"The future ain't what it used to be."

Why does time move forward rather than backward?

Cosmo

Owner
Staff member
Timekeeper
I found an outstanding article about theories regarding why time moves forward, and not backward:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221003-why-does-time-go-forwards-not-backwards

It's some dense reading, but I've summarized it below to the best of my ability:

p0d4bwfx.jpg


Newton's laws of motion still nag at cosmologists today. They describe the world we move through every day - but they also account perfectly well for a world in which people walk backwards, clocks tick back afternoon to morning and fruit soars up from the ground to its tree-branch. The Biggest Ideas in the Universe, by Sean Carroll, discusses the nature of time in his new book. Newton, Maxwell and Einstein's theories of the Universe have all worked just as well going forward in time as they do backwards. Part of the answer lies at the Big Bang nearly 14 billion years ago, in the Universe's eventual death. But how does a clear direction of time emerge from descriptions of the cosmos, which all lack their own arrow of time?

In Germany, 1865, the physicist Rudolf Clausius stated that heat cannot pass from a cold body to a hot one, if nothing else around them changes. Clausius came up with the concept he called "entropy" to measure this behaviour of heat. As Rovelli stresses in his book, this is the only basic law of physics that can tell apart the past from the future. When you zoom in to the level of one water molecule colliding and bouncing off another, the arrow of time disappears. At the very smallest scale, the phenomenon that produces heat – collisions of molecules – is time-symmetric. Rovelli: "From this step, from the fundamental microscopic vision of the world to the approximate description of the macroscopic world – this is where the direction of time comes in".

The low entropy of the Universe at the Big Bang is both an answer and an enormous question, according to cosmologist John Carroll. Carroll and his colleagues are trying to explain why the Universe had such a low entropy close to the big bang. "There's plenty of loopholes in the theory, plenty of aspects of it that are not completely baked – but I also think it is by far the best theory on the market," says Carroll. The Universe's low entropy past is a plausible source of time's arrow. Like most things that have a beginning, the arrow will also have an end.

As astrophysicist Katie Mack describes it, everything is decaying so much that all that's left is the waste heat of everything that ever existed in the Universe. "It only lasts for a little while," says Carroll.

Jenann Ismael, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, New York, is studying human experience of time. She says we intuitively understand and experience time as a series of arrows that form a core part of human experience. Human experience of the flow of time is built into our perception, she says. He looks at how we experience our experiences of time and relate them back to entropy. "I see no reason now to think that the kinds of arrows that are involved in human psychology are anything but ultimately rooted in the entropic arrow," he says.

His first target is causality, another element of the arrow of time as causes happen before their effects. "All of that is part of what I think of as the experience of passage, this idea that we experience every event as anticipated from the past, experienced in the present, remembered in retrospect," says Ismael. 

 
Yup! The Same question arised when I read that Past Present and Future Exists at the same time...



If they exist at the same time then why do we remember past but not the future and got the answer as the entrpoy always increses with time we remember past and not the future
 
Clausius came up with the concept he called "entropy" to measure this behaviour of heat. As Rovelli stresses in his book, this is the only basic law of physics that can tell apart the past from the future. When you zoom in to the level of one water molecule colliding and bouncing off another, the arrow of time disappears.
I don't know how the writer got this so wrong. At the atomic scale where atoms and molecules collide time reversal is asymmetric not symmetric (the arrow of time does not disappear; it points only toward the future). If all one looks at is atoms bouncing off each other it might appear to be the same "running the film" forward or backwards but it is not the same. Running it forward there is an energy release in the form of photons when the collisions occur. Running it backwards you don't see photons emitted as that violates conservation of energy. Instead you see photons being absorbed - you have energy "running uphill".

When it comes to collisions, whether it is Mack trucks or atoms, there is a difference between elastic collisions and inelastic collisions. Elastic collisions involve objects colliding and rebounding where there is no deformation of either object thus kinetic energy is perfectly conserved. That would be a time symmetric collision. But in the real world they don't really exist. On close inspection some deformation can almost always be found, even at the atomic level. Inelastic collisions involve deformed objects like Mack trucks and clay balls.

There are other asymmetric actions that show why the arrow of time points in one direction.

We have two people playing catch. Tom throws the ball to Tracey. We see the ball fly toward Tracey and as we watch it we realize the ball has two components tof its motion. It has maximum linear velocity imparted when Tom released the ball. The ball will experience air friction that will cause the ball to slow down. We also have gravitational acceleration. The ball is falling toward the center of the Earth with an acceleration of +9.8 m/sec^2. So we have a thrown ball that had its maximum linear velocity the instant Tom released it. The ball is slowing down due to air friction and it will fall toward the Earth under the influence of gravity. When Tracey catches the ball it will have it minimum linear velocity (X axis) and maximum gravitational velocity (Y axis).

As Tracey catches the ball we do a time reversal. It will not be symmetric. At that instant the ball will have its minimum linear velocity and will speed up as it returns to Tom. It is encountering some sort of anti air friction. It will also decelerate up due to gravity reversing its force to -9.8 m/sec^2. When the ball reaches Tom it will have maximum linear velocity along the X axis and zero velocity on the Y axis. This, of course, looks very different from running the film forwards. The arrow of time is asymmetric and only points to the future.

With respect to the general topic of the BBS, T reversal symmetry/asymmetry is not related to time travel.
 
Last edited:
nothing falls down as a result of gravity because your species never defined what gravity is... it cant.... just like you can not make h2o .... just like you cant go through the dome... you just cant... but the arrogance of your kind caused the horrific timeline you are now going the 8 year.... it is one time out of many but the common thing to the HUMAN species is that it made up a lot of stuff just to control its generation to come... in particular the last 80 years that went out of control especially into the 21 century....
you have never shown one single proof to anything the DS has done to you psychologically.... not even once did you see a real photo of the ball earth from the outside in... not once did they put a cam on a moon.... not once did they turn the hubble back towards origin to show you you lovely ball... not once did they manage to explain to you how come water is always level and never curve in a big container... that supposedly curves.... not once did they let you into antarctica in order to slice it from north to south and pop out on the other side going north again... NOT ONCE... in fact they will off you if you tried and much before you get to antarctica... in order to even get to the water zone of antrctica you have to have special permission... they will KILL you if you dont get it as of 2024... and it is not changing any "time" soon
you are LIVING IN A TRUMAN SHOW!
you are the simulation
 
because your species never defined what gravity is
Last time I checked our species had defined gravity at least twice. Issac Newton (Classical gravity) and Albert Einstein (General Relativity).

just like you can not make h2o
Who said "we" can't make dihydrogenoxide? I recall making it in Chem Lab as an undergrad.

in order to even get to the water zone of antrctica you have to have special permission
Funny, that. My uncle BGen Leslie Lawrence Darbyshire, USMC, was, way back when, base commander at McMurdo Station, Antarctica during Operation Deep Freeze VX-6. Mount Darbyshire in Antarctica was named for him. He was flying a C-130 Hercules into McMurdo when he suffered fuel starvation of all four engines. The fuel had frozen. He dead sticked to a safe landing but just missed diging a rather large hole in the top of the mountain. I believe that the only special permission he received came from the Commandant of the USMC and maybe President Kennedy, although it wasn't called permission so much as it was called orders.

Perhaps you have the wrong planet.
 
With respect to the general topic of the BBS, T reversal symmetry/asymmetry is not related to time travel.
This is why I love TTI. Or forums in general. Someone always sees something the rest of us don't.
 
Last time I checked our species had defined gravity at least twice. Issac Newton (Classical gravity) and Albert Einstein (General Relativity).


Who said "we" can't make dihydrogenoxide? I recall making it in Chem Lab as an undergrad.


Funny, that. My uncle BGen Leslie Lawrence Darbyshire, USMC, was, way back when, base commander at McMurdo Station, Antarctica during Operation Deep Freeze VX-6. Mount Darbyshire in Antarctica was named for him. He was flying a C-130 Hercules into McMurdo when he suffered fuel starvation of all four engines. The fuel had frozen. He dead sticked to a safe landing but just missed diging a rather large hole in the top of the mountain. I believe that the only special permission he received came from the Commandant of the USMC and maybe President Kennedy, although it wasn't called permission so much as it was called orders.

Perhaps you have the wrong planet.
what exactly are you on about "einstein and newton"... you ever met them? ever exchanged a word with them? they were dropped upon you like a rock on a levelled sea.... you sponged "their" information and swallowed every drop while the simulation shows you just how wrong they are.... on so many things... but i dont blame you you were born into this helll... and by now you know this is hell...

..... you can not make h2o... your species can NOT make h20... you get a final product... you can not reproduce water.... i suggest you try ... it is natural to the earth and can not get duplicated.... your lab experiments will produce water as much as they will produce gravity... NADA! the idiot "scientist" are all talk... no one of you make water or will make water

my sister of my uuncle or my granpa's brother ... come on man ... not after the last 4 years of covert id... even your own kind buy this shit in much lower numbers... your "uncle" was military.... military follow commands... your civilians are slaves...

and lastly what planet are you talking about? the one that hubble turned back to look at and sent you nice photos of? or the one the cam from the moon is looking at making money for nasa unseen before from all the 247 webpage of live cam ball earth....?

wake up you are in a simulation my friend... the truman show has nothing on the simulation you are in ... only the truman show was heaven in comparison!

ps: let me know when you cross antarctica noth to south ....slicing it down the middle and pop out north again.... oh and dont forget to bring MH370 with you.....

waking up should have been end of 2016.....

This is why I love TTI. Or forums in general. Someone always sees something the rest of us don't.
we need more active members here... and we need to have the forum handled a little different than how mayhem did on paranomalis when he was having power trips for no reason just not liking opinions but more importantly truth.... why is einstein and paula not posting here ... do they know you brought back this forum?
 
what exactly are you on about "einstein and newton"... you ever met them?
In a manner of speaking, yes. I've met both of them through their theories. Meeting them in person would have been a bit tricky considering that they have both been dead for a minute or two. This is what one means by stating that some people have legacies. We don't have to meet the living being in order to be familiar with their contributions.

As to the impossibility of reproducing dihydrogen monoxide, as I previously stated I've seen it done and that's not something unique to me. Every undergrad likely sees the experiment run in chem lab. It is admittedly not something for the untrained to play around with because it involves a very energetic exothermic chemical reaction. Undergrads were not allowed to directly synthesize water because - well - it is a bit dangerous and they are not trained chemists or physicists.

2 H2+ O2 + energy --->2 H2O + heat

You mix the two gasses in a vessel and add a spark. Swoosh! (or sometimes Boom!) There will be water in the vessel. No, not the Great Flood; you won't have had enough gas in the vessel to synthesize a lot of water.

But holy cow, this isn't rocket science. It is a simple inorganic chemistry experiment. It's been done in every undergrad chem lab as a demonstration for at least a hundred years. However, if some Internet twerp tries it on a lark it could lead to a hospital visit or worse. So, please, don't try this at home. But don't try to con anyone with this nonsense that water can't be made by "we" humans. That's a crock of BS.

And before you ask, no, I've also never met Antoine Lavoisier. He's the 18th Century chemist who first explained the experiment. Based on the experiment he gave the lightest atom it's name - hydrogen. It's Greek: hydro - water, gen - generator, former or maker, i.e. water maker. Like Newton and Einstein Lavoisier too has a legacy.

I suppose that the obvious questions I'd have for you is: Why are you always so angry?
 
they have the legacy the secret societies wanted them to have... never forget the winner of history are not always the good guys it is almost always the bad guys.... newton and einstein are overrated... always been overated and forever will remain overrated.... apple falling on head from a tree... you keep on thinking that... their legacy is failed species that is literally in a free fall due to the deep state that they were working for!

and as i said you and yours can not produce water... lab does not count... you never could produce water... in other words if water stopped on your "ball" you my friend are shit out of luck... the fact explosion is created by the process while the creators h2o does not explode tells the whole story.... when you finally produce water let me know... maybe you can try to do it while building the tower of babel again....

water can NOT be made by YOU humans you are 100% relied on the creator and the creation

the reason i am angry is because you betray the creator.... you became trash and pulled the most innocent amongst your species... into hell ... you ARE in hell... i assure you... it used to be 50% good and 50% evil on your levelled domain.... but as of 2024 you have done the unimaginable... you became 90% junk devolving species that is in freefall and the 10% minority of good amongst you can no longer save the HUMAN species
 
when you finally produce water let me know.
I'm pretty sure that I already let you know. Let me suggest to you that you enroll in college and take a chem class with lab. Instead of relying on me you can rely on your own eyes.

you became trash and pulled the most innocent amongst your species... into hell
Now, now. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of a weak position - not to mention they are not allowed here.
 
I'm pretty sure that I already let you know. Let me suggest to you that you enroll in college and take a chem class with lab. Instead of relying on me you can rely on your own eyes.


Now, now. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of a weak position - not to mention they are not allowed here.
you have no production of water... you rely on natural sources or recycling in the less lucky one's cases.... if you could produce water you would now have water to drink that come out of the lab... in mass quantities... you cant and wont... just like you will never visit a moon or a mars... all talk... you are all yapping... and the ds institution you are talking about .... i got masters from there... the lies coming out of the ds institutions destroyed your species eventually... i hope you are capable in comprehending this

but your species became trash how else would you want me to put it but the truth... your kind became trash... arrogant trash that is taught a lesson every century or so.... but now it is a point of no return... and the blame is not on all... it is on those who paved your devolution... it is not enough to figure out how to make ac to get you comfy or how to make refrigerator to get your food to last another month... IF you lose your soul along the way... and most of your kind have... not by their fault ... they were collateral damage........ yes i know sad but true!

Sound like you trippin, fam!
just mirror of your kind freefalling... and you are freefalling... it is MUCH worse than a computer could ever show you as of 2024... much worse
 
if you could produce water you would now have water to drink that come out of the lab... in mass quantities... you cant and wont...
Now you're changing your story. This is the first time you've added the modifier "in mass quantities".

Of course we can make water in mass quantities. The question is why would we do something so stupid that it had to come straight out of Idiocracy? Why don't we just "water" our crops with Gatorade instead?

To make water from hydrogen and oxygen you need...well...hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe but it is rarely found on earth in elemental form (as a gas). It's the lightest element and tends to waft off into space here on earth when in elemental form. Most of the hydrogen on earth is bound to oxygen in a liquid that covers 78% of the planet about a mile deep on average. We earth people call that liquid water. Most of what is left over is bound to carbon in a chemical class we earth people call hydrocarbons. To get sufficient hydrogen to make "mass quantities" we'd first have to hydrolyze the water from lakes and the oceans into hydrogen and oxygen (highly explosive gas BTW) so we can put them back together to make... water. In the mean time we'd have to run multiple gigawatt electric generation plants to pull it off (do you prefer your generation plants in coal or oil? Nuclear perhaps?) . So, yes we can make mass quantities of water, but you're correct, no we won't.

With respect to making mass quantities of water artificially on a water planet such as earth, Monty Python said it best. In the Holy Grail the French castle guard tells King Arthur when he asked if their Lord would join them in the search for the Holy Grail, "Well, I'll ask him but he won't be very keen. He's already got one, you see." (This is done in an outrageous French accent.)

I don't see the EPA authorizing this particular batshitcrazy project.
 
Back
Top