All thoughtful observers, but most especially the competent observer, should recognize the Universe's (and thus too, the universes') capacity for self-renewal.
Last edited:
In trying to discredit my suggestion that the contents of The Big Bang have a centre and an edge you have used two seriously flawed arguments as above. Not only this but you try just suggest it's my physics that's wrong with the statement as below.
So, I feel entitled to highlight and scrutinise your methods of thinking, used in trying to discredit my ideas.
After reading many of your posts, several methods and belief systems used for enquiring about nature have been mentioned.
1. Creator, a belief that a creator created the Universe.
Relevant to this discussion about entropy, such a belief would automatically explain the very low entropy at the Big Bang.
2. Teleology
3. Physics
4. Mathematical methods
In a previous thread, you said you believed in a creator.
In this thread you said you believe in teleology.
In many of your posts to us, you continuously ask for evidence or testability of any ideas put forward, Including our discussions about The Big Bang and the universe. Fair enough. Yet at the same time, you suggest the universe was created by a creator for which there is no evidence or testability. This doesn't seem consistent thinking to me.
Also in this thread, you point out there's a difference between the physics method and the maths method. Previously, I was not really aware there was much of a distinction, so thank you for that.
As for your maths method, I have no confidence in that after you said above that points exist.
As for your physics, you proposed that watts could be attributed to points, an even worse mistake IMO.
In view of the above, I don't have any confidence in your opinions anymore.
My question to you is - which of the above methods of thinking did you use when trying to discredit my ideas about the Big Bang, mainly my proposition that the contents of the Big Bang have a centre and edge? This matters because each method will give a different answer.
Last edited:
Is it a constancy of expansion or a constancy of self-renewal that is being observed? Oddly enough, both a lesser (lower) dimensional ever-continuing expansion and a greater (higher) dimensional ever-continuous self-renewing might display the same picture of physics being observed though they are not the same thing.
Last edited:
This is a very important issue, so thanks for bringing it forward.
It is easy, and common, to see physics and metaphysics, even pseudoscience, get conflated. My efforts have been to make sure others understood my opinion that science, formally understood, includes hypotheses and theories that not only produce predictions that can be tested, but are required to produce predictions. Lemaitre's theory that introduced BBT came with many predictions, with more predictions that came along later. People didn't buy into Lemaitre's theory initially; Einstein said his math was fine but his physics "abominable".
But some ideas (e.g. multiverses) don't meet these requirements so they are considered far more suppositional and outside the purview of science.
The cyclic universe and multiverses are both suppositions that, though they aren't scientific theories, are important ideas to ponder. It would be wrong to says science doesn't support these ideas because the real answer is that science is incapable of supporting or countering these ideas.
Gould liked to frame things in terms of magisteria or realms. Objective-based science is its own realm, religion is another, philosophy another. But they do overlap. The conflict with Galileo, and many others, comes in those overlaps.
How the universe began a t=0 looks like something that would be in the overlap, but it's important to understand that it's not since the laws of physics go to pieces at this point, and just prior to it due to things you've mentioned like infinite density. I think it's difficult , especially for the public, to know when something is within the scientific magesteria and when it's not. If it "walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck", is the saying. But many things like the multiverse has that "walk and quack" we expect to see in science. But there is simple test --- can it be tested? If not, even in principle, it isn't physics.
Yes, I knew you would get it, but many might not. [This is why I quoted Einstein above.
]Sorry, that wasn't my intent. I was probably rushing it. It's obvious that one can, mathematically, have an infinite no. of points in any line segment. I was trying to say there is a practical limit in the minimal length assigned to a line segment. Physics can only go down to the width of the Planck length, never to zero width, or rarely since lim->infinity can be a useful tool in physics and engineering, in some applications.
Please feel free to question my positions. If you discover I'm not mainstream, I would appreciate finding out about it.
If you find any errors in my post 22, I'd like to learn about them. I agree with most of your views, but not some others, especially a center viewpoint and that an expanding universe will suffer a heat death.
I always use science to address these questions, at least to what I understand of it. My personal opinions might make me lean one way or another, but if one is asking a scientific question, then only science can properly answer the question; religion and philosophy become hand-waving if they want to oppose the obvious science.
The reason I discredit a center for the universe comes directly from GR (General Relativity). You won't have to look hard to see that GR is strongly opposed to any absolute center for the Universe. Space is fused with time and gravity reshapes this both broadly and regionally, which serves to eliminate an absolute center.
If you feel strongly it has a center, you're not arguing with me, but mainstream science (ie GR).
Last edited:
More confusion here, you are using the word Universe with an uppercase U. The dictionary definition of 'Universe' is, 'everything that exists' so yes, of course, everything that exists may well be infinite and that, of course, can't have a centre. However, in order to avoid confusion, it's plain to see that I've been using the words 'contents of Big Bang' in all my discussions about the centre.
The Galaxy is to all extents and purposes an object free-floating in space, which in turn is a collection of smaller objects inside.
The contents of The Big Bang is similarly an object floating in free space which in turn has a collection of smaller objects inside.
It doesn't seem to contradict GR to speak of a Galaxy as having a centre an edge and an inside and outside to it, so why can't the same be said of the contents of The Big Bang, I see no contradiction with GR here either.
In all the above posts in this thread you and no one else has debunked my 3 statements, which are;
1. The big bang started from a hot dense patch, NOT a singularity and so started with a finite size.
2. It's undergone finite rates of expansion
3. It has a finite age.
Once again, I suggest all of which means the contents of the Big Bang has a finite size now, and so is an object. Objects exist in a space, they do not create all of space as the BB theory suggests. If space consists of 'something', then the BB may well have created its own internal space, but at the same time, it must have existed in a pre-existing space.
Big Bang starts with finite-size + finite expansion rates + finite age = finite size object now.
Objects have an inside and outside, a centre and edge.
Therefore, the contents of The Big Bang has an inside and outside, a centre and edge.
It's not supposition (dictionary definition - "a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.")
It is based on the logic of combining the 3 statements. If anyone doesn't agree with the conclusion they would need to discredit at least one of the three statements.
Anyone who believes the contents of The Big Bang are the whole universe must accept, by logic that, the whole universe has an inside and outside, a centre and edge. This is not to be confused with the observable universe, which is only a small part inside of the whole universe and so doesn't have an absolute centre or edge.
The above logic also discredits any idea that The Big Bang created 'everything that exists' since demonstrating there is an outside to it automatically means there may be something beyond it.
In an infinite Universe (U) being an infinite sea of bubble universes (u): the Big Mirror of Universe (U) mirroring within to infinities, universes (u): every single point -- possibly even being elastically bubble-like floating point -- without exception of the infinite sea (U) and the infinities of seas (u) is always and forever the exact center -- centralized -- point of infinity.
There is nothing beyond the apex of the pyramid but the pyramid itself. And if someone tries to turn the pyramid to an hourglass shape, it folds back to the pyramid and twins the particles, particle twin and anti-particle twin. Again, there is nothing beyond the apex of the pyramid but the pyramid itself..... analogous to the Big Mirror mirroring within to infinities. The apex of the pyramid is, in fact, the pyramid. The Big Mirror (U) mirroring within to infinities (u) is, in fact, the infinite inside / unto itself. There need be no more to it!
---------------------------------
Going binary:
Universe (U) = Planck Big Bang (E) || Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2)
-------------
and/or
-------------
Universe (U) = Big Mirror
====================
It's a Multiverse Universe.
There is nothing beyond the apex of the pyramid but the pyramid itself. And if someone tries to turn the pyramid to an hourglass shape, it folds back to the pyramid and twins the particles, particle twin and anti-particle twin. Again, there is nothing beyond the apex of the pyramid but the pyramid itself..... analogous to the Big Mirror mirroring within to infinities. The apex of the pyramid is, in fact, the pyramid. The Big Mirror (U) mirroring within to infinities (u) is, in fact, the infinite inside / unto itself. There need be no more to it!
---------------------------------
Going binary:
Universe (U) = Planck Big Bang (E) || Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2)
-------------
and/or
-------------
Universe (U) = Big Mirror
====================
It's a Multiverse Universe.
Last edited:
Yes, in fact, GR argues that a concentration of matter sitting in space will have a center (i.e. c.g.), just like our solar system has a barrycenter (c.g.).
The BBT cosmos -- if we wish to use this term since I agree it gets confusing what people mean by Universe in spite of Cat's efforts -- is distinctly different than chunks of matter sitting in a region of space.
To determine the center (c.g.) of a group of objects one only needs to know the distances and directions between them, and their mass value.
But for the cosmos, in a closed BB cosmos, what happens when the same object is seen not only on your left but also your right, so to speak. If the cosmos bends on itself then each galaxy becomes like a dot on the surface of an expanding balloon. If one dot is red and the others are black, then if one goes clockwise to count all the black dots in one direction then what will happen is that eventually another red dot is found. But, and this is the key point, it's the original red dot. Hence it's impossible to pick an absolute center for the surface; any dot can be considered to be a center, but there can be no one special center for any dot.
The cosmos is the same story but in 4D (spacetime). Even if we could see all the galaxies and know their distances, by GR theory, we would see a homogenous universe where every galaxy is evenly spaced and, if one could look farther, eventually they would see their own galaxy due to the bending of light that comes with a closed universe. If you make this model cosmos flatter and flatter, only the distances get greater before you see your own galaxy.
The balloon analogy can help here as well. If you imagine a small balloon with dots, then expand it to a balloon the size of Earth. The surface will appear to be flatter and flatter, but if one goes all the way around, one gets back to where they started regardless of size.
It's nice to see statements that point-out that BBT does not include an actual singularity because, in science, the models must not extend to regions where the mathematical "wheels come off the cart". It's still amazing to me, however, that physicists can use the theory to shrink the BB cosmos into something very close to a singularity.
[Historically, from something I recently read, Lemaitre did not originally consider a tiny original universe, but was focused on addressing his creative explanation (i.e. expansion) for redshift. But, soon, he did rewind the clock to get a tiny original universe.]
Since it takes very little imagination to take it from something smaller than a proton to a singularity, it's easy for me to see why people do it and talking about singularities (associated with those cool things we call black holes) is fun and makes for articles with a little more sizzle. But we need to be reminded that there is a line between science and metaphysics.
Of course, BBT doesn't say there wasn't a singularity, only that it is outside it's ability to address it specifically.
Lemaitre called the beginning point for his model the "Primeval Atom". His name for it never stuck, obviously.
Trivia question... Since "Big Bang" never started out big and was never a bang, many have tried to improve on the name. S&T had a contest to find a better name. Over 30,000 -- perhaps it was ~13,000 -- entries produced nothing better!
This is true for the surface of our balloon as well.
You may be right, but this is outside of science. We have no means to look outside our universe, even in principle. Something outside our universe will have to impact our universe in such a way that it becomes obvious. [M-Theory proposed some idea on this, which is the only thing that seems to present some way of getting a view that there is an outside, but all observations have been negative in finding the brane impacts.]
But remember also that matter bends spacetime, so unlike what is true in our galaxy (with a specific center), the BB cosmos, with all those galaxies, DE, and DM, bends so there is no direction one can take to get out. There is simply no way, even in principle, one can discover a geometric center, at least not within the purview of science.
Yet they don't for the reasons above. It's certainly easy to understand your argument, but physicists use the arguments from GR to disagree, else they would quickly want to be first to find a center and maybe get a Nobel prize.
So how big is it? What does outside look like? What is the shortest direction to get there? Such questions are meaningless, so far, in science. Maybe there is something beyond, but it's purely supposition.
Last edited:
Why is it different? The Big Bang started with a hot dense patch of matter/energy sitting in a region of space and very soon after became a patch of matter sitting in a region of space.
I still don't like the analogy of a balloon. Am I right in thinking that when you say a closed cosmos you mean it is not possible to escape from it? Can this be described without an analogy just by saying that if the contents of The Big Bang is an object containing mass then it has a lot of gravity, so much gravity that if you try to get out or move in a straight line you will just be pulled round in a circle all the time (around the centre of course
) is that right?What you have seemed to have done here is describe the behaviour or properties of the contents of The Big Bang and not what it actually is, a clump of matter, an object, sitting in space. All you have done is tell me what I can and can't do within it. So yes, you may be right, you might see our Galaxy reappearing if you keep going, or a light beam bending round and coming at you from the back and me not being able to escape to the outside, but that is still irrelevant as to whether the contents of the Big Bang is an object sitting in space with a centre and an edge.
What you have said here does not discredit the logic of my three statements and the conclusion I drew from them, as in post 56.
A black hole has some of the properties you are describing. If one is inside the event horizon, then when you travel you will always go round in a circle or will spiral inwards, and you also will not be able to escape from it but none of those properties detracts from the black hole and its surroundings being an object sitting in space. So why should it detract from the idea of the contents of The Big Bang being an object in space just because of these strange properties? Having a closed and warped interior is not incompatible with something being an object as well.
For any of these warping effects to have much effect needs pretty extreme conditions, such as the black hole I mentioned above. The contents of The Big Bang are pretty thinly spread and there's not much gravity about, it's mostly empty space, apart from the odd galaxy here and there which only bends light by a small amount.
To the best of current measurements the space within the observable contents of The Big Bang is very flat, I think to within 0.25%, so you can go in a straight line within this. By extension, I don't see why you can't go in a straight line beyond the observable contents but that's beside the point anyway. I personally think the only thing that would stop you from getting to the edge of the contents of The Big Bang is the fact that it is expanding faster than the speed of light and not that space is warped. Then again I don't think anything can expand forever so if you keep going I think you would get to the edge of the contents of The Big Bang but again this is irrelevant to my proposition.
You pose some interesting questions, I'm not setting out to answer them all, I'm not trying to say what is beyond The Big Bang only that at least there is just empty space. The main purpose of my proposing a finite size, a centre and edge are to change peoples thinking about The Big Bang, for example, many say that it is the beginning of all space and time and that it is 'everything that exists' and that there was nothing before it or anything beyond it. Everything that exists, exists in a space.
You can take a direction out of a Galaxy that has distorted space in it, so why can't you find a way out of the contents of The Big Bang in principle.
I agree it's not possible to discover a geometric centre or edge, I'm only arguing that there is one, again it's to change peoples thinking.
I don't know the answer to these questions, if my proposition is correct then I don't think the questions are meaningless, currently, we can't answer them and may never be able to, but I think it's reasonable to ask them. I'm only saying that at the bare minimum there is at least empty space beyond The Big Bang. I don't see this as supposition it is logic and reasoning.
Once again, I don't yet see anything to invalidate my logic;
Big Bang starts with a finite size + finite expansion rates + finite age = finite size object now.
Objects have an inside and outside, a centre and edge.
Therefore, the contents of The Big Bang has an inside and outside, a centre and edge.
At the bare minimum, I suggest that "everything that exists, exists in a space". The contents of the Big Bang being no exception.
Last edited:
Yes, per BBT. But BBT, in accord with GR, doesn't argue that we are trapped in some sort of giant bubble that restricts us from going outside the bubble, but that spacetime itself can be seen as being all that there is, suggesting there is not distant spacetime beyond this model.
IOW, when the beginning happened so too did spacetime. Perhaps it happened within some sort of space-like framework, but there doesn't seem to be anything other than our imaginations that can suggest it. Science is fine with imaginations preceding science itself, but it must be understood that thoughts that have no objective-basis to them are still outside of science. GR and BBT argue that nothing extra is needed to make physics work. Thus, what may or may not be outside of spacetime is superfluous to today's physics. But tomorrow is another day.
So, your view that there could be something beyond isn't invalidated because there is no means to do so. You could be right. The important thing I'm trying to point-out is that those that wish to hold your position are neither right or wrong within the purview of science. Science has no way, at least for now, to adequately address this supposition. It's not a hypothesis since it can't be tested, AFAIK. [M-theory seemed to offer the only possibility with brane impacts, but no evidence has been found for this.]
That's a good question but in GR it's the shape of spacetime itself, not gravity, that brings one back to his or her starting place, at least in principle since that would be too long a trip. Of course, it's gravity that produces the shape of spacetime, but some may think that we just need more speed to get beyond some sort of escape velocity for the Universe, which isn't the case.Can this be described without an analogy just by saying that if the contents of The Big Bang is an object containing mass then it has a lot of gravity, so much gravity that if you try to get out or move in a straight line you will just be pulled round in a circle all the time (around the centre of course
If one holds that there must be a space-like structure that exists beyond what is confined to the BBT, then you are likely correct. I'm not saying this is wrong except to point-out that this is an ATM viewpoint. There seems to be no way possible, even in principle, in demonstrating spacetime itself is bundled into something like a ball. So, once again, such views are outside the purview of science. If you can suggest some means to test the supposition then you might have a useful argument. It will be cool if you can.
It's important to me to spend time trying to help people understand the great value science has but it also comes with important restrictions, namely objectivity. It can be too easy to fall into scientism, which uses science incorrectly to support their ideology or beliefs. Nevertheless, suppositions/ideas are very important since new discoveries require these to get the ball rolling.
If one assumes that there is something beyond spacetime, your arguments seem quite logical. Just understand that there is no reason to hold much value to such an assumption, at least within science.
Yes, and a BH is likely a good analogy, but with one condition -- nothing is falling into this BH. If nothing is coming into the BH, including gravity influences by orbiting matter, then any intelligence inside would conclude, erroneously, that there is nothing outside of it. This intelligence would be following the SM (Scientific Method) and understanding suppositions for stuff beyond are only suppositions.
Since we are, fortunately, outside the BH, we can, with little effort, demonstrate using objective evidence that there is something outside the BH. But, as in your analogy, we have no objective means to test for something outside the Big Bang Universe.
But they have no way to show objectively that something beyond is not there. They can't falsify your point of view, so, as I've said, you may be right. Claims that there is only the Big Bang or not aren't arguments for science, but for philosophy and religion. Until objective evidence can be presented that there is or isn't a beyond, then we aren't addressing such things within the purview of science.
But, it helps to understand that BBT is self-consistent. IOW, it needs nothing beyond for all the physics to work and it isn't hard to see why most favor that there is no reason to support something beyond if it's deemed superfluous.
This has happened before. Einstein explained the Michelson-Morley results by claiming the speed of light has one speed regardless of relative motions. He, in essence, was destroying the physics that included an aether -- the medium that light travels through. He wasn't claiming, however, that there is no aether, only that it's a superfluous claim.
If there is a center, then there should be a scientific means to discover it because all the masses are in motion, so there should be some indication that there is a c.g. or something similar. No such evidence exists, at least for now, AFAIK.
Suggesting something greater than BBT is not at all meaningless, especially within most religions. I favor this view, actually, but it's not a scientific view.
Yes.
Yes, except when the object itself is all of spacetime. That's the difference. That's like saying we can go north from the north pole. There is no direction out of spacetime within BBT, scientifically speaking.
Yes that's a valid supposition. Syllogisms can be valid if the conclusion drawn is logically consistent based on the premises. But to be a "sound" syllogism, the premises must be true. A premise that uses space outside of spacetime can not be demonstrated as true. So you may have a valid argument but one cannot claim it is sound.
Last edited:
This is flawed thinking from the beginning because it is just not possible to say what 'all that there is' is, it is completely illogical to say that 'all that there is' has a beginning with finite age and comes from something which had a finite-sized beginning because it wrongly assumes that 'all that there is' is a finite amount and not, possibly, an infinite amount. So, it's not possible to have a theory that offers an explanation as to the beginning or formation of 'all that there is' if it is not known and cannot be known what 'all that there is' is.
Again not knowing what 'all that there is' is, no model can logically suggest that there is no space-time beyond its model.
Anyway, who first said the Big Bang can be seen as 'all that there is'?
Because you can't have something from nothing, means there has always been something, so there is no beginning, only a phase change, transformation, regeneration, big bounce or recycling event. If space-time is a tangible something, then this too has always existed in one form or another.
I suggest my logic is a little better than just imagination, at least it is founded on everything else in reality, ie everything that exists exists in a space, why make an exception for the big Bang without good reason?
You make it sound like a complete and whole theory. I think something extra is needed. First, it doesn't offer much clarity at the start or turning point and second, you're still stuck with the absurd notion of indefinite expansion and heat death. Big gaps I think. So until these are addressed you can't say "what may or may not be outside of spacetime is superfluous", because it may have some influence on the workings within. For example, my (I don't know if its been suggested before) wild but not completely unreasonable thought that it is the gravity of what's beyond is pulling and expanding our Big Bang contents. In fact I would go as far as saying it is impossible to get a complete picture of reality until you do know what is beyond. I can't believe the contents of our big bang are totally isolated and just surrounded by an infinite void.
A slight side track here before I continue.
Is logic and reasoning one level better than the word supposition which you frequently use? when forming the Big Bang model only evidence from the CMB and after is visible (is that what you mean by objective evidence?) Am I right in thinking that every thing before that must be based only on logic and reasoning?
Much of science is based on physics, and this in turn relies heavily on maths and this in turn is based almost entirely on logic and reasoning. So if something has good logic and reasoning, shouldn't that be treated more importantly than just supposition?
Strengh of logic also seems to vary. For example I think most would agree that you can't have something from nothing (except VPE
) and that you can trust your life on it. Another example is cause and effect. In quantum mechanic it is taken as sacred that information can't be destroyed. All the above examples can't be proven but they are treated as rock solid (perhaps the information one a minute weaker). So, what catorgory do you put the above in? and what category do you put BBT in before the CMB? is it not just logic and reasoning of a certain strength.Right, finished with side track.
When you say the shape of space-time, do you mean it is curved and closed, anyway regarding curvature my question is, what is it curved relalative to, something straight such as euclidean geometry? if you can say curved, it must mean you have a vision of what straight is.
For me the second most rock solid principle is that space is infinite (at the least, geometric or void space). Personally, I think it would all have something tangible to it, such as space-time or quantum fields etc. If you have container you can always put a bigger one round it and then a bigger one around that one, and by logic that process is indefinite so therefore space must be infinite. I think that is similar to the rock solid logic that maths uses. As with some maths like itegration it not manually provable by adding an infinite number of areas, but just rock solid logic. This is another way of saying that if The Big Bang is finite it must exist within this infinite space and so in a way proving by logic that there is space beyond The Big Bang.
I get what you're saying, about not being able to determine whats outside The Big Bang. What I don't understand is why people insist that The Big Bang is all of space time when everything else that exists exists in a space why is the default not to say The Big Bang exists in a space until proven that it doesn't, as you say either line of thinking can be correct so why choose the one which is against every other experience we have of reality?
Referring back to the top of this post, it is not valid to have a theory which purports to explain or to include 'all that there is' because 'all that there is' can't be known. It's just not possible to say that an object is all of space-time. It's worse logic than what I'm using. So in turn you can't be absolutely sure there is no way out of our Big Bang space time.
I claim it is sound because it is based on the logic I've highlighted above. I think it is a bit better than just supposition, but I agree it still can't be demonstrated though.
What if Entropy is just the side effect of Quantum fluctuations activity.?
Try standing in a room with high voltage static electricity and particles being created/destroyed as much as a billion times a second, bet you age quickly
Try standing in a room with high voltage static electricity and particles being created/destroyed as much as a billion times a second, bet you age quickly
In everyday language, quantum fluctuations would be seen as completely random but since I don't believe there is such a thing as random then even quantum fluctuations will contain some order but it's a very disorganised order, in other words, it's very high entropy. If, say some of this disorganised entropy gets into your bloodstream yes it might age you very quicklyWhat if Entropy is just the side effect of Quantum fluctuations activity.?
Try standing in a room with high voltage static electricity and particles being created/destroyed as much as a billion times a second, bet you age quickly
When I need to vacuum the floor I sometimes find the thermal energy in my body cannot convert to mechanical work fast enough, so I don't like doing it. So now I can blame this high entropy or lack of ability to do work onto quantum fluctuations, great!!!
.On a slightly more serious side,
)) I guess quantum fluctuations may have some kind of interaction with normal matter, so maybe some of its high entropy will rub off on ordinary matter.I am not aware that a high voltage creates billions of particles a second, other than electrons, can you clarify that a bit more please. Yes I think you would age extremely quickly, I think it would be a good idea to call the undertaker before you throw the switch.
.Yeah not so good to stand in a room of static with random particles being created.In everyday language, quantum fluctuations would be seen as completely random but since I don't believe there is such a thing as random then even quantum fluctuations will contain some order but it's a very disorganised order, in other words, it's very high entropy. If, say some of this disorganised entropy gets into your bloodstream yes it might age you very quickly
When I need to vacuum the floor I sometimes find the thermal energy in my body cannot convert to mechanical work fast enough, so I don't like doing it. So now I can blame this high entropy or lack of ability to do work onto quantum fluctuations, great!!!
On a slightly more serious side,
I am not aware that a high voltage creates billions of particles a second, other than electrons, can you clarify that a bit more please. Yes I think you would age extremely quickly, I think it would be a good idea to call the undertaker before you throw the switch.
Easy reason though for entropy if fluctuation activity is acting on everything all the time causing entropy on everything that exists.
Particle creation and quantum field lines happening so many times a second I can't imagine it's a benign happening to anything that exists.
The world of fluctuation activity makes 1 second seem like a long time.
In human scales 1 second is pretty fast.
I tend to agree that random isn't really random, more peak and valley energy potentials that really have no randomness to them.
Order of what looks random but has non random reasons for every particle creation/destruction and field line.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 35
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram