing the event horizon. The gravitational pull on their feet will be enormous compared to that on their head and they would experience 'spaghettification'.
A person falling into a supermassive black hole would cross the event horizon much farther from the the centre of gravitational attraction, which means that the difference in gravitational pull between their head and feet is nearly zero. Thus, the person would pass through the event horizon unaffected and float painlessly beyond the event horizon.
Electricity is in the socket only;-) I know;-))
Supernovae: What spun further "physical" processes release such hypothetical "energies"-?
Aside: Beside circular conclusions and illogics you also disregard observations: Quasars have been observed bound to galaxies;-)
Nonsense as weekend-afternoon-chain-event of the cosmos;-)
Supernovae: What spun further "physical" processes release such hypothetical "energies"-?
Aside: Beside circular conclusions and illogics you also disregard observations: Quasars have been observed bound to galaxies;-)
Nonsense as weekend-afternoon-chain-event of the cosmos;-)
My goodness, I'm going to have to think about this. I get the thermodynamic relation to time, but the rest....
As an engineer, I've always thought of time as a concrete, one way phenomenon. Now your statement about thermodynamics (which immediately rings true with me) makes me understand why I've always had that perspective.
I never had a problem with relativity and time being invariant. But this is a concept I must understand.
So thank you.