Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » Tyd
| Tyd [boodskap #106520] |
Di, 18 Oktober 2005 09:02  |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: Mei 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
You pick
up
your half-finished cup of coffee
and it starts getting hotter.
The scrambled eggs you made
earlier
are unscrambling
leaping out of the pan back into their cracked shells.
What on earth is going on
could time be flowing in reverse?
We all
take
the
unchanging
arrow
of
time
for
granted
yet there is nothing in the laws of physics that says it can't point
in the other direction.
So where
does time's arrow come from?
What keeps the cosmic clock
surging onwards?
The answer
seems to be written in curious elliptical patterns in the sky.
----------------------------------------------------
Sorry vir die Engels, Gloudina, maar hier is die verduideliking -
Bostaande is ge- cut en paste uit New Scientist se e-mail oor hul
volgende uitgawe. Dis woord vir woord die inlei-paragraaf van hul
storie.
Ek het dit net op-gechop in vers-vorm. Die diskuns is voorwaar oral...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106532 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106520] |
Di, 18 Oktober 2005 13:52  |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" haal aan
> We all
> take
> the
> unchanging
> arrow
> of
> time
> for
> granted
>
> yet there is nothing in the laws of physics that says it can't point
> in the other direction.
>
> So where
> does time's arrow come from?
Ja. Hierdie ding laat my man altyd sy kop skud. Hy sê dis
'n wetenskaplike misterie. Dit kan nie wetenskaplik bewys
word nie. En dit maak wetenskaplikes senuweeagtig.
Hier is nou my twee stuiwers in die armbeurs:
(1) 'n Buddhis sal uitwys dat volgens die konsep van
sunyata ( lomp vertaal as "emptiness" in Engels in
'n poging om "relatiwiteit" te verduidelik) daar nie
soiets bestaan as "the arrow of time" nie. Dat die
konsep van tyd 'n mensgemaakte kategorie is wat
hy in sy westerse sisteem van dink nodig het, maar
wat geen absolute bestaan het nie. Dat gebeure
altyd die gevolge is van "causes and conditions"
wat mekaar determineer.
(2) Buitendien wil ek ook nou daarop uitwys dat,
selfs as mens westers en "wetenskaplik" dink, mens
'n fout maak deur te dink dat as die koppie val en
breek, dit nie weer in die teenoorgestelde rigting
beweeg en die stukke weer saamkom in 'n koppie
na 'n sekere tyd nie. Sover ek kan sien, gebeur dit
wel. Die koppie se gebreekte stukke word oor die
jare verpoeier, dit word grond, dan word die luim
weer gebruik om koppies te maak. Siedaar, die
reversie van die proses. Dis alleen ons stupid
ongeduld met die prosesse van die natuur wat
vereis dat as die ding val, dit voor ons oë weer
terug moet spring na 'n sogenaamde "heel" koppie.
( En die konsep van 'n "koppie" is volgens die
Buddhistiese denke ook maar net 'n mensgemaakte
konsep.)
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106536 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106532] |
Di, 18 Oktober 2005 14:10 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: Mei 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:52:02 -0400, "@rogers.com" wrote:
Sover ek kan sien, gebeur dit
> wel. Die koppie se gebreekte stukke word oor die
> jare verpoeier, dit word grond, dan word die luim
> weer gebruik om koppies te maak. Siedaar, die
> reversie van die proses. Dis alleen ons stupid
> ongeduld met die prosesse van die natuur wat
> vereis dat as die ding val, dit voor ons oë weer
> terug moet spring na 'n sogenaamde "heel" koppie.
> ( En die konsep van 'n "koppie" is volgens die
> Buddhistiese denke ook maar net 'n mensgemaakte
> konsep.)
Klink soos Jorge Luis Borges.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106542 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106536] |
Di, 18 Oktober 2005 15:25 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling"
> Klink soos Jorge Luis Borges.
Nee, my argument is absoluut wetenskaplik korrek,
volgens my opinie. Ons laat hierdie meer "langsame"
prosesse in die natuur toe as "normaal" in baie
omstandighede. Ons gebruik hierdie "koppie wat
val en wat nie weer heel word nie" argument op
'n politieke manier om iets te bewys wat vir ons
blykbaar vreeslik belangrik is om te bewys, die
vader weet hoekom. Wat sê Stephen Hawking
hiervan?
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106600 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106542] |
Wo, 19 Oktober 2005 13:40 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: Mei 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:25:03 -0400, "@rogers.com" wrote:
> "Ferdi Greyling"
>
>> Klink soos Jorge Luis Borges.
>
> Nee, my argument is absoluut wetenskaplik korrek,
Yep. Ek bedoel Borges se dieselfde soort goed as wat jy gese het. En
hy is ook korrek.
Sy (en joune hier) visie is eenvoudig wyer en groter as die nou en
hier en presies die ding.
> volgens my opinie. Ons laat hierdie meer "langsame"
> prosesse in die natuur toe as "normaal" in baie
> omstandighede. Ons gebruik hierdie "koppie wat
> val en wat nie weer heel word nie" argument op
> 'n politieke manier om iets te bewys wat vir ons
> blykbaar vreeslik belangrik is om te bewys, die
> vader weet hoekom.
Waarskynlik is dit 'n poging om na tyd hier in my leeftyd te kyk.
M.a.w dit is 'n soort funksie van persoonlike mag. Dis maar die ding
wat ons as mense baie kere aandryf.
Dit help nie om te weet daar is sweets en daar is mense wat sweets eet
en dat en - as ek lank genoeg wag - ook weer sweets gaan eet nie.
Ek wil nou sweets he en wil weet wat is die kans dat en nou, nou sweet
gaan kry.
Dit help nie om vir 'n kind wat huil vir sweets te se hy sal sweets
kry nie want daar is baie sweets in die lewe en omdat almal en alles
sirkuleer sal van dit beslis na sy kant toe kom - selfs al is dit in
'n volgende leeftyd.
Hy wil weet wat sy kanse is om NOU vandag nog, netnou sweets te kry.
As mense na arrow of time kyk, kyk hulle na die onmiddelike verloop.
Nie die landurige, meer laterale kyk (wat jy EN Borges doen) nie.
Hawking het 'n fassinerende hoofstuk oor die arrow of time in a short
history of time. Hy gee 'n baie logiese verduideliking hoekom ons net
een kant toe in tyd kan kyk. Net agtertoe en nie vorentoe nie.
Ek dink amper ek het die boek by die huis in digitale vorm. Sal kyk en
dit pos as ek het.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106605 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106542] |
Wo, 19 Oktober 2005 14:51 |
Waaierstertmuis
Boodskappe: 1592
Geregistreer: Oktober 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"@rogers.com" skryf:
> Nee, my argument is absoluut wetenskaplik korrek,
Wetenskaplik korrek my voet!
Die hele essensie van "wetenskaplike metode" berus daarop dat jy dinge
objektief moet kan waarneem.
"scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration
considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific
investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the
formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation
to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a
conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106607 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106600] |
Wo, 19 Oktober 2005 15:17 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf
> As mense na arrow of time kyk, kyk hulle na die onmiddelike verloop.
> Nie die landurige, meer laterale kyk (wat jy EN Borges doen) nie.
Nadat ek nou vir my man 'n bietjie ondervra het, het hy ook
begin ronddink en rondkyk oor die kwessie van die feit dat
daar geen wiskundige of klassieke fisika-rede is hoekom tyd nie reversible
is nie. Maar na 'n rukkie se rondsoek, toe vind hy wel die
volgende: Vir "weak force" interactions ( dus op subatomiese
vlak) is daar wetenskaplike bewys dat time nie reversible is
nie. Dit werk net na die een kant toe. Dus behoort ek my
woorde bietjie te sluk.
Nog iets vanuit die Buddhistiese wetenskap-oogpunt.
Die koppie wat jy sien val en breek, is die produk van "causes and
conditions." Een van daardie baie kondisies, is jy - die een wat
dit sien val. As mens nie daardie element ook in die ekwasie inwerk
nie, dink jy nie wetenskaplik nie, volgens Buddhistiese wetenskap,
wat al vir millenia bestaan, sowel as relatiwiteits-teoriste en
post-moderne denke.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106608 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106520] |
Wo, 19 Oktober 2005 15:34 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11112
Geregistreer: Augustus 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Sou hierdie redenasie deel wees agter die konsep van die nuwe BMW
TV-advertensie?
Vraag is, het jy al dit self beleef dat 'n koppie koffie wat voor jou staan
warmer word ipv kouer, of gesien hoe 'n geklitsde eier terug verander na sy
oorspronklike vorm in die dop?
Dink jy iemand het dit al figuurlik beleef?
--
Groetnis
Annette
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf in boodskap news:u6e9l1tppkn7vvoi91q4lol7hvc16j8hfa@4ax.com...
> You pick
> up
> your half-finished cup of coffee
>
> and it starts getting hotter.
>
> The scrambled eggs you made
> earlier
> are unscrambling
>
> leaping out of the pan back into their cracked shells.
>
> What on earth is going on
> could time be flowing in reverse?
>
> We all
> take
> the
> unchanging
> arrow
> of
> time
> for
> granted
>
> yet there is nothing in the laws of physics that says it can't point
> in the other direction.
>
> So where
> does time's arrow come from?
> What keeps the cosmic clock
> surging onwards?
>
>
> The answer
> seems to be written in curious elliptical patterns in the sky.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry vir die Engels, Gloudina, maar hier is die verduideliking -
> Bostaande is ge- cut en paste uit New Scientist se e-mail oor hul
> volgende uitgawe. Dis woord vir woord die inlei-paragraaf van hul
> storie.
>
> Ek het dit net op-gechop in vers-vorm. Die diskuns is voorwaar oral...
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106609 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106605] |
Wo, 19 Oktober 2005 15:51 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Katryn" skryf
> Wetenskaplik korrek my voet!
> Die hele essensie van "wetenskaplike metode" berus daarop dat jy dinge
> objektief moet kan waarneem.
>
> "scientific method
> n.
> The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration
> considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific
> investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the
> formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation
> to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a
> conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
En hoe, met trane in my diep-blou oë, is wat ek gesê het enigsins
in teenstryd met die "principles and empirical processes of discovery
and demonstration." Dis alleen jou onkunde en politiekspelery met
die konsepsie van "wetenskaplik" en "korrek" wat vir jou blind maak
vir wat aangaan.
Democritus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106649 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106608] |
Do, 20 Oktober 2005 09:34 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: Mei 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:34:39 +0200, "Annette" wrote:
ou hierdie redenasie deel wees agter die konsep van die nuwe BMW
> TV-advertensie?
>
> Vraag is, het jy al dit self beleef dat 'n koppie koffie wat voor jou staan
> warmer word ipv kouer, of gesien hoe 'n geklitsde eier terug verander na sy
> oorspronklike vorm in die dop?
> Dink jy iemand het dit al figuurlik beleef?
Dis New Scientist wat dit geskryf het. (www.newscientist.com)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106651 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106520] |
Do, 20 Oktober 2005 09:47 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: Mei 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Stephen Hawking oor die "Arrow of time".
------------------------------------------------
THE ARROW OF TIME
In previous chapters we have seen how our views of the nature of time
have changed over the years. Up to the
beginning of this century people believed in an absolute time. That
is, each event could be labeled by a number
called Âtime in a unique way, and all good clocks would agree on the
time interval between two events.
However, the discovery that the speed of light appeared the same to
every observer, no matter how he was
moving, led to the theory of relativity  and in that one had to
abandon the idea that there was a unique
absolute time. Instead, each observer would have his own measure of
time as recorded by a clock that he
carried: clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily
agree. Thus time became a more personal
concept, relative to the observer who measured it.
When one tried to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, one had to
introduce the idea of Âimaginary time.
Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one
can go north, one can turn around and head
south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to
be able to turn round and go backward.
This means that there can be no important difference between the
forward and backward directions of
imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at Âreal time,
there's a very big difference between the
forward and backward directions, as we all know. Where does this
difference between the past and the future
come from? Why do we remember the past but not the future?
The laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the
future. More precisely, as explained earlier,
the laws of science are unchanged under the combination of operations
(or symmetries) known as C, P, and T.
(C means changing particles for antiparticles. P means taking the
mirror image, so left and right are
interchanged. And T means reversing the direction of motion of all
particles: in effect, running the motion
backward.) The laws of science that govern the behavior of matter
under all normal situations are unchanged
under the combination of the two operations C and P on their own. In
other words, life would be just the same
for the inhabitants of another planet who were both mirror images of
us and who were made of antimatter,
rather than matter.
If the laws of science are unchanged by the combination of operations
C and P, and also by the combination C,
P, and T, they must also be unchanged under the operation T alone. Yet
there is a big difference between the
forward and backward directions of real time in ordinary life. Imagine
a cup of water falling off a table and
breaking into pieces on the floor. If you take a film of this, you can
easily tell whether it is being run forward or
backward. If you run it backward you will see the pieces suddenly
gather themselves together off the floor and
jump back to form a whole cup on the table. You can tell that the film
is being run backward because this kind
of behavior is never observed in ordinary life. If it were, crockery
manufacturers would go out of business.
The explanation that is usually given as to why we don't see broken
cups gathering themselves together off the
floor and jumping back onto the table is that it is forbidden by the
second law of thermodynamics. This says that
in any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time.
In other words, it is a form of Murphy's
law: things always tend to go wrong! An intact cup on the table is a
state of high order, but a broken cup on the
floor is a disordered state. One can go readily from the cup on the
table in the past to the broken cup on the
floor in the future, but not the other way round.
The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what
is called an arrow of time, something that
distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.
There are at least three different arrows of
time. First, there is the thermodynamic arrow of time, the direction
of time in which disorder or entropy
increases. Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the
direction in which we feel time passes, the
direction in which we remember the past but not the future. Finally,
there is the cosmological arrow of time. This
is the direction of time in which the universe is expanding rather
than contracting.
In this chapter I shall argue that the no boundary condition for the
universe, together with the weak anthropic
principle, can explain why all three arrows point in the same
direction  and moreover, why a well-defined arrow
of time should exist at all. I shall argue that the psychological
arrow is determined by the thermodynamic arrow,
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (1 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
and that these two arrows necessarily always point in the same
direction. If one assumes the no boundary
condition for the universe, we shall see that there must be
well-defined thermodynamic and cosmological
arrows of time, but they will not point in the same direction for the
whole history of the universe. However, I
shall argue that it is only when they do point in the same direction
that conditions are suitable for the
development of intelligent beings who can ask the question: why does
disorder increase in the same direction
of time as that in which the universe expands?
I shall discuss first the thermodynamic arrow of time. The second law
of thermodynamics results from the fact
that there are always many more disordered states than there are
ordered ones. For example, consider the
pieces of a jigsaw in a box. There is one, and. only one, arrangement
in which the pieces make a complete
picture. On the other hand, there are a very large number of
arrangements in which the pieces are disordered
and don't make a picture.
Suppose a system starts out in one of the small number of ordered
states. As time goes by, the system will
evolve according to the laws of science and its state will change. At
a later time, it is more probable that the
system will be in a disordered state than in an ordered one because
there are more disordered states. Thus
disorder will tend to increase with time if the system obeys an
initial condition of high order.
Suppose the pieces of the jigsaw start off in a box in the ordered
arrangement in which they form a picture. If
you shake the box, the pieces will take up another arrangement. This
will probably be a disordered
arrangement in which the pieces don't form a proper picture, simply
because there are so many more
disordered arrangements. Some groups of pieces may still form parts of
the picture, but the more you shake
the box, the more likely it is that these groups will get broken up
and the pieces will be in a completely jumbled
state in which they don't form any sort of picture. So the disorder of
the pieces will probably increase with time if
the pieces obey the initial condition that they start off in a
condition of high order.
Suppose, however, that God decided that the universe should finish up
in a state of high order but that it didn't
matter what state it started in. At early times the universe would
probably be in a disordered state. This would
mean that disorder would decrease with time. You would see broken cups
gathering themselves together and
jumping back onto the table. However, any human beings who were
observing the cups would be living in a
universe in which disorder decreased with time. I shall argue that
such beings would have a psychological
arrow of time that was backward. That is, they would remember events
in the future, and not remember events
in their past. When the cup was broken, they would remember it being
on the table, but when it was on the
table, they would not remember it being on the floor.
It is rather difficult to talk about human memory because we don't
know how the brain works in detail. We do,
however, know all about how computer memories work. I shall therefore
discuss the psychological arrow of
time for computers. I think it is reasonable to assume that the arrow
for computers is the same as that for
humans. If it were not, one could make a killing on the stock exchange
by having a computer that would
remember tomorrow's prices! A computer memory is basically a device
containing elements that can exist in
either of two states. A simple example is an abacus. In its simplest
form, this consists of a number of wires; on
each wire there are a number of beads that can be put in one of two
positions. Before an item is recorded in a
computer's memory, the memory is in a disordered state, with equal
probabilities for the two possible states.
(The abacus beads are scattered randomly on the wires of the abacus.)
After the memory interacts with the
system to be remembered, it will definitely be in one state or the
other, according to the state of the system.
(Each abacus bead will be at either the left or the right of the
abacus wire.) So the memory has passed from a
disordered state to an ordered one. However, in order to make sure
that the memory is in the right state, it is
necessary to use a certain amount of energy (to move the bead or to
power the computer, for example). This
energy is dissipated as heat, and increases the amount of disorder in
the universe. One can show that this
increase in disorder is always greater than the increase in the order
of the memory itself. Thus the heat
expelled by the computer's cooling fan means that when a computer
records an item in memory, the total
amount of disorder in the universe still goes up. The direction of
time in which a computer remembers the past
is the same as that in which disorder increases.
Our subjective sense of the direction of time, the psychological arrow
of time, is therefore determined within our
brain by the thermodynamic arrow of time. Just like a computer, we
must remember things in the order in which
entropy increases. This makes the second law of thermodynamics almost
trivial. Disorder increases with time
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (2 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases
You can't have a safer bet than that!
But why should the thermodynamic arrow of time exist at all? Or, in
other words, why should the universe be in
a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the
past? Why is it not in a state of complete
disorder at all times? After all, this might seem more probable. And
why is the direction of time in which
disorder increases the same as that in which the universe expands?
In the classical theory of general relativity one cannot predict how
the universe would have begun because all
the known laws of science would have broken down at the big bang
singularity. The universe could have
started out in a very smooth and ordered state. This would have led to
well-defined thermodynamic and
cosmological arrows of time, as we observe. But it could equally well
have started out in a very lumpy and
disordered state. In that case, the universe would already be in a
state of complete disorder, so disorder could
not increase with time. It would either stay constant, in which case
there would be no well-defined
thermodynamic arrow of time, or it would decrease, in which case the
thermodynamic arrow of time would point
in the opposite direction to the cosmological arrow. Neither of these
possibilities agrees with what we observe.
However, as we have seen, classical general relativity predicts its
own downfall. When the curvature of
space-time becomes large, quantum gravitational effects will become
important and the classical theory will
cease to be a good description of the universe. One has to use a
quantum theory of gravity to understand how
the universe began.
In a quantum theory of gravity, as we saw in the last chapter, in
order to specify the state of the universe one
would still have to say how the possible histories of the universe
would behave at the boundary of space-time in
the past. One could avoid this difficulty of having to describe what
we do not and cannot know only if the
histories satisfy the no boundary condition: they are finite in extent
but have no boundaries, edges, or
singularities. In that case, the beginning of time would be a regular,
smooth point of space-time and the
universe would have begun its expansion in a very smooth and ordered
state. It could not have been
completely uniform, because that would violate the uncertainty
principle of quantum theory. There had to be
small fluctuations in the density and velocities of particles. The no
boundary condition, however, implied that
these fluctuations were as small as they could be, consistent with the
uncertainty principle.
The universe would have started off with a period of exponential or
Âinflationary expansion in which it would
have increased its size by a very large factor. During this expansion,
the density fluctuations would have
remained small at first, but later would have started to grow. Regions
in which the density was slightly higher
than average would have had their expansion slowed down by the
gravitational attraction of the extra mass.
Eventually, such regions would stop expanding and collapse to form
galaxies, stars, and beings like us. The
universe would have started in a smooth and ordered state, and would
become lumpy and disordered as time
went on. This would explain the existence of the thermodynamic arrow
of time.
But what would happen if and when the universe stopped expanding and
began to contract? Would the
thermodynamic arrow reverse and disorder begin to decrease with time?
This would lead to all sorts of
science-fiction-like possibilities for people who survived from the
expanding to the contracting phase. Would
they see broken cups gathering themselves together off the floor and
jumping back onto the table? Would they
be able to remember tomorrow's prices and make a fortune on the stock
market? It might seem a bit academic
to worry about what will happen when the universe collapses again, as
it will not start to contract for at least
another ten thousand million years. But there is a quicker way to find
out what will happen: jump into a black
hole. The collapse of a star to form a black hole is rather like the
later stages of the collapse of the whole
universe. So if disorder were to decrease in the contracting phase of
the universe, one might also expect it to
decrease inside a black hole. So perhaps an astronaut who fell into a
black hole would be able to make money
at roulette by remembering where the ball went before he placed his
bet. (Unfortunately, however, he would not
have long to play before he was turned to spaghetti. Nor would he be
able to let us know about the reversal of
the thermodynamic arrow, or even bank his winnings, because he would
be trapped behind the event horizon
of the black hole.)
At first, I believed that disorder would decrease when the universe
recollapsed. This was because I thought that
the universe had to return to a smooth and ordered state when it
became small again. This would mean that
the contracting phase would be like the time reverse of the expanding
phase. People in the contracting phase
would live their lives backward: they would die before they were born
and get younger as the universe
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (3 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
contracted.
This idea is attractive because it would mean a nice symmetry between
the expanding and contracting phases.
However, one cannot adopt it on its own, independent of other ideas
about the universe. The question is: is it
implied by the no boundary condition, or is it inconsistent with that
condition? As I said, I thought at first that the
no boundary condition did indeed imply that disorder would decrease in
the contracting phase. I was misled
partly by the analogy with the surface of the earth. If one took the
beginning of the universe to correspond to
the North Pole, then the end of the universe should be similar to the
beginning, just as the South Pole is similar
to the North. However, the North and South Poles correspond to the
beginning and end of the universe in
imaginary time. The beginning and end in real time can be very
different from each other. I was also misled by
work I had done on a simple model of the universe in which the
collapsing phase looked like the time reverse of
the expanding phase. However, a colleague of mine, Don Page, of Penn
State University, pointed out that the
no boundary condition did not require the contracting phase
necessarily to be the time reverse of the expanding
phase. Further, one of my students, Raymond Laflamme, found that in a
slightly more complicated model, the
collapse of the universe was very different from the expansion. I
realized that I had made a mistake: the no
boundary condition implied that disorder would in fact continue to
increase during the contraction. The
thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when
the universe begins to recontract, or
inside black holes.
What should you do when you find you have made a mistake like that?
Some people never admit that they are
wrong and continue to find new, and often mutually inconsistent,
arguments to support their case  as
Eddington did in opposing black hole theory. Others claim to have
never really supported the incorrect view in
the first place or, if they did, it was only to show that it was
inconsistent. It seems to me much better and less
confusing if you admit in print that you were wrong. A good example of
this was Einstein, who called the
cosmological constant, which he introduced when he was trying to make
a static model of the universe, the
biggest mistake of his life.
To return to the arrow of time, there remains the question: why do we
observe that the thermodynamic and
cosmological arrows point in the same direction? Or in other words,
why does disorder increase in the same
direction of time as that in which the universe expands? If one
believes that the universe will expand and then
contract again, as the no boundary proposal seems to imply, this
becomes a question of why we should be in
the expanding phase rather than the contracting phase.
One can answer this on the basis of the weak anthropic principle.
Conditions in the contracting phase would not
be suitable for the existence of intelligent beings who could ask the
question: why is disorder increasing in the
same direction of time as that in which the universe is expanding? The
inflation in the early stages of the
universe, which the no boundary proposal predicts, means that the
universe must be expanding at very close to
the critical rate at which it would just avoid recollapse, and so will
not recollapse for a very long time. By then all
the stars will have burned out and the protons and neutrons in them
will probably have decayed into light
particles and radiation. The universe would be in a state of almost
complete disorder. There would be no strong
thermodynamic arrow of time. Disorder couldn't increase much because
the universe would be in a state of
almost complete disorder already. However, a strong thermodynamic
arrow is necessary for intelligent life to
operate. In order to survive, human beings have to consume food, which
is an ordered form of energy, and
convert it into heat, which is a disordered form of energy. Thus
intelligent life could not exist in the contracting
phase of the universe. This is the explanation of why we observe that
the thermodynamic and cosmological
arrows of time point in the same direction. It is not that the
expansion of the universe causes disorder to
increase. Rather, it is that the no boundary condition causes disorder
to increase and the conditions to be
suitable for intelligent life only in the expanding phase.
To summarize, the laws of science do not distinguish between the
forward and backward directions of time.
However, there are at least three arrows of time that do distinguish
the past from the future. They are the
thermodynamic arrow, the direction of time in which disorder
increases; the psychological arrow, the direction
of time in which we remember the past and not the future; and the
cosmological arrow, the direction of time in
which the universe expands rather than contracts. I have shown that
the psychological arrow is essentially the
same as the thermodynamic arrow, so that the two would always point in
the same direction. The no boundary
proposal for the universe predicts the existence of a well-defined
thermodynamic arrow of time because the
universe must start off in a smooth and ordered state. And the reason
we observe this thermodynamic arrow to
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (4 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
agree with the cosmological arrow is that intelligent beings can exist
only in the expanding phase. The
contracting phase will be unsuitable because it has no strong
thermodynamic arrow of time.
The progress of the human race in understanding the universe has
established a small corner of order in an
increasingly disordered universe. If you remember every word in this
book, your memory will have recorded
about two million pieces of information: the order in your brain will
have increased by about two million units.
However, while you have been reading the book, you will have converted
at least a thousand calories of
ordered energy, in the form of food, into disordered energy, in the
form of heat that you lose to the air around
you by convection and sweat. This will increase the disorder of the
universe by about twenty million million
million million units  or about ten million million million times the
increase in order in your brain  and that's if
you remember everything in this book. In the next chapter but one I
will try to increase the order in our neck of
the woods a little further by explaining how people are trying to fit
together the partial theories I have described
to form a complete unified theory that would cover everything in the
universe.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106664 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106651] |
Do, 20 Oktober 2005 15:17 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf
> Stephen Hawking oor die "Arrow of time".
> Thus time became more personal
> When one tried to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, one had to
> introduce the idea of "imaginary" time.
.
> Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the
> direction in which we feel time passes
Praat ons nou wiskunde hier? Of praat ons
sielkunde?
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106665 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106651] |
Do, 20 Oktober 2005 17:01 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf
> Stephen Hawking oor die "Arrow of time".
> ------------------------------------------------ . If one assumes the no boundary
> condition for the universe, we shall see that there must be
> well-defined thermodynamic and cosmological
> arrows of time, but they will not point in the same direction for the
> whole history of the universe. However, I
> shall argue that it is only when they do point in the same direction
> that conditions are suitable for the
> development of intelligent beings who can ask the question: why does
> disorder increase in the same direction
> of time as that in which the universe expands?
Ek voel ons word hier aan die neus gelei. Tensy hy nou
nie as wiskundige of fisikus praat nie, maar as Buddhiste-
metafisikus, wanneer hy sê "it is only when they point
in the same direction that conditions are suitable for
the development of intelligent beings who can ask...."
En selfs die Buddhiste metafisikuss sal nie sulke
wille wragtige stellings maak nie.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106666 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106651] |
Do, 20 Oktober 2005 17:06 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf
> Stephen Hawking oor die "Arrow of time".
> Suppose, however, that God decided that the universe should finish up
> in a state of high order but that it didn't
> matter what state it started in.
Wanneer Hawking nou vir "God" inbring in dit wat veronderstel
is om empiriese wetenskaplike denke te wees, dan verloor hy my
net heeltemal. En ek dink nie dat enige wetenskaplike, selfs al is
hy persoonlik oortuig dat daar wel 'n "opperwese" is, hierdie soort
gepraat ernstig kan opneem nie.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tyd [boodskap #106667 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #106651] |
Do, 20 Oktober 2005 17:20 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf
> Stephen Hawking oor die "Arrow of time".
However, a strong thermodynamic
> arrow is necessary for intelligent life to
> operate. In order to survive, human beings have to consume food, which
> is an ordered form of energy, and
> convert it into heat, which is a disordered form of energy. Thus
> intelligent life could not exist in the contracting
> phase of the universe. This is the explanation of why we observe that
> the thermodynamic and cosmological
> arrows of time point in the same direction. It is not that the
> expansion of the universe causes disorder to
> increase. Rather, it is that the no boundary condition causes disorder
> to increase and the conditions to be
> suitable for intelligent life only in the expanding phase.
> To summarize, the laws of science do not distinguish between the
> forward and backward directions of time.
Ek neem aan hierdie opsomming van sy opinie is vir Hawking 'n
wetenskaplike verklaring. Op 'n sekere vlak klink dit redelik.
Maar die amper antropologiese verklaring neem nie in ag dat
daar ook ander bewoners van die ruimte kan wees wat nie soos
ons kos eet wat " an ordered form of energy " is nie.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: So Nov 24 23:24:26 MGT 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
