Timeline for Is this an adequate resolution of the "paradox" of the arrow of time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2016 at 23:05 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | If light were flowing in toward the sun rather than radiating out from it, might we not reconcile this with temporally symmetric laws by saying it's caused by some future low-entropy conditions whose cause we don't know? | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 23:03 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | You said we use positions and velocities that we see today and then obtain a Big Bang. That is how physicist deduce that it happened, but that seems off topic. But the glass falls on the pavement and shatters and we never see the shards leap from the pavement and reassemble themselves. Even if that's a result of a local and ephemeral low-entropy region rather than a Really Big Bang, it's perfectly consistent with temporally symmetric laws if one has temporally asymmetric conditions in that local and ephemeral region. $\qquad$ | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 22:46 | comment | added | Bosoneando | That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for this discussion (the arrow of time), the big bang is no more special than the present or 1 billion years in the future, since they are all connected by causality relations | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 22:41 | history | edited | Bosoneando | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Oct 11, 2016 at 22:40 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | I don't believe the Big Bang resulted from physicists deducing that it happened. $\qquad$ | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 22:23 | history | answered | Bosoneando | CC BY-SA 3.0 |