IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
YesAre you suggesting n + 1 Universes?
YesAre you suggesting n + 1 Universes?
They seem to be meaningless questions to start with. Is it possible to ask a meaningful question which doesn't have a meaningful answer?Unfortunately just because it's possible to frame a question does not mean that a meaningful answer must exist. For example: what is the colour of prayer? What is north of the North Pole?
What was before the big bang is probably a similar type of question.
If no information passes through the Nexus does that mean your new bubble / pocket universe starts with either a blank slate or a random mess? If so, how do you get get all the order and structure you see in our universe today from either of those starting positions?IG, Sorry if there is a misunderstanding. Cyclic does not mean repetitive. It is like (I am not saying is) starting with a black hole, being compressed - not totally to a singularity - and emerging through the nexus as a BB into another phase. No information survives passage through the nexus (as would happen if it were repetitive).
Cat
Good question. No, because even, “Nobody knows” can be meaningful.Is it possible to ask a meaningful question which doesn't have a meaningful answer?
But the thermo laws require initial conditions, as does all of physics. Some argue that many laws fail if applied to all the universe as a whole.Anyway, the first law of thermodynamics, which says matter/energy can't be created or destroyed, implies that existence is eternal, so therefore there was something before the Big Bang!
Good question. No, because even, “Nobody knows” can be meaningful.
But the thermo laws require initial conditions, as does all of physics. Some argue that many laws fail if applied to all the universe as a whole.
I did not know that, all I can say is they must be wrong The first law seems pretty rock solid, if that required initial conditions it would contradict itself and it would require that something came from nothing, so I'll hold the first law is rock solid for now.But the thermo laws require initial conditions,
Since we want to be specific about what the BBT says, the BBT doesn't predict the actual shape (e.g. "Flat") of the Universe, so it can make no prediction on its future. I think most assumed the expansion was slowing and might eventually collapse, hence the cyclical universe ideas emerged. The discovery of an accelerating universe was a big surprise, in 1995, IIRC.So, according to the first law existence is eternal. One of the interpretations of the second is that entropy always increases and according to the Big Bang Theory the universe will expand indefinitely and there will be a heat death.
The Steady State theory predicted something similar, especially the emergence of hydrogen in space, somehow, to replenish stars to continue fueling the universe.If entropy had always been increasing in an eternal universe there would already be nothing now, but because we are here proves there is a recycling mechanism in the universe.
That's an interesting idea... on average. Perhaps there's a given rate of entropy production that may apply.Franks's average entropy of The Infinite.
I'm unclear if this idea is correct. With expansion comes a universe that becomes a cooler heat sink, which increases the delta T, which is a form of negative entropy, but I'm very rusty with this so I could be missing something.Every time a big bang expands entropy increases.
How does collapsing produce negative entropy?When gravity collapses matter to form a hot dense patch ready for the next big bang entropy decreases, ready to start a new fully feature-packed big bang.
That goes to the heart of the problem in physics -- no initial conditions, no physics. This is another reason why it helps to use today's set as the "initial conditions" and work backwards till the "wheels fly off the wagon".PS, I meant to say that in an eternal universe there are no initial conditions.
Since we want to be specific about what the BBT says, the BBT doesn't predict the actual shape (e.g. "Flat") of the Universe, so it can make no prediction on its future. I think most assumed the expansion was slowing and might eventually collapse, hence the cyclical universe ideas emerged. The discovery of an accelerating universe was a big surprise, in 1995, IIRC.
The Steady State theory predicted something similar, especially the emergence of hydrogen in space, somehow, to replenish stars to continue fueling the universe.
Stars can "burn" for over a trillion years -- not the big ones -- and new stars are still forming, but not as prolific as in the past. Until they all fizzle out, there will still be an increase in entropy. But with accelerated expansion, if it continues, we won't have "heat death" but a cold one.
That's an interesting idea... on average. Perhaps there's a given rate of entropy production that may apply.
I'm unclear if this idea is correct. With expansion comes a universe that becomes a cooler heat sink, which increases the delta T, which is a form of negative entropy, but I'm very rusty with this so I could be missing something.
How does collapsing produce negative entropy?
That goes to the heart of the problem in physics -- no initial conditions, no physics. This is another reason why it helps to use today's set as the "initial conditions" and work backwards till the "wheels fly off the wagon".
I Guess That's Why Why everyone thinks there's going to be a heat death of the universe. I think it is still is the majority opinion that this is what's going to happen, maybe you could ask Dr Joe.The discovery of an accelerating universe was a big surprise, in 1995, IIRC.
A little similar, except my theory replenishes big bangs rather than stars. Mine is infinite, but I think the Steady state Theory was infinite as well, I'm not sure.The Steady State theory predicted something similar, especially the emergence of hydrogen in space, somehow, to replenish stars to continue fueling the universe.
Stars can "burn" for over a trillion years -- not the big ones -- and new stars are still forming, but not as prolific as in the past. Until they all fizzle out, there will still be an increase in entropy. But with accelerated expansion, if it continues, we won't have "heat death" but a cold one.
No, there can't be an indefinite increase of entropy in an infinite eternal universe. It behaves like a closed system. the amount of entropy stays the same on average throughout. All the parameters of an infinite eternal universe must on average remain the same, hence my name - Steady State of the InfiniteThat's an interesting idea... on average. Perhaps there's a given rate of entropy production that may apply.
I'm unclear if this idea is correct. With expansion comes a universe that becomes a cooler heat sink, which increases the delta T, which is a form of negative entropy, but I'm very rusty with this so I could be missing something.
Simple, gravitational collapse of a low entropy gas cloud - to solar system - to you and me, low entropy and a highly ordered world.How does collapsing produce negative entropy?
but we are in an eternal universe and there are no initial conditions and yet we still have some physics.That goes to the heart of the problem in physics -- no initial conditions, no physics. This is another reason why it helps to use today's set as the "initial conditions" and work backwards till the "wheels fly off the wagon".
Yes, because the standard view of the cosmos prior to BBT was the Static model, namely the universe was ageless and infinite, likely. But this introduces that element of bias that greatly tripped Einstein, else he would have introduced the BBT, not Lemaitre. He even got a push from Friedman to think seriously about it, but he muffed it.A little similar, except my theory replenishes big bangs rather than stars. Mine is infinite, but I think the Steady state Theory was infinite as well, I'm not sure.
Yep, just not absurd and there is no science for what is outside the Universe, just pseudoscience.OK, a cold death then, were the universe keeps expanding until there's no heat left in it. This absurd idea requires that there is only one big bang in existence and that there is an infinite void around it into which it can keep expanding indefinitely.
Yeah, well it's funny how infinite stuff makes everything look average. Another reason I'm not fond of infinities.Having an infinite universe with infinite number of big bangs in it solves this problem, because, as mentioned earlier the expansion of one big bang will come to an end when it meets the rest on the matter and other big bang in the universe. So no cold death, more like a warm ending for that particular big bang the entropy in that particular big bang will then have become Frank's average entropy of The Infinite.
Ok, but remember that a scientific theory isn't the same as suppositional ideas.One main difference between my theory and the Big Bang Theory is that in The Big Bang Theory, it is an open system, in other words the universe can keep expanding and heat and energy and matter can keep dispersing indefinitely. Whereas, in my 'The Infinite'' which is full of stuff, and other big bangs, there is no nowhere for things to keep expanding, it can be regarded as a closed system, so all the matter, energy, entropy, gravitational field and information per cubic Lightyear is constant on average throughout 'The Infinite'.
But in a steady closed system, increasing entropy must be compensated with decreasing entropy. So where will that come from? "Heat won't flow from a cooler to a hotter. You can try if you like, but you far better noter!"No, there can't be an indefinite increase of entropy in an infinite eternal universe. It behaves like a closed system. the amount of entropy stays the same on average throughout. All the parameters of an infinite eternal universe must on average remain the same, hence my name - Steady State of the Infinite
Entropy changes and is formulated by heat transfer -- energy per unit time. So entropy can either increase or decrease. A refrigerator is a common example of a closed system with negative entropy. Those thermo equations will tell you how fast things will cool inside. But the bigger picture shows it uses a heat sink (the Universe) to accomplish this cooling, hence the net energy result produces an overall entropy increase.I don't think there's such thing as negative entropy, just high and low.
Yes, the overall entropy of the Universe is the ultimate question. Either it goes up or goes down. Only local events can present a negative entropy result, meaning there is negative heat flow along an isotherm.It's not negative entropy it goes to, its lower entropy, or a negative change if you like.
When does that work? If an asteroid, for example, converts its gravitational energy to melting Earth upon impact, that's an entropy increase we need to avoid.When gravity collapses something entropy decreases...
Re: entropy.
Expansion goes hand in hand with increasing entropy. Consider salt (NaCl) crystals dissolved in water. As they dissolve they have greater freedom of movement, and distribute evenly (statistically) into the increasing volume of water. Correspondingly, with expansion of the Universe, all matter has greater freedom of movement ('choice') - hence increasing entropy. If the situation is reversed, freedom is reduced and entropy reduces with it. That, imho, says reduction in concentration ('options, choices') makes reduction in entropy 'the way' of the Universe. That's just my take.
Now, something VERY important. We have the word Universe defined as 'absolutely all there is', 'the totality'. Then our experience widened. We started thinking of 'objects' with properties which we associated with our 'Universe', so we called the 'universe' as well. This is wrong! We need two different words to describe these two different concepts. At the moment we use 'U' for the total Universe, and 'u' for these new universes.
This is not working. It is completely confusing, especially to those who do not even know that there is a distinction. Who is going to sort this out? My guess is no one. We just have to try to spread the idea ourselves.
Cat
I totally agree with that. I was writing the reply to helio when your post came.in, I didn't bother to read it as I carried on writing my post. it took me 2-hours fiddling about on my smartphone. So, having recovered from that I can now reply to this post.Re: entropy.
Expansion goes hand in hand with increasing entropy. Consider salt (NaCl) crystals dissolved in water. As they dissolve they have greater freedom of movement, and distribute evenly (statistically) into the increasing volume of water. Correspondingly, with expansion of the Universe, all matter has greater freedom of movement ('choice') - hence increasing entropy. If the situation is reversed, freedom is reduced and entropy reduces with it. That, imho, says reduction in concentration ('options, choices') makes reduction in entropy 'the way' of the Universe. That's just my take.
I made a mistake in my above post, I too fell victim to the misconception that the Big Bang created the universe. How many times have you seen in the Press where scientists say the universe started with the big bang or the big bang was the beginning of the universe. We have been brainwashed into thinking the Big Bang is the universe.Yes, because the standard view of the cosmos prior to BBT was the Static model, namely the universe was ageless and infinite, likely. But this introduces that element of bias that greatly tripped Einstein, else he would have introduced the BBT, not Lemaitre. He even got a push from Friedman to think seriously about it, but he muffed it.
Yep, just not absurd and there is no science for what is outside the Universe, just pseudoscience.
Yeah, well it's funny how infinite stuff makes everything look average. Another reason I'm not fond of infinities.
Ok, but remember that a scientific theory isn't the same as suppositional ideas.
But in a steady closed system, increasing entropy must be compensated with decreasing entropy. So where will that come from? "Heat won't flow from a cooler to a hotter. You can try if you like, but you far better noter!"
Entropy changes and is formulated by heat transfer -- energy per unit time. So entropy can either increase or decrease. A refrigerator is a common example of a closed system with negative entropy. Those thermo equations will tell you how fast things will cool inside. But the bigger picture shows it uses a heat sink (the Universe) to accomplish this cooling, hence the net energy result produces an overall entropy increase.
Yes, the overall entropy of the Universe is the ultimate question. Either it goes up or goes down. Only local events can present a negative entropy result, meaning there is negative heat flow along an isotherm.
When does that work? If an asteroid, for example, converts its gravitational energy to melting Earth upon impact, that's an entropy increase we need to avoid.
I will stand by saying the indefinite expansion of the universe (common popular meaning, ie contents of the Big Bang) is absurd.Yep, just not absurd and there is no science for what is outside the Universe, just pseudoscience.
Yeah, well it's funny how infinite stuff makes everything look average. Another reason I'm not fond of infinities.
Ok, the universe (contents of Big Bang) is expanding, that's science, but there is no evidence to suggest that it will expand forever i.e. there is no evidence of an infinite void for it to do so, so that part of the theory is suppositional, so I am entitled to say that it won't expand forever, equally without any evidence, the only difference is mine is based on logic and is more sensible.Ok, but remember that a scientific theory isn't the same as suppositional ideas.
Yes it will, in nature, you can get from cold to hot, when a cold gas cloud collapses into a hot star.But in a steady closed system, increasing entropy must be compensated with decreasing entropy. So where will that come from? "Heat won't flow from a cooler to a hotter. You can try if you like, but you far better noter!"
Entropy changes and is formulated by heat transfer -- energy per unit time. So entropy can either increase or decrease. A refrigerator is a common example of a closed system with negative entropy. Those thermo equations will tell you how fast things will cool inside. But the bigger picture shows it uses a heat sink (the Universe) to accomplish this cooling, hence the net energy result produces an overall entropy increase.
When does that work? If an asteroid, for example, converts its gravitational energy to melting Earth upon impact, that's an entropy increase we need to avoid.
All the evidence points to an expanding Universe. There is no BBT without expansion.The Universe cannot expand as has already been discussed many times as there is nowhere for it to expand it is already everything that exists.
You're entitled to this opinion especially since it isn't a question science can answer.I will stand by saying the indefinite expansion of the universe (common popular meaning, ie contents of the Big Bang) is absurd.
It is based upon what we see after things were created, so only from some point on or after the beginning (t=0) does this law, and ALL the others, take effect. The creation included the stuff needed to make it all work, essentially, in a near-perfect (ie finely-tuned) way.The first law means existence is eternal.
"Empty space" outside of space demonstrates how confusing metaphysics can get.... if anyone is claiming it is going to expand indefinitely that automatically implies there is an infinite amount of empty space for it to do so.
Agreed. I think most are just referring to a likely scenario over, say, the next 20 billion years. The acceleration of spacetime argues this point. But we don't know what DE is, so how do we know it, or something related, won't do something funky in, say, 50 billion years?If you don't know what is beyond the big bang then you can't claim it is going to expand indefinitely!!!
Right, the BBT argues for an isotropic and homogenous universe (cosmological principle).... there can't be a reason for something to be drastically different one side of the Universe than the other.
How do we test for symmetry where the ends can't be found to flip it for that test?Also scientists love symmetry, the infinite is symmetrical on average in all directions and from all places it is also symmetric from past to future.
Agreed.Ok, the universe (contents of Big Bang) is expanding, that's science, but there is no evidence to suggest that it will expand forever i.e. there is no evidence of an infinite void for it to do so, so that part of the theory is suppositional,
We have no testable premises to make one view more better than annuder.so I am entitled to say that it won't expand forever, equally without any evidence, the only difference is mine is based on logic and is more sensible.
The analogy is to emphasize that even when entropy decreases (in one spot) the overall entropy for the Universe increases. Stars are losing their available energy every second, thus entropy is increasing.Yes heatwise your man-made fridge example is good example similar to the star example, except the star is a natural phenomenon so hopefully more relevant.
The lowest state of entropy was during the beginning. Hydrogen gives us the best known energy production so its creation required the lowest entropy state, thus at the beginning. Fusion ever since has increased entropy.In a one-off big bang universe which is expanding the heat from the fridge is permanently lost ...
Entropy is defined as heat flow along an isotherm, so yes, it is a difference in two states. Some just use the "negative entropy" as a way to state a direction a process is going between two states.Sorry to nitpick, but once again I think you'll find there's no such thing as negative entropy there's only positive or negative entropy change.
No you would not find negative entropy in a contracting universe. There is no such thing as negative entropy. The lowest entropy can get is 0 and this represents the most highly ordered arrangement possible. You cannot go below 0 entropy to negative entropy."Sorry to nitpick, but once again I think you'll find there's no such thing as negative entropy "
In an expanding Universe.
Would you find negative entropy in a contracting Universe?
Granted that we have no experience of that.
Cat