TBH, expansion is not really the hardest question. We all know Newton and his laws. Newton's first law states that if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. So, it is not hard to assume that almost a half of the total matter/antimatter started in motion and the other (almost) half started in rest and that led to expansion of spacetime, because space itself doesn't really exist without any effect of matter in it.QUOTE
chapter10.pdf (mit.edu)
The Principle of Maximum Entropy is carried out by finding α, β, and all p(Ai) such that L is made the largest. These values of p(Ai) also make S the largest it can be, subject to the constraints. By introducing two new variables, we have (surprisingly) simplified the problem so that all the quantities of interest can be expressed in terms of one of the variables, and a procedure can be followed to find that one.
QUOTE
I don't have enough information to answer your Lagrange question and I don't know how to get it. I don't know what variables could be increased. Any ideas?
HOWEVER, I have found this which may solve my problem.
Ask Ethan: What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? (forbes.com)
"At the moment of the Big Bang, almost all of the entropy was due to radiation, and the total entropy of the Universe was S = 1088kB. On the other hand, if we calculate the entropy of the Universe today, it's about a quadrillion times as large: S = 10103kB. 15 Apr 2017"
Ask Ethan: What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big .
Maybe the entropy is high enough to accommodate the ability to do work (at t = 0 in the nexus) but still able to increase as the Universe developed.
We then have the interesting question: If the + / - funded the inflation, how and where does entropy come into the picture.
Disregarding this, maybe the entropy was low at t = 0, but the + / - (coming from nowhere??) was sufficient to kickstart the expansion?
Difficult stuff.
Cat
Not exactly... I am referring to the hypothesis that spacetime didn't exist before the Big Bang, that is, when matter and antimatter started to exist. The point is, if there is no matter, then there is no space or time relative to anything, as absolute space or absolute time or absolute spacetime doesn't exist.Is it a concentration effect? Fewer particles, less space?
I think I misworded (is that a word? What is a word anyway, anything that is considered to be?) in that sentence. "Realised" would be a better word.I definitely do not agree with that. There were things now perceived via infrared cameras, and by most sorts of EMR. And look at microwaves - how useful they are. Well, you can say that we have invented ways to 'see' these. But how about other vibrations we are unaware of. Maybe there is a guy in Andromeda with a space loudspeaker yelling "Is there anybody there?
I would say that we don't know, rather than don't understand.As far as understanding is concerned, have you not said, or implied, that we do not understand the origin of the Universe? I would say that we are unequipped to understand the beginning and end of the Universe.
What about:
"Well, one can argue that not everything has to be understood or perceived by humans to be true, but the opposite, everything can be understood or perceived by humans, can also be argued as true. And, as we have not yet succinctly and perfectly proven anything that exists and is beyond human understanding, "
What about the part of the Universe beyond our view (and more disappearing through expansion?
And I hope someone illuminates your capacious darkness . . . .There is an interesting question in the latest (Issue 128) of All About Space, which arrived today.
"Where did the antimatter go?! I have some suggestions.
Antimatter and matter are supposed to have occurred in comparable quantities - how do we think we are able to even suggest this when our existence is supposed to be limited to <5% of the observed universe (small u)? My question.
If what we have left is just the marginal remainder of matter/antimatter explosion, then the BB must have been horrendously bigger than we seem to think. Maybe it was this +/- matter mutual destruction which 'funded' inflation? My question.
Does anyone know anything about +/- matter mutual destruction involving dark matter/energy? (I don't).
Are dark matter and dark energy energy just ad hoc assumptions (polite names for 'fudge factors'?) or are they important enough to be brought into +/- matter mutual destruction - and, if so, how? My question).
Yours, one seeking illumination to lighten my darkness, no matter how . . . . . . . . .
Cat
Yes, I agree, this thread has maximum entropy . . . .QUOTE
chapter10.pdf (mit.edu)
The Principle of Maximum Entropy is carried out by finding α, β, and all p(Ai) such that L is made the largest. These values of p(Ai) also make S the largest it can be, subject to the constraints. By introducing two new variables, we have (surprisingly) simplified the problem so that all the quantities of interest can be expressed in terms of one of the variables, and a procedure can be followed to find that one.
QUOTE
I don't have enough information to answer your Lagrange question and I don't know how to get it. I don't know what variables could be increased. Any ideas?
HOWEVER, I have found this which may solve my problem.
Ask Ethan: What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? (forbes.com)
"At the moment of the Big Bang, almost all of the entropy was due to radiation, and the total entropy of the Universe was S = 1088kB. On the other hand, if we calculate the entropy of the Universe today, it's about a quadrillion times as large: S = 10103kB. 15 Apr 2017"
Ask Ethan: What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big .
Maybe the entropy is high enough to accommodate the ability to do work (at t = 0 in the nexus) but still able to increase as the Universe developed.
We then have the interesting question: If the + / - funded the inflation, how and where does entropy come into the picture.
Disregarding this, maybe the entropy was low at t = 0, but the + / - (coming from nowhere??) was sufficient to kickstart the expansion?
Difficult stuff.
Cat
I really don't think catastrophe quite understood the meaning of this comment . . . not the least of which is that it can also pertain to many of his postings. . . .Yes, I agree, this thread has maximum entropy . . . .
Entropy is generally defined to the layman as meaning disorder, and that is quite close to the complete physics meaning. Your postings, their logic and thinking are expressions of maximum entropy. Hope you don't need the dots put even closer together . . . .Well, perhaps it will help if you would kindly clarify what is that meaning.
Cat