Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe

[rod]

David-J-Franks in post #24 said, "Altogether, with unknown dark energy, and the possibility that the contents of the big bang are expanding into a 'greater whole' or 'The Infinite', don't you think it's a bit unsafe to predict the end, (heat death) of 'everything that there is' just yet? "

No I do not think *it's a bit unsafe*. Why? Because the calculations for heat death of black holes evaporating and white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs (whether 10^100 years or 10^32000 years), assumes the uniformity of natural law operating in science as we see today. Those who advocate some exotic future that avoids the observable universe we see today ending in heat death, should show how the heat death predicted using uniform, natural law, will be avoided in the future. The same applies to the origin of the universe. Using natural law operating uniformly, bubble universe advocates should show how the bubbles evolved into new universes and managed to avoid heat death before creating new universes.

 

[David-J-Franks]

David-J-Franks, I think you need to show what physical laws created the universe from a previous, existing state *that avoided* the First Law (creates nothing, just conserves) and the 2nd Law (entropy) that winds everything down, eventually. In astronomy, all that we see today in stars, star clusters, galaxies follow the path of entropy in the 2nd Law. The new white dwarf stellar evolution model showing end state as black dwarfs demonstrates this and the 2nd Law does not create new universes in heat death and the First Law does not create new universes. We see the calculations now for white dwarfs support eventual heat death for the universe. The same is true for evaporating black holes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Black hole evaporation times are shorter than white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution times. Both physics paths show black holes dying and white dwarfs too, thus the 2nd Law (entropy) wins out, heat death and nothing more to be created. So David-J-Franks, what physical law(s) allow you to show the previous condition before the postulated BB event, was not in a state of heat death, thus no BB possible or creation of the universe astronomy sees today?

You said

I think you need to show what physical laws created the universe from a previous, existing state *that avoided* the First Law (creates nothing, just conserves) and the 2nd Law (entropy) that winds everything down, eventually.

I think you are still misunderstanding me. I'm not using the first law to say what it creates or does not create, the point of my post was to say that the first law does not allow a beginning of 'everything that there is', as you are suggesting, (your words - "our universe had a distinct beginning,"). I'm merely using it to say there has always been 'something'. It's then up to the laws of the 'something' to continuously rearrange and allow new formations to happen.

Since you brought up creation, it's self-evident, because we are here, that this pre-existing 'something' did have physical laws - it allowed the formation of our Big bang. I don't need to show what these laws were, only that there were some. Nor do I need to say how a previous, existing state avoided the 2nd Law (entropy), again, it's obvious it did, because we are here. I have ideas but that's another topic.

 

[David-J-Franks]

FYI, post #23 and #24 do not show how *whatever* is postulated to exist prior to the BB event, was not already in a state of heat death because of the First Law and 2nd Law. These posts ignore heat death, the First Law and 2nd Law/entropy and argue in a circle with no empirical tests to verify such origin claims, e.g. bubbles creating new universes where the bubbles are not in a state of heat death and then can create something new.

Those who advocate some exotic future that avoids the observable universe we see today ending in heat death, should show how the heat death predicted using uniform, natural law, will be avoided in the future. The same applies to the origin of the universe. Using natural law operating uniformly, bubble universe advocates should show how the bubbles evolved into new universes and managed to avoid heat death before creating new universes.

I have addressed the 2nd Law several times.

From my post 24;

"It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

So until proven otherwise I think it's equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!"

and;

""For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition, the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death."

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks, in post #27 you said about the First Law, "I'm merely using it to say there has always been 'something'. It's then up to the laws of the 'something' to continuously rearrange and allow new formations to happen."

My observation here. Black holes evaporating and stellar evolution of white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs, is calculated using *uniform natural laws operating today* that ends in heat death, not new formations continuously rearranged. Uniform natural law operating today does not create new universes, just black holes that evaporate and white dwarfs that die in heat death, i.e. black dwarfs.

 

[David-J-Franks]

David-J-Franks, in post #27 you said about the First Law, "I'm merely using it to say there has always been 'something'. It's then up to the laws of the 'something' to continuously rearrange and allow new formations to happen."

My observation here. Black holes evaporating and stellar evolution of white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs, is calculated using *uniform natural laws operating today* that ends in heat death, not new formations continuously rearranged. Uniform natural law operating today does not create new universes, just black holes that evaporate and white dwarfs that die in heat death, i.e. black dwarfs.

Looks like we posted at the same time. My answers to the 2nd Law are, as above in my post 28. Would value your opinion about them

 

[Helio]

FYI, post #23 and #24 do not show how *whatever* is postulated to exist prior to the BB event, was not already in a state of heat death because of the First Law and 2nd Law.

I would assume that "heat death" is meant as what many would call waste heat. The energy forms (eg. sunlight) eventually become low level heat that is almost useless to do any work.

Given our expanding universe that has gone from millions of degrees filling the universe to about 2.7K now and dropping, it's puzzling why we see scientific articles create ambiguity when they talk both of a cold death and a heat death, not that I dislike oxymorons.

For a cyclical universe, I assume that it would require the universe to contract all the way back to a point close to what we originally had near t=0. But, as you note, entropy would be an issue. I would expect it would need to become negative during contraction, not that it would behave that way. The 2nd Law may or may not work that well when applied to non-local environments, namely the entire universe. It, apparently, isn't quite that simple, unlike gravity. It does well with local closed systems, but is our universe even closed? If it is, even then I'm unlcear what mainstream physics says about using the 2nd law on the entire universe as a whole.

These posts ignore heat death, the First Law and 2nd Law/entropy and argue in a circle with no empirical tests to verify such origin claims, e.g. bubbles creating new universes where the bubbles are not in a state of heat death and then can create something new.

Right, theories must be falsifiable and there is no objective evidence yet of anything other than our own universe.

 

[rod]

Helio, "heat death", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe "Even these would evaporate over a timescale of up to 10^106 years.[14] After that time, the universe enters the so-called Dark Era and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[12]§VIA With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long timescales. Speculatively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state.[12], §VE. It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will reach heat death.[12], §"

The 10^106 years is black hole evaporation times. The white dwarf to black dwarf is 10^1100 years and ending near 10^32000 years in the report. A number of posts in this discussion look like the formula:

Infinite time + 1st Law + x = new universes Perhaps it is 1st Law + 2nd Law <> new universes

 

[Atlan0001]

FYI, post #23 and #24 do not show how *whatever* is postulated to exist prior to the BB event, was not already in a state of heat death because of the First Law and 2nd Law. These posts ignore heat death, the First Law and 2nd Law/entropy and argue in a circle with no empirical tests to verify such origin claims, e.g. bubbles creating new universes where the bubbles are not in a state of heat death and then can create something new.

Someone does not realize that galaxies and everything else that can be created within hundreds of millions of years of a "beginning", not only be created but be become full fledged adults almost instantly complete with blackholes, Methusala stars, and everything else, could and would die almost as quick. That TIME itself, instead of reaching to modern TIMES, should have flown like mad and heat should have gone out of the universe in just a little longer period of TIME than the universe lived. The whole universe should have had the life span of a fly, lived and died in virtually no TIME flat, so to speak.

 

[rod]

FYI, there is a problem with post #33. It is Cosmic High Noon documented by Spitzer. No new galaxies are forming today, no new globular clusters, etc. The star formation rate was very different in the BB model, early in the universe compared to present day, e.g. M42 in Orion. The star formation process is also very different than present day astronomical observations. Example, the origin of Population III stars and primordial black holes. These observations based upon astronomical instruments, support that the 2nd Law is winning and the universe of stars, galaxies, black holes evaporating, and now white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs, the arrow of time is moving downwards- not upwards

 

[Helio]

Helio, "heat death", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Thanks, that's what I thought they meant but it is a bit silly to refer a "heat death" as the "Big Chill", IMO.

It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will reach heat death.[12], §"

This also is misleading, though perhaps just a nit. Ceasing entropy will not cause heat death, as one might infer. What they likely are trying to say is that when all available energy is exhausted, which is the end to entropy production, then you will be in a sea of waste heat, but it will be super cold due to expansion. Ug. It would be better to use low-state energy or something that's not a word that is anti-cold.

The 10^106 years is black hole evaporation times. The white dwarf to black dwarf is 10^1100 years and ending near 10^32000 years in the report.

I'm still curious of QM allows Fe to split, which might eliminate the possibility of a black dwarf exploding.

A number of posts in this discussion look like the formula:

Infinite time + 1st Law + x = new universes Perhaps it is 1st Law + 2nd Law <> new universes

Except laws come from testable hypotheses, and there are none that apply to other universes, nor this one during any suppositional other cycle.

 

[Helio]

The star formation process is also very different than present day astronomical observations. Example, the origin of Population III stars and primordial black holes. These observations based upon astronomical instruments, support that the 2nd Law is winning and the universe of stars, galaxies, black holes evaporating, and now white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs, the arrow of time is moving downwards- not upwards

I'm unclear what you mean. Stellar formation on the whole is the same -- clouds collapse due to gravity. They are triggered by contributing factors including supersonic flows and SN. I think the Pop differences are essentially just metal increases, which require time to produce.

AFAIK, the 2nd Law was never in question even for the theories that held for a universe that is self-replenishing. But, yes, entropy increase is everywhere, but it is nice that it works well for my refrigerator.

 

[Atlan0001]

FYI, there is a problem with post #33. It is Cosmic High Noon documented by Spitzer. No new galaxies are forming today, no new globular clusters, etc. The star formation rate was very different in the BB model, early in the universe compared to present day, e.g. M42 in Orion. The star formation process is also very different than present day astronomical observations. Example, the origin of Population III stars and primordial black holes. These observations based upon astronomical instruments, support that the 2nd Law is winning and the universe of stars, galaxies, black holes evaporating, and now white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs, the arrow of time is moving downwards- not upwards

To bad, I for one had hoped to widen your horizons but with some...

It's quite clear you have no clue of an idea of a real time [universal] clock and of a real time, thus unobservable, universe. Where all time points, all times point, to '0' (Hawking's clock, and clock time, on the wall of his [illustrative] Grand Central Station of the Universe). Your mind's eye is locked, focused, entirely into a relative/relativistic time clock and a relative/relativistic, strictly observed (in a photo light-frame), universe. Of course your realm is going to be a restrictive one, and become ever more restricted. Your universe in your mind...is your mind. Mine, in mine...and sure is mine.

 

[rod]

I'm unclear what you mean. Stellar formation on the whole is the same -- clouds collapse due to gravity. They are triggered by contributing factors including supersonic flows and SN. I think the Pop differences are essentially just metal increases, which require time to produce.

AFAIK, the 2nd Law was never in question even for the theories that held for a universe that is self-replenishing. But, yes, entropy increase is everywhere, but it is nice that it works well for my refrigerator.

The rate of star formation, thus the process has changed dramatically over time and slowed down. M42 gas cloud collapse is not the same as Population III stars, there is no other molecules to aid in star formation. BBN phase is over, lasted only briefly in the BB model, etc. These process changes should be documented clearly in the BB model. Many today think the universe is similar to BB early universe model. That is not the case, no BBN operating across the universe today, no globular clusters forming. Where are all the globular clusters with ZAMS plots on the H-R diagram documented? You are avoiding the implications of Cosmic high noon reports for star formation. Present processes are slowing down, not speeding up and new universes are not popping up all over. Just where did gravity come from in the BB model?

 

[rod]

In post #37, "It's quite clear you have no clue of an idea of a real time [universal] clock and of a real time, thus unobservable, universe."

I am glad that Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton built their science on the *observable universe*. The geocentric astronomers from Claudius Ptolemy through Tycho Brahe also built their astronomy on the *observable universe*. When Galileo used his telescope to show tiny lights moving around Jupiter, others in science could follow up and see the same objects. The heliocentric solar system debate vs. geocentric solar system debate, the heliocentric solar system won the debate because the science was built using the *observable universe*.

 

[Helio]

The rate of star formation, thus the process has changed dramatically over time and slowed down.

The early universe was much denser since it was much smaller. The formation rate would necessarily slow down as gas clouds aren't renewed. As the clouds collapse to form stars, fewer clouds will limit the rate of new star formation. But this must also take into consideration galactic mergers, where clouds collide and produce a great increase in star formation rate.

All of this supports the BB model, or do you have a different take on it?

Many today think the universe is similar to BB early universe model.

Are you suggesting a BBT conflict? The early universe was only H & He, essentially, so yeah it was different as would be required of the model. Observations of those early times are far more supportive of the model.

That is not the case, no BBN operating across the universe today, no globular clusters forming.

But newer GCs are forming.

Here's one example.

Where are all the globular clusters with ZAMS plots on the H-R diagram documented?

The H-R diagram is of single stars, not clusters.

You are avoiding the implications of Cosmic high noon reports for star formation.

What implications are you suggesting?

Present processes are slowing down, not speeding up and new universes are not popping up all over.

I think you mean the rates are slowing down as the processes are the same -- gravity forms stars from gas and dust clouds, once they are triggered into a collapse. Less gas will necessarily affect the rate, but not the process.

Just where did gravity come from in the BB model?

This is more of a when question. The BBT begins at an instant after t=0, and it seems to have consisted only of spacetime and extreme energy density with temperatures around a trillion or so. At t=0, the creation of the universe began, but science can't go there, metaphysics perhaps.

 

[rod]

Okay, post #40 by Helio has some points too look at. "The early universe was much denser since it was much smaller. The formation rate would necessarily slow down as gas clouds aren't renewed."

My observation, in the BB model, correct. The report on white dwarfs evolving into black dwarfs, just like the early universe very different in density than the present with processes operating much faster, as the universe expands, things wind down so rates of change will slow down too. I am not suggesting BBT conflicts here, misconceptions about the early universe compared to the present. Clearly the present is not the key to the past as was argued in the 1800s.

"But newer GCs are forming."

My observation. The example is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0909-6 and the abstract is clear, "Globular clusters (GCs) are thought to be ancient relics from the early formative phase of galaxies, although their physical origin remains uncertain1,2."

The formation of all GCs is difficult to explain, the example cited here is for NGC 1275, so far a single example of new GCs said to form within the past one billion years, however, no ZAMS plot only for the GCs using the H-R diagram.

"The H-R diagram is of single stars, not clusters."

My observation, this is clearly not correct. M67 H-R diagram is a good example, others are M13 GC H-R diagram and many other star clusters. Main sequence turn-off plots are critical for stellar evolution age calculations to red giant branch star evolution. The same for horizontal branch stars plotted on H-R diagrams found in GCs, said to evolve slowly into white dwarfs. The star clusters H-R diagrams plot many stars observed in the star clusters.

Concerning cosmic high noon, the question was raised:

"What implications are you suggesting?"

The implication is already stated, star formation rates are slowing down, not speeding up in the universe. 'BIRTH of the COSMOS Field: Primordial and Evolved Density Reconstructions During Cosmic High Noon', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200411027A/abstract.

From the arXiv paper attached, "In particular, the range of 2 <= z <= 3 marks the peak epoch of star formation in the Universe, frequently referred to as \Cosmic High Noon" (Somerville & Dave 2015). The processes driving star formation of galaxies and clusters have been studied in previous works, showing a nontrivial relation of star formation and the galaxies' environmental density (Cooper et al. 2008; Koyama et al. 2013; Kawinwanichakij et al. 2017; Muldrew et al. 2018; Ji et al. 2018). Moreover, the quenching of star formation within massive galaxy clusters has been found (Cooper et al. 2008), suggesting on average a passive evolution of galaxy clusters during the last ~ 10 Gyr and studying an environmental dependency (see Lemaux et al. 2012; Belfiore et al. 2017; Tomczak et al. 2019; Lemaux et al. 2019)."

Concerning the brief discussion on the origin of gravity in the BB model, inflation uses repulsive gravity, not gravity as used in modeling binary stars or planet orbits around the Sun.

So in the BB model, the early universe processes operated at different rates than the present and repulsive gravity used in the model, shows something very different operating in the beginning that is not there today.

What direction is time's arrow moving since the beginning? Upwards or downwards? Given the new paper on white dwarf evolution to black dwarfs, the arrow of time is marching downward IAW the 2nd Law and much of what is documented in astronomy supports this too

 

[Helio]

My observation. The example is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0909-6 and the abstract is clear, "Globular clusters (GCs) are thought to be ancient relics from the early formative phase of galaxies, although their physical origin remains uncertain1,2."

Most, I believe, are ancient relics, but many are still forming, at least in the last billion years. They are still myserious including why so many are above the galactic plane, though they bob in and out, of course.

The formation of all GCs is difficult to explain, the example cited here is for NGC 1275, so far a single example of new GCs said to form within the past one billion years, however, no ZAMS plot only for the GCs using the H-R diagram.

The link I gave is entitled, "Thousands of new globular clusters have formed over the last billion years".

"The H-R diagram is of single stars, not clusters."

My observation, this is clearly not correct. M67 H-R diagram is a good example, others are M13 GC H-R diagram and many other star clusters. Main sequence turn-off plots are critical for stellar evolution age calculations to red giant branch star evolution. The same for horizontal branch stars plotted on H-R diagrams found in GCs, said to evolve slowly into white dwarfs. The star clusters H-R diagrams plot many stars observed in the star clusters.

I think I see what you're saying. I assume you mean the H-R diagrams for specific clusters and not the general HR diagram.

You may wish to reference one, perhaps in a separate thread, to address your points about the ZAMS. I'm unclear what you see as the problem, but I'm not an expert so the problem could just be me, admittedly.

The implication is already stated, star formation rates are slowing down, not speeding up in the universe. 'BIRTH of the COSMOS Field: Primordial and Evolved Density Reconstructions During Cosmic High Noon', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200411027A/abstract.

From the arXiv paper attached, "In particular, the range of 2 <= z <= 3 marks the peak epoch of star formation in the Universe, frequently referred to as \Cosmic High Noon" (Somerville & Dave 2015). The processes driving star formation of galaxies and clusters have been studied in previous works, showing a nontrivial relation of star formation and the galaxies' environmental density (Cooper et al. 2008; Koyama et al. 2013; Kawinwanichakij et al. 2017; Muldrew et al. 2018; Ji et al. 2018). Moreover, the quenching of star formation within massive galaxy clusters has been found (Cooper et al. 2008), suggesting on average a passive evolution of galaxy clusters during the last ~ 10 Gyr and studying an environmental dependency (see Lemaux et al. 2012; Belfiore et al. 2017; Tomczak et al. 2019; Lemaux et al. 2019)."

Yes, but they are addressing the environmental cirucmstances that explain the Cosmic High Noon events. That period was the peak in the rate of star formation due to the circumstances. They aren't suggesting any real process change. In fact, that was the only time that word was mentioned in the first, and lengthy, paper.

There was also no suggestion of any BBT conflict in the first. I didn't check the 2nd paper.

Concerning the brief discussion on the origin of gravity in the BB model, inflation uses repulsive gravity, not gravity as used in modeling binary stars or planet orbits around the Sun.

So in the BB model, the early universe processes operated at different rates than the present and repulsive gravity used in the model, shows something very different operating in the beginning that is not there today.

So in the BB model, the early universe processes operated at different rates than the present and repulsive gravity used in the model, shows something very different operating in the beginning that is not there today.

Inflation Theory is complicated and weird as repulsion ruled the universe. This event was unique and occurred in the first second of the universe. It lasted for perhaps a trillionth of a second and ended when the universe was perhaps the size of a grapefruit. With expansion came cooling, allowing quarks to condense from the energy, then protons, electrons, etc. It had to expand for almost 400,000 years thereafter for atoms to form. At some point after that, stars began to form.

There is no conflict with Inflationary repulsion and, much later, star formation.

What direction is time's arrow moving since the beginning? Upwards or downwards? Given the new paper on white dwarf evolution to black dwarfs, the arrow of time is marching downward IAW the 2nd Law and much of what is documented in astronomy supports this too

Yes, there is nothing to counter the arrow of time's direction. It is a puzzle for some physicists who don't see why it must be this way, but I suspect their math is much easier to reverse than the physics behind the 2nd law.

 

[rod]

Helio, here is some unpacking of your #42 post "The link I gave is entitled, "Thousands of new globular clusters have formed over the last billion years".

Okay, here is another link, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020IAUS..342..108L/abstract, Prodigious and Continuous Formation of Super Star Clusters from Cooled Intracluster Gas, "The most numerous GC populations are hosted by giant elliptical galaxies, where they can exhibit a broad dispersion in colour interpreted as a wide spread in metallicity. Here, we show that many thousands of similarly compact and massive super star clusters have formed at an approximately steady rate over, at least, the past ~1 Gyr around the nearby giant elliptical galaxy, NGC 1275, at the centre of the Perseus cluster..."

My thinking Helio, I need to review more here. The report is about giant elliptical galaxies, not spiral galaxies like the Milky Way that has some 150 GCs documented or M31. The abstract continues, "The number distribution of these young star clusters appears to exhibit a similar dependence in luminosity and mass as the even more numerous but older GCs around NGC 1275. In just a few Gyr, these super star clusters will evolve to become indistinguishable in broadband optical colours from the older GCs, and their spread in age add to the dispersion in colour of these GCs."

Something is happening in these *young star clusters*, they are also aging, following the 2nd Law

Helio, you said "I think I see what you're saying. I assume you mean the H-R diagrams for specific clusters and not the general HR diagram."

My observation, yes. Star cluster H-R diagrams plotting many stars in the cluster is useful. The cluster stars, open or globular are all observed following the path of aging, i.e. the 2nd Law again

Helio you said, "There is no conflict with Inflationary repulsion and, much later, star formation."

My observation. Inflationary repulsion is repulsive gravity, see Alan Guth, 'The Founder of Cosmic Inflation Theory on Cosmology's Next Big Ideas', https://www.scientificamerican.com/...03&mvp=NA-SCIEAMERLIVE-11237933&mvl=TagLatest

Here is another link on repulsive gravity, 'Pattern of perturbations from a coherent quantum inflationary horizon', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020CQGra..37i5005H/abstract, “I. INTRODUCTION A standard cosmological model[1] is now supported by a considerable body of evidence, especially precise measurements of correlations in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)[2{13]. The early evolution is generally described by slow-roll inflation [14{16], during which the repulsive gravity of an exotic, metastable scalar inflaton field vacuum drives an accelerating expansion..."

Apparently the test for repulsive gravity operating in the universe cannot be conducted today apart from the interpretation of CMBR variations, thus repulsive gravity is not operating today, e.g. at Sirius binary star system. Repulsive gravity is not the same as Kepler's laws for elliptical motion, Newton's 3 laws of motion, Newton's law of gravity. I agree, *there is no conflict with inflationary repulsion and, much later, star formation" because repulsive gravity cannot be observed operating among the stars, in our solar system, or exoplanets and stars that have multiple exoplanets today (more than 700 stars now hosting multiple exoplanets) Apparently, repulsive gravity existed (if at all), only briefly in the beginning

Helio you said, "Yes, there is nothing to counter the arrow of time's direction." I agree, and white dwarfs slowly evolving into black dwarfs follow the 2nd Law as the article in this thread is about that got some attention. H-R diagrams of star clusters follows the 2nd Law, the stars in the clusters - age.

 

[Atlan0001]

In post #37, "It's quite clear you have no clue of an idea of a real time [universal] clock and of a real time, thus unobservable, universe."

I am glad that Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton built their science on the *observable universe*. The geocentric astronomers from Claudius Ptolemy through Tycho Brahe also built their astronomy on the *observable universe*. When Galileo used his telescope to show tiny lights moving around Jupiter, others in science could follow up and see the same objects. The heliocentric solar system debate vs. geocentric solar system debate, the heliocentric solar system won the debate because the science was built using the *observable universe*.

A universe at 12b to 14b years distant (there and then from here and now on Earth) versus a universe at 12b to 14b x 6 trillion miles distant (there and now, also from here and now on Earth). From here and now on Earth that is a quite large triangulation to try and observe. Particularly when one of the points of the triangle (there and now) cannot possibly have been observed by Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, and Newton, much less being observed by instruments like the Hubble telescope today. You cannot even observe an event occurring across a room in real time, or better yet any action occurring in a particle accelerator in real time, much less across a distance of 12b to 14b x 6 trillion miles in real time. Yet you claim to be an expert on what is occurring there and now at that distance from here and now. (you can't have expert certain knowledge of everywhere's future without expert certain knowledge of everywhere's past and present). Somewhere beyond those long, long, particular distances (there and then) (there and now) I'd bet the triangulation eventually simply collapses, disintegrates, from the accelerated expansion (between whatever there and then and its there and now). Collapses to an infinity of point horizons, at the other and contracted end of [illustrated] "cones" (in spinning them around end for end, the whole action become wormholes) out from Earth (here and now). We can probably see the effects of accelerating, expanding, separations between relative time and real time from here in what we can observe of what does arrive from [there and then] to [here and now].

Infinity cannot be observed from a finite position or condition except in, or as, 'potential'. But infinity sure as hell can be banked up (closed up) in englobing horizon to a 'naked singularity'. A Horizon of all an infinity of horizons in such a naked singularity of depth...the 'flat' Horizon 'skin' of some illustrated "balloon" (one not having an "ant standing on the surface"). And that particular Horizon of all horizons (Universe of all universes) would be infinite in its depth of mass, thus also infinite/infinitesimal in its depth of hole / space / vacuum). The Universe (or Multiverse) has many more than one dimension.

Relative to [a] Big Crunch entity and horizon, I want to know the scale of the physicists' "Big Bang." Not the scale used by any Big Banger whatsoever today. I want to know the scale according to the scale of the moment of the "Big Bang." I want the measure, and what the measuring object or instrumentation, against which the Big Bang was measured at its moment, on that day, that then proves the Big Bang as it is [theorized] here today. It cannot be proved by any scale used on Earth here and now. Unless you can give me the measuring instrumentation, or object measured against, on and of that particular day (that particular moment) then I say you KNOW nothing ... and assume much! In sheer arrogance of [know-nothingness], an arrogance of assumption far too far. In all fairness I know there are many in that profession who do not take it at face value, who have a large measure of skepticism about it. But there are far too many (who like most priests of dark age Europe a thousand and more years ago having supposedly their proofs at hand of Creation) who do take it literally, religiously and fanatically. It is my understanding a finite is a finite because it can be measured against another finite existing in space and time [with it] to prove it is a finite. It is my understanding that infinities are converted to finites only when [two] cancel each other out to [two] finites (the two infinities never ceasing to exist, only being discarded as no longer relative/relevant). None of this proving (from the space / from the time) is adhered to when it comes to the "Big Bang Beginning." It is strictly a one-sided affair (strictly a one-sided physicality, strictly closed system, throughout and beginning to end). There is violence (of a sort) if you pursue any other side existing...or possibility of open system either existing or co-existing and connected (thus any other dimension than one existing).

Sorry to take so much space but this is a really big deal (the subject matter) having many more implications in millions of simpler minds than the author of the article would ever believe possible. Not a one of literally millions could or would see its time as anything longer away than tomorrow. It's like the story of Creation and, especially, the story of the tree at the center of Eden. It was nothing more than an extremely complex subject that was illustrated by great sages very simply for a very simple people, yet you've had millions of people throughout history go searching for that tree in the local woods. So millions would have no concept of an ending so far beyond their own local tomorrow. They would see it as being too soon. They would, will, act upon it in some way. In the last century they have already acted upon it and its like coming from a religion of pseudo-sciences (this article, unprovable as it is, being one). Nor would they conceive that it might probably not happen at all. Or how or why it might probably not happen at all...though people like me try to think of, reach to, and explain concepts of how and why.

 

[rod]

Atlan0101 in your post #44, you said "Relative to [a] Big Crunch, I want to know the scale of the "Big Bang." Not the scale used by any Big Banger whatsoever today. I want to know the scale according to the scale of the moment of the "Big Bang." I want the measure, and what the measuring object or instrumentation, against which the Big Bang was measured at its moment, on that day, that then proves the Big Bang as it is [theorized] today. It cannot be proved by any scale used on Earth here and now. Unless you can give me the measuring instrumentation, or object measured against, on and of that particular day (that particular moment) then I say you KNOW nothing ... and assume much!"

I agree with you The BB model does indeed *assume much*. The scale *of the moment of the "Big Bang"* is at the Planck level in the quantum world. Reference Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition, 2000. The Planck time is 5E-44 second and the Planck length 1.6E-35 meter, so a very tiny starting scale and area for the BB event The inflation epoch is just a bit larger than the Planck values.

You asked some good questions. Did someone using an instrument today, observe the events postulated in the BB model for these Planck times and lengths, at the beginning? No Much extrapolation is done to move from the initial starting conditions in the BB model at or near Planck levels to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observed today, and the CMBR is observable and measurable. Whether all the initial starting conditions invoked (e.g. repulsive gravity and inflaton field) can be validated using the CMBR, this is something I am not sure of. There is another side to this issue you raise about BB cosmology. We have the initial starting points that cannot be directly observed today, and we have much universe way beyond that astronomy today cannot see too. 'How Big Is the Universe?', https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

"We can only see a tiny, little bubble of [the universe]. And what's outside of that? We don't really know," Kinney said. But by calculating the size of that little bubble, scientists can estimate what's outside of it. Scientists know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million years. That means that an object whose light has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us should be the very farthest object we can see. You might be tempted to think that gives us an easy answer for the size of the universe: 13.8 billion light-years. But keep in mind that the universe is also continuously expanding at an increasing rate. In the amount of time that light has taken to reach us, the edge of the bubble has moved. Luckily, scientists know just how far it's moved: 46.5 billion light-years away, based on calculations of universe’s expansion since the big bang."

So Atlan0101, according to the BB model, the initial size and conditions (e.g. repulsive gravity) near the Planck levels for the universe *beginning*, cannot be observed today and much of the universe is said to exist far beyond where astronomers can see today too.

 

[Helio]

Something is happening in these *young star clusters*, they are also aging, following the 2nd Law

Sure, younger star clusters will have more metals, perhaps more so if they form in ellipticals, but that's just a guess. Recall that elliptical galaxy models, based on observations as well, are formed from constant mergers, often with spirals. [Finding large elliptical galaxies in the very early universe would be a problem for the BBT, btw, unless some surprising things happened back then.]

I assume you know I'm all in on the 2nd law when applied to specific activities, including galaxies and GC formations, etc. So, why are you emphasizing it? [It may apply to the entire universe as a whole, but physicists have pointed out that it may not. My guess is that it does.]

Repulsive gravity is not the same as Kepler's laws for elliptical motion, Newton's 3 laws of motion, Newton's law of gravity. I agree, *there is no conflict with inflationary repulsion and, much later, star formation" because repulsive gravity cannot be observed operating among the stars, in our solar system, or exoplanets and stars that have multiple exoplanets today (more than 700 stars now hosting multiple exoplanets) Apparently, repulsive gravity existed (if at all), only briefly in the beginning

Yes, that phase, or whatever it was, could only happen under those billions of degrees of temperature, or higher.

Helio you said, "Yes, there is nothing to counter the arrow of time's direction." I agree, and white dwarfs slowly evolving into black dwarfs follow the 2nd Law as the article in this thread is about that got some attention. H-R diagrams of star clusters follows the 2nd Law, the stars in the clusters - age.

Right.

 

[Atlan0001]

Rod, I'd like to know exactly where you got that 46.5 billion year figure. What scientists put that out because there is something hugely wrong here either with that figure or with the scientists' picture of the Universe itself?

Long, long, ago , when I was in high school I was told I'm intuitively mathematical when I would solve problems and get correct answers simply because I [saw] the problem in my mind differently from most people, then shortcut the formulas to the correct solution. I got graded up for correct answers and then promptly graded down for not following the correct formulas to get there. Later in life I was tested and classified as an innate (I think the word is) 'visual mathematician', which of course has little to do with formal mathematics. I [see] certain problems -- after taking in detail -- differently, and more quickly, than most people. And last night I woke from my sleep seeing what is wrong with that 46.5 billion year figure, and the physic thereof, you stated to me. I saw what's hugely wrong with the Universe picture itself, it would represent.

How to do this without screwing it up? We, right here and now, are on the surface of YOUR ballooning picture. We, right here and now are on the leading edge of YOUR accelerating expansion. From 0-point beginning it's not possible to have the Universe be a greater balloon 'ballooning' at 46.5 billion years (real time) outside of what would be our own inner and littler balloon at 11.4b to 13.8b years (relative time). The age of the Universe right where we are on the surface and leading edge regarding it would be 46.5 billion years old, not 13.8 billion years. They either got their picture entirely wrong, or the Universe was around (existing) about 32.5 billion to 35 billion years before those distant observed galaxies, stars, and so on ever showed up. Also, before our own local area of surface ballooning of the same Universe would ever have showed up.

YOUR "Big Bang Beginning" would have initiated 46.5 billion years ago (our own local time) as you and they should have it be, not 11.4b to 13.8b years ago so stated by so many. The real time [universal] clock always outruns the relative time clock. Without fail the relative time clock will be slower and fall behind because of the slowness of the speed of light. We, right here, right now, are on the real time [universal] clock (closest to its 0-point locally to the largest degree possible for the whole planet), not the relative time clock we observe the universe out there to be on going away descending in observed time (-) from us.

Like I said, Rod, I'd like to know exactly where, in what publication, you got that figure of 46.5 billion years. In your picture you put us in, or on the surface edge, of the littler bubble when actually we are at, on, the leading surface edge of the far greater bubble you pictured for me. Unless someone points out a mistake in what I see (I'm pretty certain they won't but I could be jumping to some conclusion I can't see with the data you supplied me), or what you stated to me if [you] see a mistake you might have made, I also want a moderator, unless you're a pro, to get involved in this to take it on up the line to be checked on. I haven't any credentials, period, with respect to physics and/or astronomy to do anything myself. If I turn out to be correct I don't mind at all relinquishing a ball I have no business carrying...passing it on for others (pros) to run with. I'd be satisfied just knowing a big correction is in being, in progress.

Once more, [we] are on that leading surface edge of your "...has moved." That movement and no other We exist, we live, nowhere else.

 

[Helio]

Infinity cannot be observed from a finite position or condition except in, or as, 'potential'. But infinity sure as hell can be banked up (closed up) in englobing horizon to a 'naked singularity'. A Horizon of all an infinity of horizons in such a naked singularity of depth...the 'flat' Horizon 'skin' of some illustrated "balloon" (one not having an "ant standing on the surface"). And that particular Horizon of all horizons (Universe of all universes) would be infinite in its depth of mass, thus also infinite/infinitesimal in its depth of hole / space / vacuum). The Universe (or Multiverse) has many more than one dimension.

Metaphysics is interesting, but has any of this been observed? The equations of physics, from what I've read, "lose all the wheels on the wagon" (infinity results) when at a singularity.

Relative to [a] Big Crunch entity and horizon, I want to know the scale of the physicists' "Big Bang." Not the scale used by any Big Banger whatsoever today. I want to know the scale according to the scale of the moment of the "Big Bang." I want the measure, and what the measuring object or instrumentation, against which the Big Bang was measured at its moment, on that day, that then proves the Big Bang as it is [theorized] here today. It cannot be proved by any scale used on Earth here and now.

Theories, like the BBT, can never be proved, but they make predictions, which can be falsified.

Many attempts have been made to falsify it. But they failed, so far. There are multiple lines of independent evidence, based on those predictions, that favor the BBT. This gives it great veracity.

Unless you can give me the measuring instrumentation, or object measured against, on and of that particular day (that particular moment) then I say you KNOW nothing ... and assume much! In sheer arrogance of [know-nothingness], an arrogance of assumption far too far. In all fairness I know there are many in that profession who do not take it at face value, who have a large measure of skepticism about it. But there are far too many (who like most priests of dark age Europe a thousand and more years ago having supposedly their proofs at hand of Creation) who do take it literally, religiously and fanatically.

In all fairness, wasn't that a bit harsh? You do know that it was a priest (Lemaitre -- father of the BBT) that saw the error of both Einstein's and deSitter's GR models, right? There are many strong arguments prior to Copernicus and Galileo that gave the Geocentric model favor over the heliocentric model of Aristarchus. Modern science is far better today at making progress by staying an objective-based system. If it strays, we will all suffer.

...It's like the story of Creation and, especially, the story of the tree at the center of Eden. It was nothing more than an extremely complex subject that was illustrated by great sages very simply for a very simple people,

Of all the suppositions possible on this topics, that's one of them. It could be the right one. But suppositions, including religious ones, aren't falsifiable else they would be scientific hypotheses.

...yet you've had millions of people throughout history go searching for that tree in the local woods. So millions would have no concept of an ending so far beyond their own local tomorrow.

I assume this is hyperbole. But if not, I would be interested in learning about their efforts as to why they bothered.

In the last century they have already acted upon it and its like coming from a religion of pseudo-sciences (this article, unprovable as it is, being one). Nor would they conceive that it might probably not happen at all. Or how or why it might probably not happen at all...though people like me try to think of, reach to, and explain concepts of how and why.

The why part is quite serious and just as interesting, but outside that which should be allowed in a science forum. What often is missing is the research as to why so many millions are so confident as to their position. Assuming it's just feelings or a desperate grab for hope is far from the truth.

 

[rod]

Atlan0101, you asked in post #47, "Rod, I'd like to know exactly where you got that 46.5 billion year figure. What scientists put that out because there is something hugely wrong here either with that figure or with the scientists' picture of the Universe itself?"

The figure of 46.5 billion light-years from Earth is in the livescience.com report I cited in post #45. However, the cosmology calculators will show this too, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html

I generally use on Calculator I. Using the defaults, flat universe, and z=1100 for the CMBR redshift, the comoving radial distance is 45.513 Gly distance while the Hubble time for the BB event is 13.72 billion years ago or 13.8 billion years ago, depending upon inputs for some of the other parameters in the calculator. Detailed equations I find in sources like Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Chapter 26 on cosmology discussing the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric and distance measures. In the BB model, the universe is expanding but objects with different z numbers or redshifts as observed from Earth, have light-travel-time to Earth or look back time (this is reported in the news), and then where the object should really exist at, the comoving radial distance . 3D space starts to expand faster than c in the BB model, thus you can get an outer limit area of 46.5 billion LY distance from Earth today. The inflation epoch has 3D space expanding > 1E+20 c during the *repulsive gravity* phase

However, I find two items in cosmology today that are amusing to me. In the BB model, the origin of the universe starts at a very tiny space, enormous density, temperature, and tiny unit of time measure that no one can observe today, and the outer edge of the expanding universe, is far far away that we cannot observe today either That includes many objects with large redshifts like some galaxies where z is 10 or 11, light-time distance or look back time to Earth. However, galaxies with z = 10 or 11, are much farther away on the comoving radial distance, and we cannot see them at those distances from Earth because of light-time

 

[Helio]

One way to help see the distance is to use your magic wand, freeze the universe, then use your long tape measure and travel to the most distant observable object -- the CMBR. Then add a little more distance for the expansion that took place during the ~380,000 years after the BB beginning. Subtract perhaps an inch to offset the variance between the inflation rate and a more linear one when inflation shoved the universe from an atom size, roughly, to that of about a grapefruit.

The inflation epoch has 3D space expanding > 1E+20 c during the *repulsive gravity* phase

Are you suggesting this has any real size effect on the universe? That "epoch" lasted perhaps only a trillionth of a second, perhaps much less.

However, I find two items in cosmology today that are amusing to me. In the BB model, the origin of the universe starts at a very tiny space, enormous density, temperature, and tiny unit of time measure that no one can observe today, and the outer edge of the expanding universe, is far far away that we cannot observe today either That includes many objects with large redshifts like some galaxies where z is 10 or 11, light-time distance or look back time to Earth. However, galaxies with z = 10 or 11, are much farther away on the comoving radial distance, and we cannot see them at those distances from Earth because of light-time

Okay. I like amusing stuff, so what am I missing?