Is this Article About Possible Mirrored Universe Junk Science?Does time actually exist or is there just a...
What is an efficient way to digitize a family photo collection?
Question from the 2011 IMC key stage III paper, about determining which number has to be removed, so the multiplication is the square of an integer
What could cause an entire planet of humans to become aphasic?
Is it possible to narrate a novel in a faux-historical style without alienating the reader?
Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract
Taking an academic pseudonym?
How to deal with an underperforming subordinate?
How do I purchase a drop bar bike that will be converted to flat bar?
Sets that are both Sum-free and Product-free
Unable to repartition non-mounted SD card
How can guns be countered by melee combat without raw-ability or exceptional explanations?
1990s-2000s horror alien movie with slugs infecting people through the mouth
How can I prevent an oracle who can see into the past from knowing everything that has happened?
Is practicing on a digital piano harmful to an experienced piano player?
How to find and delete extra UV layers on many objects?
Was the Spartan by Mimic Systems a real product?
Problems with position of tikzpictures in beamer
Is there any way to play D&D without a DM?
Is there a way to pause a running process on Linux systems and resume later?
What is formjacking?
"Those books belong to him, don't they / aren't they?" – tag questions for state verbs
Minimum Viable Product for RTS game?
How bad is a Computer Science course that doesn't teach Design Patterns?
Does an enchantment ability that gives -1/-1 to opponent creatures resolve before other abilities can be used on a 1/1 entering the battlefield
Is this Article About Possible Mirrored Universe Junk Science?
Does time actually exist or is there just a single stateful system being updated over time?Superluminal expansion of the early universe how is this possible?Crucial Misconceptions about The UniverseTime Reversal in a Black HoleIs this theory about Universe and information true?How does this new theory of a possible infinitely old universe not violate the second law of thermodynamicsIntuitions for the simplest model in which the evolution of the laws of nature arises from the natural selection of structuresCurisioty about universeConfusion about entropy when applied to the whole universe. What are the macrostates?Friedmann Article on Einstein static universe
$begingroup$
The article can be found here, entitled "Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards".
I know any notion of backwards time is probably a dead horse in this site, but given this is not a topic of time travel based on some theoretical non-linear time model, is a mirrored universe with backwards time even theoretically possible?
Wouldn't backwards time violate the second law of thermodynamics? Wouldn't reverse time reverse rate of decay (e.g., reverse aging)? Wouldn't the reversal of time imply the future is predetermined (e.g., in order to reverse a falling person, the person falling in the first place is a fixed event), et cetera? I believe even determinism can be ruled out because there exists non-deterministic configurations in newtonian kinematics.
I know that, perceptually, we would not notice a difference because our intuitions of past, present, and future remain intact. But wouldn't the physics of backwards time rule the claims of the above article absolute junk science?
thermodynamics entropy time universe arrow-of-time
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The article can be found here, entitled "Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards".
I know any notion of backwards time is probably a dead horse in this site, but given this is not a topic of time travel based on some theoretical non-linear time model, is a mirrored universe with backwards time even theoretically possible?
Wouldn't backwards time violate the second law of thermodynamics? Wouldn't reverse time reverse rate of decay (e.g., reverse aging)? Wouldn't the reversal of time imply the future is predetermined (e.g., in order to reverse a falling person, the person falling in the first place is a fixed event), et cetera? I believe even determinism can be ruled out because there exists non-deterministic configurations in newtonian kinematics.
I know that, perceptually, we would not notice a difference because our intuitions of past, present, and future remain intact. But wouldn't the physics of backwards time rule the claims of the above article absolute junk science?
thermodynamics entropy time universe arrow-of-time
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's not junk science, but the article is extremely superficial and not very accurate. It has this: One theory, proposed in 2004 by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen, then his graduate student, says that time moves forward because of the contrast in entropy between then and now, with an emphasis on the fact that the future universe will so much more disordered than the past. This interpretation of the arrow of time is many decades old, and is not credited to Carroll and Chen.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
46 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The article can be found here, entitled "Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards".
I know any notion of backwards time is probably a dead horse in this site, but given this is not a topic of time travel based on some theoretical non-linear time model, is a mirrored universe with backwards time even theoretically possible?
Wouldn't backwards time violate the second law of thermodynamics? Wouldn't reverse time reverse rate of decay (e.g., reverse aging)? Wouldn't the reversal of time imply the future is predetermined (e.g., in order to reverse a falling person, the person falling in the first place is a fixed event), et cetera? I believe even determinism can be ruled out because there exists non-deterministic configurations in newtonian kinematics.
I know that, perceptually, we would not notice a difference because our intuitions of past, present, and future remain intact. But wouldn't the physics of backwards time rule the claims of the above article absolute junk science?
thermodynamics entropy time universe arrow-of-time
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
The article can be found here, entitled "Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards".
I know any notion of backwards time is probably a dead horse in this site, but given this is not a topic of time travel based on some theoretical non-linear time model, is a mirrored universe with backwards time even theoretically possible?
Wouldn't backwards time violate the second law of thermodynamics? Wouldn't reverse time reverse rate of decay (e.g., reverse aging)? Wouldn't the reversal of time imply the future is predetermined (e.g., in order to reverse a falling person, the person falling in the first place is a fixed event), et cetera? I believe even determinism can be ruled out because there exists non-deterministic configurations in newtonian kinematics.
I know that, perceptually, we would not notice a difference because our intuitions of past, present, and future remain intact. But wouldn't the physics of backwards time rule the claims of the above article absolute junk science?
thermodynamics entropy time universe arrow-of-time
thermodynamics entropy time universe arrow-of-time
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
edited 35 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
105k121891202
105k121891202
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
asked 4 hours ago
user581844user581844
161
161
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user581844 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
It's not junk science, but the article is extremely superficial and not very accurate. It has this: One theory, proposed in 2004 by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen, then his graduate student, says that time moves forward because of the contrast in entropy between then and now, with an emphasis on the fact that the future universe will so much more disordered than the past. This interpretation of the arrow of time is many decades old, and is not credited to Carroll and Chen.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
46 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's not junk science, but the article is extremely superficial and not very accurate. It has this: One theory, proposed in 2004 by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen, then his graduate student, says that time moves forward because of the contrast in entropy between then and now, with an emphasis on the fact that the future universe will so much more disordered than the past. This interpretation of the arrow of time is many decades old, and is not credited to Carroll and Chen.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's not junk science, but the article is extremely superficial and not very accurate. It has this: One theory, proposed in 2004 by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen, then his graduate student, says that time moves forward because of the contrast in entropy between then and now, with an emphasis on the fact that the future universe will so much more disordered than the past. This interpretation of the arrow of time is many decades old, and is not credited to Carroll and Chen.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's not junk science, but the article is extremely superficial and not very accurate. It has this: One theory, proposed in 2004 by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen, then his graduate student, says that time moves forward because of the contrast in entropy between then and now, with an emphasis on the fact that the future universe will so much more disordered than the past. This interpretation of the arrow of time is many decades old, and is not credited to Carroll and Chen.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
46 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A little bit of digging allows one to find the original Scientific American article, which links (and I wish every science article did this) to a journal article from Physical Review Letters (preprint). PRL is very unlikely to publish "junk science."
I also think the case is bolstered by the fact that they did simulations, as the Scientific American article elaborates on a little more than your linked article, and that these simulations showed two universes always arising.
That being said, these articles were published four years ago, and the "two-universe theory" (I made up that term) hasn't caught on. The reason is that it is no more or less provable than any other theory that asserts the existence of multiple universes to try to explain some kind of physics.
I typically think of "junk science" referring to pseudoscience (think astrology, for example), faked science (think anti-vaccine movements) or things that look like but aren't science (think "human design"). Under that rough operational definition, this idea doesn't qualify as "junk science." But it does qualify as a largely unprovable theory about the nature of the universe.
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user581844 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462439%2fis-this-article-about-possible-mirrored-universe-junk-science%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A little bit of digging allows one to find the original Scientific American article, which links (and I wish every science article did this) to a journal article from Physical Review Letters (preprint). PRL is very unlikely to publish "junk science."
I also think the case is bolstered by the fact that they did simulations, as the Scientific American article elaborates on a little more than your linked article, and that these simulations showed two universes always arising.
That being said, these articles were published four years ago, and the "two-universe theory" (I made up that term) hasn't caught on. The reason is that it is no more or less provable than any other theory that asserts the existence of multiple universes to try to explain some kind of physics.
I typically think of "junk science" referring to pseudoscience (think astrology, for example), faked science (think anti-vaccine movements) or things that look like but aren't science (think "human design"). Under that rough operational definition, this idea doesn't qualify as "junk science." But it does qualify as a largely unprovable theory about the nature of the universe.
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A little bit of digging allows one to find the original Scientific American article, which links (and I wish every science article did this) to a journal article from Physical Review Letters (preprint). PRL is very unlikely to publish "junk science."
I also think the case is bolstered by the fact that they did simulations, as the Scientific American article elaborates on a little more than your linked article, and that these simulations showed two universes always arising.
That being said, these articles were published four years ago, and the "two-universe theory" (I made up that term) hasn't caught on. The reason is that it is no more or less provable than any other theory that asserts the existence of multiple universes to try to explain some kind of physics.
I typically think of "junk science" referring to pseudoscience (think astrology, for example), faked science (think anti-vaccine movements) or things that look like but aren't science (think "human design"). Under that rough operational definition, this idea doesn't qualify as "junk science." But it does qualify as a largely unprovable theory about the nature of the universe.
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A little bit of digging allows one to find the original Scientific American article, which links (and I wish every science article did this) to a journal article from Physical Review Letters (preprint). PRL is very unlikely to publish "junk science."
I also think the case is bolstered by the fact that they did simulations, as the Scientific American article elaborates on a little more than your linked article, and that these simulations showed two universes always arising.
That being said, these articles were published four years ago, and the "two-universe theory" (I made up that term) hasn't caught on. The reason is that it is no more or less provable than any other theory that asserts the existence of multiple universes to try to explain some kind of physics.
I typically think of "junk science" referring to pseudoscience (think astrology, for example), faked science (think anti-vaccine movements) or things that look like but aren't science (think "human design"). Under that rough operational definition, this idea doesn't qualify as "junk science." But it does qualify as a largely unprovable theory about the nature of the universe.
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
$endgroup$
A little bit of digging allows one to find the original Scientific American article, which links (and I wish every science article did this) to a journal article from Physical Review Letters (preprint). PRL is very unlikely to publish "junk science."
I also think the case is bolstered by the fact that they did simulations, as the Scientific American article elaborates on a little more than your linked article, and that these simulations showed two universes always arising.
That being said, these articles were published four years ago, and the "two-universe theory" (I made up that term) hasn't caught on. The reason is that it is no more or less provable than any other theory that asserts the existence of multiple universes to try to explain some kind of physics.
I typically think of "junk science" referring to pseudoscience (think astrology, for example), faked science (think anti-vaccine movements) or things that look like but aren't science (think "human design"). Under that rough operational definition, this idea doesn't qualify as "junk science." But it does qualify as a largely unprovable theory about the nature of the universe.
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
edited 43 mins ago
Ben Crowell
51.2k6156302
51.2k6156302
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
answered 3 hours ago
flevinBombastusflevinBombastus
925
925
add a comment |
add a comment |
user581844 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user581844 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user581844 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user581844 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462439%2fis-this-article-about-possible-mirrored-universe-junk-science%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
It's not junk science, but the article is extremely superficial and not very accurate. It has this: One theory, proposed in 2004 by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen, then his graduate student, says that time moves forward because of the contrast in entropy between then and now, with an emphasis on the fact that the future universe will so much more disordered than the past. This interpretation of the arrow of time is many decades old, and is not credited to Carroll and Chen.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
46 mins ago