Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio,Agreed, and I have said so a number of times, as in post 36, "Some of the later [metaphysics] could lead us somewhere, admittedly, but most can't. "
What do you think of post #75?
Keep up to date with the Space calendar 2022: Rocket launches, sky events, missions and more!
Helio,Agreed, and I have said so a number of times, as in post 36, "Some of the later [metaphysics] could lead us somewhere, admittedly, but most can't. "
Yes, I agree that we should include everything that is discovered or implied from evidence as being in the Universe, but we can "slice" out parts of it to better address those slices (universes). The "quantum world" could be also called the "quantum universe" as it is very much a part of the whole - the Universe. Another case for your push for capitalizing "Universe".Helio,
What do you think of post #75?
David, there are two (other) ways of looking at negative entropy. I would start by saying that if entropy is an increase in disorder, then, in a contracting Universe (granted this is supposition) the particles get closer and closer together and are forced into some sort of increasing order. Am I wrong in suggesting this would be negative entropy (not localised decrease in entropy, but overall increase in order?
The clincher for me is, in this model (supposition) there is a cyclic process so order must return to maximum (closest proximity) and entropy to minimum. After all, with the BBM do we start with minimum entropy followed by increasing entropy, and do we not return to this state (or a close approximation)?
This either supports or destroys the cyclic model(s).
Cat![]()
Yes you are wrong here, but everything else you've said seems to be correct. In a contracting universe the overall order is increasing as you say but at the same time the overall entropy is decreasing.Am I wrong in suggesting this would be negative entropy (not localised decrease in entropy, but overall increase in order?
all seems correct. Note that where you say entropy is returning to a minimum, minimum means 0 entropy not negative entropy. Zero is the lowest entropy you can go to. It is the most highly ordered state you can get. More ordered than the most ordered state would be meaningless.The clincher for me is, in this model (supposition) there is a cyclic process so order must return to maximum (closest proximity) and entropy to minimum. After all, with the BBM do we start with minimum entropy followed by increasing entropy, and do we not return to this state (or a close approximation)?
You may be right, but if contraction doesn't reassemble Humpty Dumpty, how will it ever truly get back to zero. Entropy is a big issue on cyclical models. Some processes are considered reversible, but the vast majority aren't. It's hard to see how all things, including waste heat, etc., return back to the exact same conditions as before, but it's hard, for me at least, to argue either way.So, yes you can have a cyclic model. The big bang starts at zero entropy and there is a positive entropy change until the universe gets to its maximum expansion and therefore maximum entropy. When the universe starts contracting there will be a negative entropy change but still keeping a positive value overall, and as it contracts it's positive value will decrease all the way back to zero.
All the evidence points to an expanding Universe. There is no BBT without expansion.
You're entitled to this opinion especially since it isn't a question science can answer.
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.
"Empty space" outside of space demonstrates how confusing metaphysics can get.
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?
Right, the BBT argues for an isotropic and homogenous universe (cosmological principle).
How do we test for symmetry where the ends can't be found to flip it for that test?
Agreed.
We have no testable premises to make one view more better than annuder.
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.
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.
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.
We're talking about the first law of thermodynamics,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 evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.Can we be absolutely clear that if this statement is true now it has always been true, the only time it could not have applied in the past is if it's not true now, it's a self-sufficient self supporting statement.
At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.Therefore, if the statement is true, existence is eternal
Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?I assume by what you mean by t = 0 is the beginning of the Big Bang, Yes there were no particles then, but before t = 0 there would have been some particles.
"Creation" can be used to describe something coming into existence. Certain creations may or may not have a Creator. The view that a Creator is responsible is a popular one, but this is outside the purview of science. Philosophy and religion step into the creation event to try and add reason to what science can offer but cannot address.Can you please explain what you mean "by after things were created" and "The creation" and also "the beginning". I'm not clear if you think it was created by a creator or whether you think there was nothing before the Big Bang ,thanks.
The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.Can we be absolutely clear that if this statement is true now it has always been true, the only time it could not have applied in the past is if it's not true now, it's a self-sufficient self supporting statement.
At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.Therefore, if the statement is true, existence is eternal
Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?I assume by what you mean by t = 0 is the beginning of the Big Bang, Yes there were no particles then, but before t = 0 there would have been some particles.
"Creation" can be used to describe something coming into existence. Certain creations may or may not have a Creator. The view that a Creator is responsible is a popular one, but this is outside the purview of science. Philosophy and religion step-into the creation event to try and add reason to what science can offer but cannot address.Can you please explain what you mean "by after things were created" and "The creation" and also "the beginning". I'm not clear if you think it was created by a creator or whether you think there was nothing before the Big Bang ,thanks.
The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.
At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.
Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?
"Creation" can be used to describe something coming into existence. Certain creations may or may not have a Creator. The view that a Creator is responsible is a popular one, but this is outside the purview of science. Philosophy and religion step into the creation event to try and add reason to what science can offer but cannot address.
The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.
At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.
Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?
"Creation" can be used to describe something coming into existence. Certain creations may or may not have a Creator. The view that a Creator is responsible is a popular one, but this is outside the purview of science. Philosophy and religion step-into the creation event to try and add reason to what science can offer but cannot address.
Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then? In other words it is possible that something from nothing could have occurred before that time.The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.
What is t = 0 what does it mean, what is your definition of it, is it a personal definition or is it something scientific?At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.
The big bang started From a hot dense patch, that either came from nothing or something went into forming it. It could be particles from the gravitational collapse of matter from a previous big bang. Maybe particles change to energy when they get crushed below a certain point. What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science.Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?
IMO way to complex for such a simple math problem of E=?Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then? In other words it is possible that something from nothing could have occurred before that time.
When we get to the time before quark formation you're now saying it's very difficult to say that the first law is valid or not. Are you saying there's now an even greater possibility that something can come from nothing before quark formation? What is t = 0 what does it mean, what is your definition of it, is it a personal definition or is it something scientific?
Science might not be able to say much about eternal, but logic can. For everything that exists something pre existed it so for the quarks there was something before them and something before that and something before that. That argument can be extended back indefinitely, it can only be broken if at some stage you decide that something came from nothing. That's logic we don't need science to tell us. In other words logic can say that existence is eternal without science. The big bang started From a hot dense patch, that either came from nothing or something went into forming it. It could be particles from the gravitational collapse of matter from a previous big bang. Maybe particles change to energy when they get crushed below a certain point. What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science.
In conclusion do you believe it is possible or that it has been possible in the past that something can come from nothing, and do you believe the big bang came from nothing.
Thanks![]()
![]()
Yep could be that simple that nothing has properties.Interpretation:
Time = 0-point = Now! = one of an infinity of four dimensional (thus enclosed) boxes or bubbles = As something Kurt Godel said, "an infinity of infinities".
Nothingness = Nowhereland (as in "from out of the middle of nowhere" (macro-versely, relative to any one of an infinity of finite universes / micro-versely, infinities of "virtual particles")) = up welling from, and/or down welling to, the 'Deep of the Great Abyss' = the "infinite Universe" (('1') ('-1')) = 'Vulcan hammered' infinitely flat (infinite in extent), uniformly "smooth as silk" (as the saying goes), energyless, timeless, dimensionless point of Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring (('1') ('-1'))) = the irresistible force (the infinite force of flattening, stretching, or cellular-like dividing, non-local gravity (the dimension of entropy (all the way to the infinity of string-like membranous-filament chasms in the breakdown of relativity regarding the finite foreground local)) of the immovable object (the infinite Universe (U) (('1') ('-1'))). A mighty something of "nothingness".
IMO way to complex for such a simple math problem of E=?
After all the universe can be whatever it is and conservation of E looks very solid.
That could simply be a product of fluctuation E balance though.
The real question is to forget what the universe might be and think only of the E and how it happened.
E= product of nothings instability.
E=property of nothing potential energy.
E= anti energy conversion.
etc
Answer how the E arrived and it will answer the universe/s
Forever cyclic or any other model that appears from nowhere/nothing IMO is hedging the real E question.
Very solid yes, and that means you can't get something from nothing ever!!!After all the universe can be whatever it is and conservation of E looks very solid.
Well forever cyclic also breaks the law of conservation in the origin of E, even in a never ending loop the creation of E had to happen and be set and balanced by something.Very solid yes, and that means you can't get something from nothing ever!!!
I know I've asked you before but I can't remember the answers how can nothing be unstable and how can nothing have a property?
Energy didn't arrive, it's always been here due to the conservation law you mentioned above.
Forever cyclic didn't appear from nowhere/nothing, the forever word means it always been here.![]()
No. It helps to understand that where few, or no, direct observations are available to science, the risk of error is greater. There are no direct observations past the CMBR, though there is some hope neutrino mapping might someday be found to take us back much closer to t=0.Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then?
Sure, if one wishes to think that way, but this is in the world of imaginations, though not all imagination prove false. At t=0, we have no testable hypothesis to account for the initial burst of energy, which soon produced mass. There may be mathematical models, perhaps, that some may deem valid, but can even one pass objective-based testing?In other words it is possible that something from nothing could have occurred before that time.
At some point near t-0 we reach a region where our best particle physics fails. The laws may behave differently there or maybe they won't.When we get to the time before quark formation you're now saying it's very difficult to say that the first law is valid or not.
IMO, this doesn't happen. Something produced, or created, the energy.Are you saying there's now an even greater possibility that something can come from nothing before quark formation?
Physics can say remarkable things to the end of the first Planck unit of time, but not before that moment, apparently. Subtract this given amount of time from itself and t=0, when the first "clock" began ticking.What is t = 0 what does it mean, what is your definition of it, is it a personal definition or is it something scientific?
If something created the burst of energy and space, then the nothing idea is greatly diminished. But this isn't science, but philosophy and religion.Science might not be able to say much about eternal, but logic can. For everything that exists something pre existed it so for the quarks there was something before them and something before that and something before that. That argument can be extended back indefinitely, it can only be broken if at some stage you decide that something came from nothing.
One can argue for events at moments in time prior to t=0. Putting a negative sign on a unit of time isn't something math doesn't do quite often. But in this case, if things are bizarre at t=0, they are more bizarre before that moment. It's hard to make convincing subjective arguments with simple logic.What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science.
Though there is no science to support it and more questions quickly arise, so I won't advance this view, my personal faith is in a Creator, which is likely extra challenging for those who do happen to favor a "nothing" beginning. It may be the greatest of all dichotomies.In conclusion do you believe it is possible or that it has been possible in the past that something can come from nothing, and do you believe the big bang came from nothing.
I totally agree that in one form or another the universe is cyclic.Of course there is some anthropocentric thinking here, linking to something way beyond human experience.
Who says that there must be a beginning or an end? These may be just anthropocentric constructs based on our very limited sensory input.
One very simple alternative is that the Universe is cyclic. There is a succession of big bangs and black holes.
This is only one possible argument, but no one can prove or disprove it.
Hence no one can prove that there was no beginning, and hence nothing before that non-existent beginning.
Cat![]()
I totally agree at best it's guesswork and hunches.No. It helps to understand that where few, or no, direct observations are available to science, the risk of error is greater. There are no direct observations past the CMBR, though there is some hope neutrino mapping might someday be found to take us back much closer to t=0.
Sure, if one wishes to think that way, but this is in the world of imaginations, though not all imagination prove false. At t=0, we have no testable hypothesis to account for the initial burst of energy, which soon produced mass. There may be mathematical models, perhaps, that some may deem valid, but can even one pass objective-based testing?
At some point near t-0 we reach a region where our best particle physics fails. The laws may behave differently there or maybe they won't.
IMO, this doesn't happen. Something produced, or created, the energy.
Physics can say remarkable things to the end of the first Planck unit of time, but not before that moment, apparently. Subtract this given amount of time from itself and t=0, when the first "clock" began ticking.
If something created the burst of energy and space, then the nothing idea is greatly diminished. But this isn't science, but philosophy and religion.
One can argue for events at moments in time prior to t=0. Putting a negative sign on a unit of time isn't something math doesn't do quite often. But in this case, if things are bizarre at t=0, they are more bizarre before that moment. It's hard to make convincing subjective arguments with simple logic.
Though there is no science to support it and more questions quickly arise, so I won't advance this view, my personal faith is in a Creator, which is likely extra challenging for those who do happen to favor a "nothing" beginning. It may be the greatest of all dichotomies.
P.S nice well thought out postNo. It helps to understand that where few, or no, direct observations are available to science, the risk of error is greater. There are no direct observations past the CMBR, though there is some hope neutrino mapping might someday be found to take us back much closer to t=0.
Sure, if one wishes to think that way, but this is in the world of imaginations, though not all imagination prove false. At t=0, we have no testable hypothesis to account for the initial burst of energy, which soon produced mass. There may be mathematical models, perhaps, that some may deem valid, but can even one pass objective-based testing?
At some point near t-0 we reach a region where our best particle physics fails. The laws may behave differently there or maybe they won't.
IMO, this doesn't happen. Something produced, or created, the energy.
Physics can say remarkable things to the end of the first Planck unit of time, but not before that moment, apparently. Subtract this given amount of time from itself and t=0, when the first "clock" began ticking.
If something created the burst of energy and space, then the nothing idea is greatly diminished. But this isn't science, but philosophy and religion.
One can argue for events at moments in time prior to t=0. Putting a negative sign on a unit of time isn't something math doesn't do quite often. But in this case, if things are bizarre at t=0, they are more bizarre before that moment. It's hard to make convincing subjective arguments with simple logic.
Though there is no science to support it and more questions quickly arise, so I won't advance this view, my personal faith is in a Creator, which is likely extra challenging for those who do happen to favor a "nothing" beginning. It may be the greatest of all dichotomies.
Re me - "Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then?"No. It helps to understand that where few, or no, direct observations are available to science, the risk of error is greater. There are no direct observations past the CMBR, though there is some hope neutrino mapping might someday be found to take us back much closer to t=0.
Sure, if one wishes to think that way, but this is in the world of imaginations, though not all imagination prove false. At t=0, we have no testable hypothesis to account for the initial burst of energy, which soon produced mass. There may be mathematical models, perhaps, that some may deem valid, but can even one pass objective-based testing?
At some point near t-0 we reach a region where our best particle physics fails. The laws may behave differently there or maybe they won't.
IMO, this doesn't happen. Something produced, or created, the energy.
Physics can say remarkable things to the end of the first Planck unit of time, but not before that moment, apparently. Subtract this given amount of time from itself and t=0, when the first "clock" began ticking.
If something created the burst of energy and space, then the nothing idea is greatly diminished. But this isn't science, but philosophy and religion.
One can argue for events at moments in time prior to t=0. Putting a negative sign on a unit of time isn't something math doesn't do quite often. But in this case, if things are bizarre at t=0, they are more bizarre before that moment. It's hard to make convincing subjective arguments with simple logic.
Though there is no science to support it and more questions quickly arise, so I won't advance this view, my personal faith is in a Creator, which is likely extra challenging for those who do happen to favor a "nothing" beginning. It may be the greatest of all dichotomies.
In post 87 you told me - "The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations."No. It helps to understand that where few, or no, direct observations are available to science, the risk of error is greater. There are no direct observations past the CMBR, though there is some hope neutrino mapping might someday be found to take us back much closer to t=0.
I do not think this way it was you who suggested the first law might be invalid before the recombination period, it was your imagination.Sure, if one wishes to think that way, but this is in the world of imaginations,
I can't understand and why it is hard to make an argument, there are two simple choices;One can argue for events at moments in time prior to t=0. Putting a negative sign on a unit of time isn't something math doesn't do quite often. But in this case, if things are bizarre at t=0, they are more bizarre before that moment. It's hard to make convincing subjective arguments with simple logic.