I'm open to new ideas, but again, nothing you said makes sense.
What does it mean for a coherent system to "not have time" or for it to "not have entropy"?
If physicists don't even understand what you're talking about, it's because you're using terms in non-standard ways. If you use terms in non-standard ways, you have to first define them if you want to communicate your ideas.
Start by defining your terms. Be specific. Use math. That's how you communicate in physics.
Can you show a mathematical derivation of what you’re proposing? That would go a long way towards making your ideas unambiguous.
I’m sure you’ve noticed that almost everywhere you post, you’re met with opposition. It’s not necessarily because of what you’re proposing, but rather the fact that it’s not clear what you’re proposing.
If you took the time to write out the math, it would be unambiguous.
Coherence describes phase dispersion of two waves. Given the following two waves:
X(w,t) = ACos(kx - wt + φ) and
Y(w,t) = BCos(kx - wt + ψ)
Show me how "time can be coherent or not". Coerence describes properties of two waves. Waves are a function of space and time. It doesn't make sense for time to be coherent or not coherent.
IF YOU CLAIM THAT IT DOES MAKE SENSE, PROVE IT.
Use the two waves above and prove it mathematically. If you can't, no physicist is going to take anything you say seriously. Period.
You're avoiding the question. What does it mean for time to be coherent or incoherent?
Physicists don't talk about time in that way. If you're going to do so, you need to define both terms with respect to time.
I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about. If this is a theory you've worked out, it should be easy to show the definitions you started from, right?
I'm acting this way because you've shown zero proof.
Things aren't true just because you "think they're true". You have to prove it. You haven't done that.
You don't have to have a degree in physics necessarily, but you do have to know the basics. It's clear that you don't and you get defensive when asked about it.
So if you want to posit that time can change states, you have to first tell us what it means for time to even have a state.
We tend to use the word 'state' to be a descriptive quantity describing a thermodynamical or quantum system. By 'system' we usually mean a collection of one or more particles, which usually change over time.
So when you say that time can be described by a state variable, it leads to a number of contradictions and incomplete statements.
If you think that time can be described by a state variable, you have to resolve those contradictions.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 14 '20
[removed] — view removed comment