Gravitational waves: Do they suggest a bang at the end of the universe?

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,229
870
2,560
The space.com report does call attention that the erebons need more testing to show their fingerprints in the CMBR. eberons can decay in perhaps 100 billion years too but some erebons decay in 14 billion years, perhaps creating gravity waves. Interesting, erebons could explain the dark matter from another universe before the BB that is postulated to create our universe. Some on the forums may enjoy this approach to cosmology, no beginning, and no end :) However, testing and confirming erebons for example, is not the same as testing the Galilean moons at Jupiter and their orbits. I say the same about inflatons and inflaton scalar fields in QFT. So in cosmology we have inflatons, and now erebons. I think as cosmology moves forward, many more interesting universes and particles will likely show up in the new physics :)

"Sir Roger Penrose, a long-time collaborator of Stephen Hawking, believes he has a way to banish these problems for good. What's more, astronomers might have found evidence to confirm he's right. His theory is called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), and it says that the explosive birth of our universe arose during the twilight years of another. In other words, there was a time before the Big Bang... According to Penrose another universe ended, and that universe sprung from the death of yet another...It's these changes Penrose believes we'd see as rings in the cosmic microwave background. Multiple shockwaves might even have produced a series of concentric rings."
 
Sep 11, 2020
62
25
60
If nothing can escape from a black hole how can they lose mass as energy when they merge?Kinetic energy to a gravity wave I can see .
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,229
870
2,560
Just my thinking here. The CCC cosmology is a cyclic universe story of origins with no beginning and no end. Eternal inflation cosmology is similar. "Eternal Inflation Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe. Because the regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. Eternal inflation, therefore, produces a hypothetically infinite multiverse, in which only an insignificant fractal volume ends inflation." Ref - MS BING search

CCC and Eternal Inflation seek to avoid a distinct beginning to the universe and no need for an end, so endless evolutionary cycles continue with perhaps, endless universes and endless life forms evolving and dying too :)
 
The article is traipsing on the line of fringe bait though it comes clear at the end. The problem with cyclic cosmologies, even if they didn't extrapolate away from accepted physics, is that their entropy would increase indefinitely towards the recurrent start of their cycles but the universe started out with low entropy.

I know it is fashionable to claim the "most accepted theory of the universe's beginning states that it started as an infinitely small, infinitely dense point that expanded outwards and cooled to become the modern cosmos." But that is wrong since LCDM does not demand such a state and the earliest observed state of inflation never even attain Planck energies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,229
870
2,560
When it comes to the space.com report, erebons are documented now in CCC cosmology that can decay and perhaps create detectable gravity waves today. Planck scale energies I checked using Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition, page 650, EPOCHS OF INTEREST. The Planck density 5.1575 x 10^93 g cm^-3, Planck length 1.6160 x 10^-33 cm, Plank time 5.3906 x 10^-44 s. I do not have the initial values for inflation epoch that parallels the Plank values and what the delta is. I do have Alan Guth material showing inflation uses inflatons and magnetic monopoles as well as other exotic particles that emerge. In summary we have erebons, inflatons, magnetic monopoles, and likely many more particles in cosmology studies based upon the new physics. Using my telescopes, I am confident I can see the 4 Galilean moons at Jupiter and 5 moons at Saturn, a very lovely sight in my eyepieces. Others will need to test and verify the existence of erebons, inflatons, and magnetic monopoles that apparently, evolved into the universe we see today and created you and I :)
 
However, testing and confirming erebons for example, is not the same as testing the Galilean moons at Jupiter and their orbits. I say the same about inflatons and inflaton scalar fields in QFT.
CCC and Eternal Inflation seek to avoid a distinct beginning to the universe and no need for an end, so endless evolutionary cycles continue with perhaps, endless universes and endless life forms evolving and dying too :)
I'm glad that you take an interest in the research edge of current cosmology as opposed to fringe theory like cyclic universes! We have an inflationary hot big bang cosmology after all.

But these theories are not the same on the basic level, see my comment on entropy as problematic for the fringe. (Aside from that they have to reject and recast accepted physics in order to make cyclicity an alternative in the first place.)

First, the infinite future: It is in fact the classic LCDM model based on observation of dark energy that predict that the universe is eternal and will meet a heat death in the infinite future.

If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are consistent with current data), the universe will continue expanding forever, and a heat death is expected to occur,[2] with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe ]

Second, the potentially infinite history: This follows from the observation of the Planck collaboration in their last 2018 data summary, after they had managed to compile sufficient understanding of how to filter out dust as well as auxiliary cosmic background observations.

In the framework of standard single-field inflationary models with Einstein gravity, these results imply that: (a) the predictions of slow-roll models with a concave potential, V´´(φ) < 0, are increasingly favoured by the data; and (b) based on two different methods for reconstructing the inflaton potential, we find no evidence for dynamics beyond slow roll.
[ https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2020/09/aa33887-18.pdf ]

The observable window concave potential looks like a scalar potential (c.f. the 4-fold SU2 doublet Higgs field(s) in the figure below, projected onto 1D), see their Fig. 16 right column for n = 4 (a scalar field, analogous to Higgs).

[ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field ]

Slow roll inflation naturally leads to eternal inflation.

Inflation ends (top) when a ball rolls into the valley. But the inflationary field is a quantum one (middle), spreading out over time, and taking on different values in different regions of inflating space. While many regions of space (purple, red and cyan) will see inflation end, many more (green, blue) will see inflation continue, potentially for an eternity (bottom). (E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy)
[ https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-was-it-like-when-the-universe-was-inflating-f9346f3527d4 ]

There are many articles and paper on how slow roll must be severely constrained or finetuned by some added physics to not continue forever (or to not produce local universes, see for instance some other of astrophysicist Siegel's articles). It is the multiverse result that goes nicely with BOSS galaxy survey 20 year data compilation cosmological summary paper when they short list Weinberg as the oldest reference and with the simplest theory. Such a multiverse predicts the small value of the cosmological constant that we are able to see, and it has had vocal critics in the past, so that publication goes a long way to make it a solution that can be routinely mentioned. But of course YMMV.

If nothing can escape from a black hole how can they lose mass as energy when they merge?Kinetic energy to a gravity wave I can see .
The energy lost in gravitational waves is produced outside the event horizons during the merger. If a horizon isn't approaching its static "no hair" featureless end state (spherical, for a non-rotating black hole) during the dynamics of the merger it will radiate gravity waves [see merger videos for the horizons' deformations and the resulting radiation field].
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jun 1, 2020
1,676
1,427
3,560
There are many articles and paper on how slow roll must be severely constrained or finetuned by some added physics to not continue forever (or to not produce local universes, see for instance some other of astrophysicist Siegel's articles).
Are these models in lieu of Guth's < nanosecond Inflationary model or in addition to it?
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,229
870
2,560
Torbjorn Larrson, inflation creates a number of exotic particles too like inflatons and magnetic monopoles and I have not seen the comparison with the Planck values I show in post #6. CCC cosmology uses erebons, inflation uses inflatons and magnetic monopoles. So far, I have not seen reports that show these exotic particles are observed in nature today. When it comes to "fringe theory like cyclic universes!" there is more now. I can add to this interesting report on CCC cosmology that natural selection could work on cosmic strings and magnetic monoples, and evolution can create life that could live inside of stars.

Could there be a form of life inside stars?, https://phys.org/news/2020-09-life-stars.html

I think *fringe theory* is a matter of interpretation now. Astrobiology studies can look for advanced life inside the stars. Can Self-Replicating Species Flourish in the Interior of a Star?, https://osf.io/j6gux/, "Can Self-replicating Species Flourish in the Interior of a Star? Luis A. Anchordoqui and Eugene M. Chudnovsky Physics Department, Herbert H. Lehman College and Graduate School, The City University of New York 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, New York 10468-1589, USA(Dated: June 2020) The existing view of biological life is that it evolves under suitable conditions in the low-temperature world of atoms and molecules on the surface of a planet. It is believed that any plausible extraterrestrialform of life must resemble the life on Earth that is ruled by biochemistry of nucleic acids, proteins,and sugars. Going against this dogma, we argue that an advanced form of life based upon short-livedspecies can exist inside main-sequence stars like our Sun." [My observation. The four page PDF is attached. There are 17 references to monopole in the report and 32 references to strings. Four references to natural selection. As the paper states "If one accepts that life is merely self-replication with mutations that leads to the increasing complexity through natural selection, any system capable of such processes can be viewed as a form of life." The theory uses natural selection too that works on cosmic strings and magnetic monopoles to evolve life inside a star.]
 
I do not have the initial values for inflation epoch that parallels the Plank values and what the delta is. I do have Alan Guth material showing inflation uses inflatons and magnetic monopoles as well as other exotic particles that emerge.
From the scale of cosmic background fluctuations of 1 part in 100,000 energy density the energy scale is something like that much below Planck. (I have seen several more exact figures from 1/1000 to 1/100,000 of Planck.)

Guth was early. I think the current consensus is that slow roll doesn't lead to Planck scale problems, see above, and if it does it expands them away so the likelihood to see one is effectively zero. (Monopoles are string and perhaps GUT theory beasts IIRC, in any case neither of those theories seems useful today - no supersymmetry natural scale dark matter WIMPs (string theory), no proton decay (GUT theory).) The inflation field is adiabatically cooled to 0 K temperature and 0 K/J entropy, so that pure vacuum state of 0 J average energy plays well too with eternal inflation.

Inflatons would be massive, much more massive than Higgs or dark matter, and unstable as the field disappeared, or we could potentially have seen some left over after the hot big bang. (I don't think I've ever seen a paper claim they would be stable, but tell me if you find any.) Instead they should have been participants in the field potential energy released that heated the universe during the hot big bang.
 
Are these models in lieu of Guth's < nanosecond Inflationary model or in addition to it?
They contradict Guth in some or total degree, Guth seem to believe that field theory on an expanding universe leads to a singularity. There are many ideas of why that would be necessary, but people find problems in them - YMMV. I want to poison the well here, since there is also an old history of a dream of a Theory Of Everything and how a singularity would help sort it out (fix the parameters. Of course, Weinberg's multiverse can be castigated for precisely that, so again YMMV.

This video, with a manuscript from currently news-worthy astrophysicist Katie Mack (wrote a book on how the universe may end), may be helpful:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo


It notes that the duration of inflation is a totally open question (which I think is a fair claim).

A pure vacuum state of gravity (average zero energy in flat space) and a frustrated inflation field (tries to slow roll down everywhere but space expands too fast) does not need to lead to a singularity AFAIU.
 
Last edited:
inflation creates a number of exotic particles too like inflatons and magnetic monopoles
Monopoles is not of the inflation field.

And while inflatons would have been a possibility the field seems to have been in a vacuum state (cosmic background fluctuations) which is understandable from the rapid expansion.

I think *fringe theory* is a matter of interpretation now.
Not the objective parts - they exist as small groups or theories that do not accept the consensus, sometimes usefully so (or how else would consensus change), and problems with science, sometimes usefully so (or how else would science advance), has nothing to do with the phenomena as such.

The subjective discussions can be problematic, especially if you aren't part of the consensus or is informed by good articles or reviews. But inflation is now consensus, cyclic universes is (has always been, I think) fringe

The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation;
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) ]
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,676
1,427
3,560
They contradict Guth in some or total degree, Guth seem to believe that field theory on an expanding universe leads to a singularity. There are many ideas of why that would be necessary, but people find problems in them - YMMV.
Guth's model solved a couple of BBT problems. So how do these other models address the degree of isotropy without an early huge inflationary period? Perhaps the flatness problem is less of an issue. [I'm only looking for a general idea of the arguments.]
 
Dec 20, 2019
21
8
15
Some points I observe;
1. just because our understanding of time begins at the big bang (or ends at a singularity), does not mean there is no "Time" before it. We accept differing laws and constants in alt. universes, inflationary universes, etc. The time will be consistent with what ever universe it is in.
2. Is Dark Mater absorbed into black holes like regular mater? Did it exist as mater during inflation or solidified out later like regular mater? I DM even absorbed by BHs?
3. I always wondered where the energy total of our universe came from. If it must be balanced with a simultaneous negative universe, do we get a negative time also. Are they connected with worm holes or black/white holes? Note, a black hole in our time (universe) is a white hole in a negitive time universe.
4. fun bonus question; If we are in 4 dimensions (per Einstein) and the conversion of time to distance is C=300,000K/sec then we are moving at the speed of light (IE 1 second per second or 300,000K per sec). But we have mass!
 
A little like looking at a football in flight with no question of how it got in flight in the first place.
We need a football player before any concept will ever have solid backing.
E for universe in the first place? That is the football player.

Is the big bang the universe or just a football in flight?
Is quantum fluctuation the football player? and it exists because the universe has an odd quirk of potential energy of void space.

Just saying :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 20, 2019
400
223
1,060
The space.com report does call attention that the erebons need more testing to show their fingerprints in the CMBR. eberons can decay in perhaps 100 billion years too but some erebons decay in 14 billion years, perhaps creating gravity waves. Interesting, erebons could explain the dark matter from another universe before the BB that is postulated to create our universe. Some on the forums may enjoy this approach to cosmology, no beginning, and no end :) However, testing and confirming erebons for example, is not the same as testing the Galilean moons at Jupiter and their orbits. I say the same about inflatons and inflaton scalar fields in QFT. So in cosmology we have inflatons, and now erebons. I think as cosmology moves forward, many more interesting universes and particles will likely show up in the new physics :)

"Sir Roger Penrose, a long-time collaborator of Stephen Hawking, believes he has a way to banish these problems for good. What's more, astronomers might have found evidence to confirm he's right. His theory is called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), and it says that the explosive birth of our universe arose during the twilight years of another. In other words, there was a time before the Big Bang... According to Penrose another universe ended, and that universe sprung from the death of yet another...It's these changes Penrose believes we'd see as rings in the cosmic microwave background. Multiple shockwaves might even have produced a series of concentric rings."
So in cosmology we have inflatons, and now erebons.
Don't forget axions, gravitons and WIMPs:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Aug 14, 2020
441
90
760
"Eternal inflation," "inflation to infinity." Some of us just have to shake our heads, because in our view the Universe, at large, is already there. The 'potential' is already 'fulfilled', has always been fulfilled, and will always be fulfilled. Therefore, the 'potential' of it is a forever constant (therefore 'local') entity. A wrap to what already exists 'non-locally'.

As to "entropy," it isn't an infinite quality. Entropy does not proceed eternally infinitely. Entropy is a finite, just as relativity is a finite. It has boundaries, it breaks down, it collapses at some point. Explain to me what "heat" is, then you can explain to me what "heat death of the universe" is. As elsewhere I said, "size is a relative notion," here I say the same of heat, it is a relative notion, not an absolute. Colder than cold is probably the hottest thing in the Universe at large (hotter than hot). Hotter than hot is probably the coldest thing in the Universe at large (colder than cold). There is no infinite concerning temperature.

"Absolute zero" of temperature, like the constant of the speed of light and every other constant, is a local, relative constant, I presume there is a Planck equivalent for the other end of the scale. And like the finites of locality and relativity, and in particular "entropy," it will have boundaries, it [will] break down (break apart, divide...whatever). It will collapse (just never locally).

(Concerning my repeating myself somewhat: Again as Gen. Patton said, "Brevity may be the soul of wit, but repetition is the heart of instruction.")
 
Last edited:
"Eternal inflation," "inflation to infinity." Some of us just have to shake our heads, because in our view the Universe, at large, is already there. The 'potential' is already 'fulfilled', has always been fulfilled, and will always be fulfilled. Therefore, the 'potential' of it is a forever constant (therefore 'local') entity. A wrap to what already exists 'non-locally'.

As to "entropy," it isn't an infinite quality. Entropy does not proceed eternally infinitely. Entropy is a finite, just as relativity is a finite. It has boundaries, it breaks down, it collapses at some point. Explain to me what "heat" is, then you can explain to me what "heat death of the universe" is. As elsewhere I said, "size is a relative notion," here I say the same of heat, it is a relative notion, not an absolute. Colder than cold is probably the hottest thing in the Universe at large (hotter than hot). Hotter than hot is probably the coldest thing in the Universe at large (colder than cold). There is no infinite concerning temperature.

"Absolute zero" of temperature, like the constant of the speed of light and every other constant, is a local, relative constant, I presume there is a Planck equivalent for the other end of the scale. And like the finites of locality and relativity, and in particular "entropy," it will have boundaries, it [will] break down (break apart, divide...whatever). It will collapse (just never locally).

(Concerning my repeating myself somewhat: Again as Gen. Patton said, "Brevity may be the soul of wit, but repetition is the heart of instruction.")
But the universe is expanding faster=more energy or less entropy.
Entropy might be a local thing or illusion of location.
 
Aug 14, 2020
441
90
760
Einstein once claimed, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." Hawking came back with, "Oh, yes He does, but they're loaded." He, if [He] is, also deals in magic tricks. It is the scientist's job to figure out the what or when or where or how, or all of the above, of the loading of the dice.... To realize, or unravel, the trick (to untie or cut the "Gordian Knot") behind the magic tricks.

But the scientist isn't omniscient, though they often are believed to be, or come to believe they are. Sometimes a possible lead, a possible clue or an idea, a possible key to the lock, a ray of light, may come from nowhere; come from outside the establishment. Come from a nobody. Sometimes problems can be solved indirectly; or by indirection. Or be realized to be already solved, just not seen to be solved. Possibly be solved! If not certainly (if impossibly incapable of certainty; at least for the time being, if not forever).
 
Last edited:
Nov 20, 2019
400
223
1,060
I'm glad that you take an interest in the research edge of current cosmology as opposed to fringe theory like cyclic universes! We have an inflationary hot big bang cosmology after all.

But these theories are not the same on the basic level, see my comment on entropy as problematic for the fringe. (Aside from that they have to reject and recast accepted physics in order to make cyclicity an alternative in the first place.)

First, the infinite future: It is in fact the classic LCDM model based on observation of dark energy that predict that the universe is eternal and will meet a heat death in the infinite future.



[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe ]

Second, the potentially infinite history: This follows from the observation of the Planck collaboration in their last 2018 data summary, after they had managed to compile sufficient understanding of how to filter out dust as well as auxiliary cosmic background observations.



[ https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2020/09/aa33887-18.pdf ]

The observable window concave potential looks like a scalar potential (c.f. the 4-fold SU2 doublet Higgs field(s) in the figure below, projected onto 1D), see their Fig. 16 right column for n = 4 (a scalar field, analogous to Higgs).

[ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field ]

Slow roll inflation naturally leads to eternal inflation.

Inflation ends (top) when a ball rolls into the valley. But the inflationary field is a quantum one (middle), spreading out over time, and taking on different values in different regions of inflating space. While many regions of space (purple, red and cyan) will see inflation end, many more (green, blue) will see inflation continue, potentially for an eternity (bottom). (E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy)
[ https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-was-it-like-when-the-universe-was-inflating-f9346f3527d4 ]

There are many articles and paper on how slow roll must be severely constrained or finetuned by some added physics to not continue forever (or to not produce local universes, see for instance some other of astrophysicist Siegel's articles). It is the multiverse result that goes nicely with BOSS galaxy survey 20 year data compilation cosmological summary paper when they short list Weinberg as the oldest reference and with the simplest theory. Such a multiverse predicts the small value of the cosmological constant that we are able to see, and it has had vocal critics in the past, so that publication goes a long way to make it a solution that can be routinely mentioned. But of course YMMV.


The energy lost in gravitational waves is produced outside the event horizons during the merger. If a horizon isn't approaching its static "no hair" featureless end state (spherical, for a non-rotating black hole) during the dynamics of the merger it will radiate gravity waves [see merger videos for the horizons' deformations and the resulting radiation field].
"as opposed to fringe theory like cyclic universes!"
"It is in fact the classic LCDM model based on observation of dark energy that predict that the universe is eternal and will meet a heat death in the infinite future."
All theories must be cyclic. IMO.

Matter-energy can't be created or destroyed therefore there's always been something, including before the big bang. I suggest this matter-energy has always been in motion, (which in turn gives rise to time if you believe there's such a thing). So there's always been motion (time).

The fact we are here after an infinite time has passed proves there has never been a heat death of any kind. Also, therefore, if a heat death has not occurred after an infinite time, means it will not happen in the future.

I also suggest, 'something that has always existed can't be in a state of evolution', so it must be eternally cyclic or recycling in nature. That is, in an average steady-state - for the whole Universe not just the contents of our big bang. I like to call it the 'Steady State of The Infinite'. :)

I find the idea of a heat-death very short-sighted. I suggest the laws of nature don't allow a one-off phenomenon. If a phenomenon can happen once it can always happen. The big bang was a finite natural phenomenon. So if it happened once it has always happened and always will, with an infinite number side by side across infinite space (why just one here and now?). Our big bang started with a finite size, has a finite age and finite rates of expansion, so, therefore, the whole contents of our big bang has a finite size now.

I say short-sighted because many scientists and articles say the big bang is the beginning of the universe and of time itself. It's treated as a one-off phenomenon, with an absolute beginning with nothing before it, nothing beyond it, and proceeding to a one-off heat-death. It disregards the fact that there's always been 'matter-energy' and motion (time). Why would you get just a one-off phenomenon? It's also short-sighted to say the big bang is the beginning of the 'universe' because 'universe' means 'everything that exists'. It's very unscientific to assume the contents of a finite big bang is 'everything that exists'.
"It is in fact the classic LCDM model based on observation of dark energy that predict that the universe is eternal and will meet a heat death in the infinite future."
Just for the record the heat death theory doesn't require the universe to reach absolute zero and so will happen in a finite time, not the infinite future. See;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
:)
 
Aug 14, 2020
441
90
760
All theories must be cyclic. IMO.

Matter-energy can't be created or destroyed therefore there's always been something, including before the big bang. I suggest this matter-energy has always been in motion, (which in turn gives rise to time if you believe there's such a thing). So there's always been motion (time).

The fact we are here after an infinite time has passed proves there has never been a heat death of any kind. Also, therefore, if a heat death has not occurred after an infinite time, means it will not happen in the future.

I also suggest, 'something that has always existed can't be in a state of evolution', so it must be eternally cyclic or recycling in nature. That is, in an average steady-state - for the whole Universe not just the contents of our big bang. I like to call it the 'Steady State of The Infinite'. :)

I find the idea of a heat-death very short-sighted. I suggest the laws of nature don't allow a one-off phenomenon. If a phenomenon can happen once it can always happen. The big bang was a finite natural phenomenon. So if it happened once it has always happened and always will, with an infinite number side by side across infinite space (why just one here and now?). Our big bang started with a finite size, has a finite age and finite rates of expansion, so, therefore, the whole contents of our big bang has a finite size now.

I say short-sighted because many scientists and articles say the big bang is the beginning of the universe and of time itself. It's treated as a one-off phenomenon, with an absolute beginning with nothing before it, nothing beyond it, and proceeding to a one-off heat-death. It disregards the fact that there's always been 'matter-energy' and motion (time). Why would you get just a one-off phenomenon? It's also short-sighted to say the big bang is the beginning of the 'universe' because 'universe' means 'everything that exists'. It's very unscientific to assume the contents of a finite big bang is 'everything that exists'.
Just for the record the heat death theory doesn't require the universe to reach absolute zero and so will happen in a finite time, not the infinite future. See;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
:)
"Averages out to steady state" is the right way to think of it. No 'local' universe will ever be steady state, "Steady state" being a property of 'non-local' Universe (U) (1). As with "the constant of change," the one often unrealized glaring exception to the rule is the "constant." Physicists keep describing time in a universe (to some [the] Universe) as 'straight-arrow' when they should see it curving and looping. 'Space-time' is a vortex curvature not a straight-jacket, err, a straight-arrow. Though it is hard (very hard!) for many to see, 0-point time 'moment', the universal clock time rounding to itself without any loose-ended arrow to it (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... at once, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, an inherent cancellation -- as I see it -- for example (always the loop looping)), as some quantum physicists are seeing it now, points this out precisely (a quantum mechanical particle-like constant of 'now' parameter (here now and there now, always unobservably sharing, entangling(?), 'now' between here and there) fitting into, or overlaying, or superseding, relative time's 'future' parameter in its 'arrow of time' for equivalence (whatever)).

So, once more, "Averages out to steady state" is the right way to think of it. There is now seen a steady state time parameter, rendering and leveling space to infinite flatness, regarding the Universe at large (at small), to make it so. (How deep is an "infinite flatness", by the way? Infinitely deep, infinitely 'planed', in its infinite flatness.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 20, 2019
400
223
1,060
"Averages out to steady state" is the right way to think of it. No 'local' universe will ever be steady state, "Steady state" being a property of 'non-local' Universe (U) (1). As with "the constant of change," the one often unrealized glaring exception to the rule is the "constant." Physicists keep describing time in a universe (to some [the] Universe) as 'straight-arrow' when they should see it curving and looping. 'Space-time' is a vortex curvature not a straight-jacket, err, a straight-arrow. Though it is hard (very hard!) for many to see, 0-point time 'moment', the universal clock time rounding to itself without any loose-ended arrow to it (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... at once, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, an inherent cancellation -- as I see it -- for example (always the loop looping)), as some quantum physicists are seeing it now, points this out precisely (a quantum mechanical particle-like constant of 'now' parameter (here now and there now, always unobservably sharing, entangling(?), 'now' between here and there) fitting into, or overlaying, or superseding, relative time's 'future' parameter in its 'arrow of time' for equivalence (whatever)).

So, once more, "Averages out to steady state" is the right way to think of it. There is now seen a steady state time parameter, rendering and leveling space to infinite flatness, regarding the Universe at large (at small), to make it so. (How deep is an "infinite flatness", by the way? Infinitely deep, infinitely 'planed', in its infinite flatness.)
Thanks for appreciating my 'Steady State of The Infinite' idea. I don't belive there's such a thing as time, I see only motion. I see space as a 'something' so I don't recognise the concept of space-time. Where I see motion you see change, but I guess they both mean the same, so we could say 'continuous' motion or 'continuous' change (better than the 'constant' of change as you point out).

As for the flatness, I see that gravity distorts (not bends) space on a local level because space is not void it's a tangible 'something'. I also believe that space i.e. the 'something' permeats through the whole of 'The Infinite', including between 'big bang contents', as I find the idea of a void anywhere as unacceptable. So I would say space is a bit lumpy on a local level but flat on average for 'The Infinite' (my word for Universe).

As for the rest of your post, once again I find your ideas are complex and difficult to understand, combined with the fact I don't believe in time or space-time.

The penny finally dropped for me with special relativity so I also don't think there's such a thing as a universal clock as you elude to, which also means there's no absolute 'now'. I admit I struggle with this. :)
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts