Thread: Multiple Universes, Entropy and the Arrow of Time: The OTF Theory

Traditional (old) theory suggests there is only one universe, and that the arrow of time (<-- link) is absolute. Modern theory suggests that among the many equations describing physics ranging from the basics to SR, GR, QED, etc. there is little, if anything, which specifically restricts events from marching in reverse. Put simply, it appears that at least at a microscopic level, events are time-symmetric. As the macroscopic level, however, primarily due to a combination of complexity and random variability, things are not time-symmetric.

On a similar note, modern science suggests multiple, if not nearly infinite universes may exist, each nearly identical to it's nearest inter-universal neighbor, but not exactly so. A similar theory (more Star Tekkian than anything else), call it the "One to Few Alternative Realities" theory (OTF) suggests the only time an alternative universe comes into play is when a factor in one universe somehow affects something in its own past, at which point both the original universe unfolds as it did as if nothing went back while an alternative reality springs forth to account for the going back in time.

The thing is, the OTF theory hinges on the time-symmetry at the macroscopic level. So, is that even possible?

In Harmonics Theory, the arrow of time is very easily explained. All cycles lose energy to their harmonics. This is a direct consequence of the non-linearity of the laws of nature. It means that as time goes by energy moves from larger scale standing waves to smaller scales. It starts with a universal wave, then gradually down to galactic scale waves, stellar scale, planetary, etc until eventually atomic and nuclear scales are reached. In our part of the universe the quark scale is being formed, so you cannot have loose quarks. These processes take phenomenally long times. The Hubble red shift is a measure of the rate at which energy flows to smaller scales. It also perfectly explains the strength of gravity.

If "as time goes by energy moves from larger scale standing waves to smaller scales," how do you account for photons not loosing energy or changing frequency over time and distance in a vacuum?

Originally Posted by mugaliens

If "as time goes by energy moves from larger scale standing waves to smaller scales," how do you account for photons not loosing energy or changing frequency over time and distance in a vacuum?

Interesting question the answer to which is coming. The only problem is that it will take about five yeaars to get here, if I remember the facts correctly. Apparently there is a scientist who asked the same question and created an experience that on of our space explorers carried out to verify one way or the other. I'll try to find the information that I read/heard for you.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

If "as time goes by energy moves from larger scale standing waves to smaller scales," how do you account for photons not loosing energy or changing frequency over time and distance in a vacuum?

The rate at which energy is moving to harmonics is very slight, and even then only where energy is most concentrated, which means in lumps of matter. Even then the rate is just the Hubble rate, or about 1 part in 10^10 per year. For light from even the most distant objects, it is traveling through space which has little matter in it (otherwise it doesn't get here) and so the non-linearity is much less and harmonic production is virtually nil. Calculations can be done, but I doubt that the effects would be even measurable from the most distant objects observed.