0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The arrow is local Mike, very local. It express itself through changes as I see it. you can make up a hypothetical situation in where for example someone set in stasis can 'think' but that is no proof. Take a vacuum, there you have indeterminacy, or ''virtual photons' aka 'zero point energy' according to main stream physics. Is that a arrow?to me you always need a outcome for an arrow to show, something changing creating a past, a present with a future to assume. You could assume that a arrow should exist for all vacuum, but I don't think so myself, not unless that vacuum delivers 'outcomes' and 'changes', as virtual particles becoming real for example, then you have a outcome and a change, even if only momentarily, reverting. But for matter it's different, matter (mass) always interact and change.But that is just a arrow, then you have 'time' itself. Whatever creates arrows.
To see where we differ. If the arrow is around Planck scale then it exist everywhere, although with a vacuum as a special property. As long as we're talking mass that arrow will express itself. That you can use relative motion to create a new relation relative something, or a different speed, won't change the origin of that arrow. It's local, always of a same measure locally. Although you, when comparing 'frames of reference', find other 'clocks' to differ relative your local 'time' it doesn't change the fact that when you position yourself at that position, where that clock you once found to 'tick' out of sync was, you will find that clock and yours to agree, and be in sync. And your lifespan never change relative your wrist watch, no matter where you go, or how fast.You have one arrow, not many. The twin experiment isn't about you slowing or speeding up your 'time'. If it was your wristwatch would give you more or less time relative some biological clock you measure 'time' against, but it doesn't.
MikeS, as it's clear you're using this theory to expound your own theory on gravity, I've moved it to new theories.
MikeS,Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been busy this week. The idea that time exists and has an arrow isn't controversial. Your claim that gravity is the primary driver of that arrow is non-mainstream as is your idea that if you removed all energy from a system, gravitational energy would still provide a strong direction for time. Obviously gravity has energy and it has a role to play in the energy/entropy flow that does define the arrow of time, but your arguments seem to be going in a different direction.
Quote from: JP on 09/03/2012 13:13:09MikeS,Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been busy this week. The idea that time exists and has an arrow isn't controversial. Your claim that gravity is the primary driver of that arrow is non-mainstream as is your idea that if you removed all energy from a system, gravitational energy would still provide a strong direction for time. Obviously gravity has energy and it has a role to play in the energy/entropy flow that does define the arrow of time, but your arguments seem to be going in a different direction.No prob.Its not the primary arrow, that's entropy and gravity is perhaps the main example of that.I think that is true, well gravity.Does it? Probably not, but I have to think that one through when I haven't had a beer.True.I don't think so. In what way?
There has been a further development in timekeeping with what might be called a Neutron clockhttps://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/nuclear-clock-may-keep-time-universe