Abacus

Start out with a system (closed of course). Initially, you have so much energy, and so much entropy. Let it run awhile. Then calculate how much energy and entropy you have at the end. You will find that the energy is the same as when you started. However, the entropy will be greater than or equal to what you started with.

I don't see how this makes them opposites. Related, yes. But not opposites.

eh

Well consider that time is a dimension, like the 3 familiar spatial dimensions. Is there an anti 1D? Anti 2D?

What about singularities where time stops? I don't know if you would actually call that anti-time.

Abacus

Perhaps if there was a time dimension that ran backwards. I suppose that could be called anti-time. I doubt that there is such a thing, however.

Corwin

Why not? Extend the cartesian idea into 4 dimensions instead of 2.

(You all DO understand that this is about as provable as a half dead cat in a box, right?)

Jesse

There is no anti-time, nor anti-space. And entropy is not the opposite of energy, it's more like a measure of how concentrated/distributed energy is (there is thought to be such a thing as 'negative energy' though).

graden1

Only in Star Trek.... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Ragnarok

If space-time is quantized as the theorists seem to think then perhaps there should be a fundamental "particle" of space-time (the realiton?). If this particle had an anti-particle that would presumably make up "anti-space and anti-time"

Answerer

If anti-time does exist, why can't we observe them yet? Even if it did exist, does its existence also mean that anti-space, anti-mass and anti-energy also existed?

tronvillain

Ragnarok:
Well, the quantization of space-time might simply mean that particles can only occupy certain discrete positions within space-time. I'm just guessing of course, but it seems a little less bizarre than a "realiton."