|
Author
|
Topic: The Arrow of Time
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 17. April 2003 06:16
The thermodynamic arrow of time, is very interesting.
symmetric
|
|
|
|
|--------------->>asymmetric time arrow
|
|
|
|
antisymmetric
Could it be possible to combine symmetry with antisymmetry to generate the thermodynamic arrow of time? This would also resolve the non-locality paradox since symmetric and antisymmetric waveforms intersect to generate the thermodynamic arrow?
It has to do with tensors and possible generalizations of tensors:
A symmetric tensor is of the form A_ab = A_ba
An anti symmetric tensor is of the form A_ab = -A_ba
An asymmetric tensor is where A_ab is not equal to A_ba
Any second rank tensor including asymmetric tensors can be represented as the sum:
A_ab = [A_ab + A_ba]/2 + [A_ab - A_ba]/2
antisymmetry can be represented as a spin, or rotation, and while researching on the internet, I see that the "Dirac equation" has aspects of antisymmetry. If Fermions have anti symmetric rotational aspects then so should spacetime. This antisymmetric "rotational" aspect of spacetime explains certain laws of physics. The *mechanics* of spacetime???
The standing wave resonance of reality.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 19. April 2003 21:44
Hya Russell, ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Your arrow of time is a very interesting concept that could solve the non-locality paradox. I have another couple of ideas that could be intercepted and be combined with this or change it altogether. When considering your idea of symmetry with antisymmetry to form a thermodynamic arrow of time, I am interested in how this might evolve differently when we undertake the almost impossible task of making sense of the human brains own configuration of time and how this affects our perception of external phenomena that we base on your type thinking about the arrow of time. I am aware that particular angles of perception taken in the study of say complexity etc. are as important as the study itself, so much so that our intervention by this ends up being the overall part of what it means to have and define the concept of complexity. The same occurs with time that you might be aware of anyway, that it is also a very relational problem but we might find that if we take this and use it to our advantage rather than disregard it, it could create some interesting results that we might not have considered to be sound within the fields and motives in the study of science, and here it is simply put.
One interesting aspect of the brain and how we understand the external experience of time is loaded in the speed of its oscillations that create incremental states of awareness. I think you’ll be aware that when we sleep then wake afterwards, we can loose track of time temporally/temporarily so to speak. What I am suggesting is that regarding trying to define an arrow of experiential time external to our senses; an example for this 1st would be describing the particle behaviour of say a fermion acting to exchange bosons, what we could do is define the shape of time and its behaviour when we describe the spin and rotation of a particle that is specialised within an neuron inside the brain. Can we understand internal quantum events by external mean even it is we who are doing the describing? The other way to look at this using what appears to be the same frame of reference, although that could be debated, is the Pauli Exclusion Principle stating that no two electrons in an atom have an identical
quantum number. This could be an indication of antisymmetric qualities of our external experiential knowledge but to the configurations that lie within the brain that is doing the excluding and observing of it, are also deserving of another element. Lets say this element then, was going to make a shift towards symmetry and that it could that we should grasp an understanding of how specialised internal brain events and particles could make up for the symmetrical qualities that we cannot quantify otherwise. This in the end could change our focus on external time altogether and not just by the same mind/brain structure that gave us the idea to do so. The complexity not only arises when we are describing the arrow of time when using the mechanics and experience only available by our very own brain and its way of thinking about that quantum world we already know, but when we describe the brain doing the describing! And how this affects our inability to create the same principle. Even though the idea appears un objective for scientific study the very reason it does this could at the same time open our eyes towards what it means to include temporal subjective qualities within the descriptions of events within the quantum world that lie outside the mind and but importantly the standing wave resonance of reality that is also within it.
Claire
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 20. April 2003 23:30
Very interesting...
The brain describes it own functioning and mechanistic components and the working of the cereberal neurons are combining in such a way as to create the identity of the "mind".
A description contains that which it describes, as a set contains its elements. But the elements contain the description! This seems to be a type of mutual containment where description contains that which contains the description.
Sounds like the CTMU of Chris Langan.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 21. April 2003 00:43
Hya Russell,
Mmmm? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The post was an idea I thought myself, and I am also sure that it has different implications to Chris’s idea. I didn’t type it better to suggest this. I also clicked the wrong button that posted premature text too soon. However this is what I left.
Very simply, the minds states of events in awareness, of what we call external information(external stimuli), happen much later than its non-awareness state (the subconscious) or to put it another way, the subconscious processes information much earlier than awareness does. This plays a very significant part in our appplication and obseravtion of quantum physics and other sciences. The processes of the subconscious are still mysterious by classical quantum understanding because observation and relation by the actual brain state doing the observation by its own awareness configuration are not considered or they don’t tell us about breaking time barriers (time and symmetry), about changing the state of physics that could be influenced by that very brain doing the changing. The brain/mind cannot be aware of its own substates and sub reasoning within the same time vectors used for the same reasoning when it carrys out interpretation of external quantum stimuli (unless it is very tired). When we understand the configurations of time that are used in understanding the quantum physics of say a boson particle or of Einstein’s Condensate for example, we are always accepting one time vector (with awareness states). The thinking internally is not the same type of thinking when we understand time in say GR or SR because if the brain were to reason to its own absolute complete relative value it would most probably create a new configuration while trying to understanding itself. Super Relation. The complete relative value is about the mind on mind but more about what the brain means as a physical entity, not the mind on matter or the mind on mind only with its experience of the matter. This is a complete relative value of time being much closer to mind because it is in the mind (I could extend this but it might be out of context on this forum). The 1st instance does not consider cosmology and universe. What I am suggesting is use what we allready know via this route to change our expectations about quantum coherence for example, non locality that is seen to be faster than light speed or the super position that we think. The points considered in super position are external viewpoints, they are about external information. This is a trick. As we know, we are effecting the outcome ( I am sure the special physics configuration within the medium of the brain creates allowances for our total lack of understanding and frustration of what it means to know consciousness) not only because of our lack of experience of complete internal observation that is still based on an external observer but by even basing all internal observation and values on external experience of the same external observer even if we think they are internal. The physics of the brain is far more complex than we think and to that, what the brain understands as the physics of that very same brain (i call the understanding of the physics of the brain that is understanding itself a complete Relational Value)is to give this a twist of new logic. How does the brain doing the understanding, understand its own mechanism by its own relational value? Could it be done. Does this get us closer to our understanding when we consider configurations within the brain? How does the importance of information and biology that relates to this system change our views to a completely new physics of the brain, how does this subjectivity help turn in our mind towards a new objectivity and can we see more of a difference? Objectivity and subjectivity in science could be isomorphic by our third person stance but we could change the third person view by internalising it. This is just a start of this idea.
Claire
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic