- #1
FunkyDwarf
- 489
- 0
Hey,
Not sure if this really falls under cosmology but anyway.
I started reading this book by Julian Barbour called the End of Time a while ago and admitadely i haven't gotten very far (started it a while ago, you know how it is :P) but i think I've got the jist of it, or at least something that makes sense. (BTW if anyone has read the whole thing and what I am saying is not what the author says feel free to shoot me down in flames)
As i see it, time is an illusion. I mean, that statement itself is flawed, because time is so intagable. What i mean is, time as a force, a dimension, a fundamental property of the universe, is an illusion. There is still the concept, the sensation of time, but it is nothing more than that. My reasoning? Entropy.
For me there is no arrow of time. There is no time. Simply the space between events. Now you might say well that is time, but its not. Time as used by physicists is an underlying...thing... in our universe rather than a convienient name for the space between events. Why should it be anything more? We measure one second as the space between a certain event. Now you might say well where or what is this space? Your talking about a gap in time, which you said can't exist. Well, not really. Now i realize that its bad to use a definition to define itself but i feel here i have no choice. Its simply a delay between events, could be a multiple of other delays. What you must realize is just as there is no ether giving rise to relativistic properites, there is no time controlling our movements, there is simply action and reaction.
As for the arrow of time, this, as i mentioned before, is explained by entropy. Entropy must always increase (overall anyway). Just as milk doesn't unstir itself from coffee so things don't happen backwards (to those that have read arcadia forgive my bastardisation of a good example :P), stars don't suddenly switch off and form protostars of cold gas and dust. Why? Not because time says so, but because this would violate the laws of entropy.
This fits quite well with relativity. I've heard many a time people explain time dilation by using the ball in a box example. If you have a bouncing ball in a box and each bounce is one 'tick' then the box (and ball) moves laterally the slower each tick because the ball is trying to keep up with the box and touch the bottom. This is not usually used as a literal explination, but i believe its a very valid one in this situation.
What do you guys think? (and as always, please, constructive crisitisim)
Cheers
-G
Not sure if this really falls under cosmology but anyway.
I started reading this book by Julian Barbour called the End of Time a while ago and admitadely i haven't gotten very far (started it a while ago, you know how it is :P) but i think I've got the jist of it, or at least something that makes sense. (BTW if anyone has read the whole thing and what I am saying is not what the author says feel free to shoot me down in flames)
As i see it, time is an illusion. I mean, that statement itself is flawed, because time is so intagable. What i mean is, time as a force, a dimension, a fundamental property of the universe, is an illusion. There is still the concept, the sensation of time, but it is nothing more than that. My reasoning? Entropy.
For me there is no arrow of time. There is no time. Simply the space between events. Now you might say well that is time, but its not. Time as used by physicists is an underlying...thing... in our universe rather than a convienient name for the space between events. Why should it be anything more? We measure one second as the space between a certain event. Now you might say well where or what is this space? Your talking about a gap in time, which you said can't exist. Well, not really. Now i realize that its bad to use a definition to define itself but i feel here i have no choice. Its simply a delay between events, could be a multiple of other delays. What you must realize is just as there is no ether giving rise to relativistic properites, there is no time controlling our movements, there is simply action and reaction.
As for the arrow of time, this, as i mentioned before, is explained by entropy. Entropy must always increase (overall anyway). Just as milk doesn't unstir itself from coffee so things don't happen backwards (to those that have read arcadia forgive my bastardisation of a good example :P), stars don't suddenly switch off and form protostars of cold gas and dust. Why? Not because time says so, but because this would violate the laws of entropy.
This fits quite well with relativity. I've heard many a time people explain time dilation by using the ball in a box example. If you have a bouncing ball in a box and each bounce is one 'tick' then the box (and ball) moves laterally the slower each tick because the ball is trying to keep up with the box and touch the bottom. This is not usually used as a literal explination, but i believe its a very valid one in this situation.
What do you guys think? (and as always, please, constructive crisitisim)
Cheers
-G