B-Mesons Provide Strong Evidence for Time-Reversal Asymmetry
41 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zerohe;38532477]1. You
2. ?
Alright, comprehensive list.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion of physics and scientific discoveries wholeheartedly. Physics is my favourite science (fuck biologists) and next year I hope to be enrolled in an engineering program. However -- and I hope I will be agreed with by some on this -- a seemingly unavoidable singularity of ANY THREAD involving a new discovery within physics results in the pseudo-debation of fucking time travel.
"YES, THAT IS EXACTLY IT, TIME TRAVEL IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THIS"
"NO, YOU ARE WRONG, TIME TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN"
Then shit like "CAUSALITY LOOPS" gets brought up when, in reality, the only thing looping is their titsucking gobs.[/QUOTE]
zerohe has spoken
END THIS DISCUSSION
THE THREAD IS OVER
how dare you talk about physics
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38528365]No, it's not. That's the point of the experiment.
Basically, it's been postulated that the laws of physics look essentially the same if you run them with time going backwards, but this is evidence that that's inaccurate.[/QUOTE]
You might have oversimplified this and my example might be way off for any number of reasons, but imagine a baseball shattering a window. The window couldn't reassemble itself if every piece of glass was thrown back at the exact angle it came out at, and at the exact speed, could it? Once the bonds are broken it requires other external forces to be reassembled, like heat or some third-party adhesive. Does this imagery apply at all to the test in the article?
nothing is impossible.
people for 1000 years ago problobly said we would never be able to fly
So, would this mean that the big crunch may not happen then?
I mean, if something doesn't necessarily have to be symmetrical on a temporal scale, then the universe doesn't necessarily have to implode again.
Or is it something else that causes that?
Science me.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;38537935]nothing is impossible.
people for 1000 years ago problobly said we would never be able to fly[/QUOTE]
It may be true for many things, but nowadays I think it's harder to apply that, than let's say a thousand years ago.
[editline]21st November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zerohe;38532477]1. You
2. ?
Alright, comprehensive list.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion of physics and scientific discoveries wholeheartedly. Physics is my favourite science (fuck biologists) and next year I hope to be enrolled in an engineering program. However -- and I hope I will be agreed with by some on this -- a seemingly unavoidable singularity of ANY THREAD involving a new discovery within physics results in the pseudo-debation of fucking time travel.
"YES, THAT IS EXACTLY IT, TIME TRAVEL IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THIS"
"NO, YOU ARE WRONG, TIME TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN"
Then shit like "CAUSALITY LOOPS" gets brought up when, in reality, the only thing looping is their titsucking gobs.[/QUOTE]
Why should it bother you that people discuss about something they like? It's like you're jealous or something. And trust me, there are more FPers studying at higher levels than you think.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;38537935]nothing is impossible.
people for 1000 years ago problobly said we would never be able to fly[/QUOTE]
People a thousand years ago had a tendency to eyeball stuff and call it a day
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;38538346]People a thousand years ago had a tendency to eyeball stuff and call it a day[/QUOTE]
Actually they didn't. Well, the people who spent their lives thinking about this shit, anyway. People back in the day were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
[QUOTE=cccritical;38537902]You might have oversimplified this and my example might be way off for any number of reasons, but imagine a baseball shattering a window. The window couldn't reassemble itself if every piece of glass was thrown back at the exact angle it came out at, and at the exact speed, could it? Once the bonds are broken it requires other external forces to be reassembled, like heat or some third-party adhesive. Does this imagery apply at all to the test in the article?[/QUOTE]
Not really, since all the laws are being flipped as well. "t" in all equations becomes "-t" and we check to see if it just looks like everything is happening in reverse.
[editline]21st November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ricool06;38537982]So, would this mean that the big crunch may not happen then?
I mean, if something doesn't necessarily have to be symmetrical on a temporal scale, then the universe doesn't necessarily have to implode again.
Or is it something else that causes that?
Science me.[/QUOTE]
Being symmetrical in time doesn't mean everything that starts eventually has to go back to the way it was. Also, we already though the big crunch was unlikely. It's more probably the universe will expand forever into a heat death, until it uses up all useful energy and everything is a constant, near-absolute-zero temperature everywhere.
[QUOTE=Zerohe;38532477]fuck biologists[/QUOTE]
If all scientists had this sort of thinking, we wouldn't get anything done.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38539675]
Being symmetrical in time doesn't mean everything that starts eventually has to go back to the way it was. Also, we already though the big crunch was unlikely. It's more probably the universe will expand forever into a heat death, until it uses up all useful energy and everything is a constant, near-absolute-zero temperature everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the sciencing.
[QUOTE=Zerohe;38532477](fuck biologists)[/QUOTE]
You're so immature it's sickening.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38539675]Being symmetrical in time doesn't mean everything that starts eventually has to go back to the way it was. Also, we already though the big crunch was unlikely. It's more probably the universe will expand forever into a heat death, until it uses up all useful energy and everything is a constant, near-absolute-zero temperature everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Actually, if I'm not mistaken I think most current evidence points towards a big rip scenario being the most likely to occur given that the Hubble parameter seems to be growing without bounds.
I think I read an article not too long ago that said in as little as 100 billion years the rest of the universe outside of our supergalaxy will be completely dark to us.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.