Is this Article About Possible Mirrored Universe Junk Science?












6












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









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.







$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago


















6












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









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.







$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago
















6












6








6


1



$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









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






share|cite|improve this question









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.











share|cite|improve this question









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.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Qmechanic♦

105k121891202




105k121891202






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 9 hours ago









user581844user581844

311




311




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.








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago
















  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago










2




2




$begingroup$
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
6 hours 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
6 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    currently unprovable
    $endgroup$
    – Martin York
    4 hours ago











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.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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









8












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    currently unprovable
    $endgroup$
    – Martin York
    4 hours ago
















8












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    currently unprovable
    $endgroup$
    – Martin York
    4 hours ago














8












8








8





$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago









Ben Crowell

51.3k6156302




51.3k6156302










answered 8 hours ago









flevinBombastusflevinBombastus

1425




1425








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    currently unprovable
    $endgroup$
    – Martin York
    4 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    currently unprovable
    $endgroup$
    – Martin York
    4 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
currently unprovable
$endgroup$
– Martin York
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
currently unprovable
$endgroup$
– Martin York
4 hours ago










user581844 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Callistus I

Image
Callistus I Res apud Vicidata repertae: Nativitas : unknown value ; Roma Obitus : 223 ; Roma Pontificatus 217–222 Praecessor : Zephyrinus Successor : Urbanus I Sanctus Callistus qui ieiunium instituit; e libro manu scripto Francogallico saeculo XIV Callistus (natus die ignoto; obiit anno 222), fuit episcopus Romae et Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae ab anno 217. Vita | Secundum adversarium suum, presbyterem, fuit Hippolytus Callistus, servus argentarii Christiani. Papae Zephyrino, Callistus Romae arcessivit. Callistus fuit primus diaconus ac dux catacumbae apud Viam Appiam, quae hodie Sancti Callisti appellatur. Pontificatus | Nexus externi | Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Callistus I spectant. Fontes Latinae de papis usque ad annum 530 (Papa Felix IV) Liber pontificalis Opera Omnia .mw-parser-output .stipula{padding:3px;background:#F7F8FF;border:1px solid grey;margin:auto}.mw-parser-output .stipula td.cell1{bac...
Read more

Tabula Rosettana

Image
Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a...
Read more

How to label and detect the document text images

Image
1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C...
Read more