- Status
Our universe may have a twin that runs backward in time
A mirror universe that runs backward in time sprouted up before the Big Bang. Our universe may have a twin that runs backward in time : Read more
"if one can suggest an anti-universe running backwards in time from the big bang, then I would have thought that a real phase of the same Universe passing through a nexus immediately before the Big Bang, instead of a Big Nothing, or a Big Anti Backwards, would have been much more palatable as a model."
Cat
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
This theory still does not solve everything though, it still does not describe the starting point of the "backwards universe" or the ending point of our universe and does not solve the problem of entropy or singularity.
I think it is a bit presumptuous of the human race, on our tiny little ant hill, to believe we can fathom out what makes the Sun shine. Maybe some things are beyond our comprehension, but it won't stop us trying.
With the cyclic model, there is a nexus instead of a singularity. The difference between the models is whether the (phase) Universe comes out of the nexus "backwards" or "forwards". I am sure you do not mean that broken glasses jump off the floor and refill with water. Both models have entropy difficulties, but it is my guess that the fault is with entropy. Is entropy measured by the ability to do useful work, or by the degree of disorder? It may be as simple as the direction of most options. A broken glass has more opportunity to disperse the broken pieces, than to reform. It us suggested that it is not impossible to reform - just as unlikely as all the air molecules gathering together in the corner of a room.
I am unsure about the so-called BB. On the one hand, entropy should be minimum, so that it can only increase. On the other hand, it was at high density and pressure (though not infinite) and thus the very opposite of uniform temperature heat death. What do you think?
Cat
P.S. If you go 'backwards' from the BB, are you not in a perpetual 'cycle' of reverberation backwards and forwards between BBs. Since your 'backwards' must be qualitatively the same as forwards (no broken glasses reforming) then it is a moot point as to whether there is any difference between a cyclic Universe or a reverberating Universe. Both would come out of a complete mix up (singularity/nexus) and proceed indistinguishably towards the next. No?
With the cyclic model, there is a nexus instead of a singularity. The difference between the models is whether the (phase) Universe comes out of the nexus "backwards" or "forwards". I am sure you do not mean that broken glasses jump off the floor and refill with water. Both models have entropy difficulties, but it is my guess that the fault is with entropy. Is entropy measured by the ability to do useful work, or by the degree of disorder? It may be as simple as the direction of most options. A broken glass has more opportunity to disperse the broken pieces, than to reform. It us suggested that it is not impossible to reform - just as unlikely as all the air molecules gathering together in the corner of a room.
I am unsure about the so-called BB. On the one hand, entropy should be minimum, so that it can only increase. On the other hand, it was at high density and pressure (though not infinite) and thus the very opposite of uniform temperature heat death. What do you think?
Cat
P.S. If you go 'backwards' from the BB, are you not in a perpetual 'cycle' of reverberation backwards and forwards between BBs. Since your 'backwards' must be qualitatively the same as forwards (no broken glasses reforming) then it is a moot point as to whether there is any difference between a cyclic Universe or a reverberating Universe. Both would come out of a complete mix up (singularity/nexus) and proceed indistinguishably towards the next. No?
Last edited:
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Cat, I have a few questions.
Where exactly is(are) the "lagrange" point(s) of nexus(es?) in the cycle of the Universe? Does that refer to the point(s) where entropy is the maximum and where it is the least? I mean, the point where time starts to go backward instead of forward and vice versa. And, at what entropy are those points located at? Is there a maximum and minimum limit of entropy except infinity and zero?
And I like the idea in the P.S., that makes it easier for me to imagine it as a huge donut.
Where exactly is(are) the "lagrange" point(s) of nexus(es?) in the cycle of the Universe? Does that refer to the point(s) where entropy is the maximum and where it is the least? I mean, the point where time starts to go backward instead of forward and vice versa. And, at what entropy are those points located at? Is there a maximum and minimum limit of entropy except infinity and zero?
And I like the idea in the P.S., that makes it easier for me to imagine it as a huge donut.
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
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
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
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
And I doubt if there is a maximum amount of entropy possible because as space expands, there will be more and more space to allocate matter, and there is always a chance of a different arrangement of particles. And yes, we still have that problem of a "beginning" of the Universe, as even if the Universe starts in backward-time (?) or in advance-time (?), it still needs to start. I still can't imagine a universe without a start, it would be great if you can help me imagine it.
IG, your timing is fortuitous. I have just finished this for another thread, but not yet sent it. I usually think a lot before I send difficult posts. I don't know whether it halps?
"In view of the adoption of ‘useful fudge factors’ are we really in any position to categorically rule out the word “cyclic”. Coming back to Korzybski, verbal plasters may only cover over the chasms in understanding, Maybe ‘cyclic’ evokes unhelpful connotations. Maybe we should be thinking of a Universe where mere words like ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ have no cosmic meaning. I think it is sometimes a failing, as well as a blessing, that homo sapiens insists on ‘knowing all about everything’. His quest for truth may result in his ignorance. Is the Universe, whatever it is, a closed system? And are we addressing only the <5%?"
Cat
"In view of the adoption of ‘useful fudge factors’ are we really in any position to categorically rule out the word “cyclic”. Coming back to Korzybski, verbal plasters may only cover over the chasms in understanding, Maybe ‘cyclic’ evokes unhelpful connotations. Maybe we should be thinking of a Universe where mere words like ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ have no cosmic meaning. I think it is sometimes a failing, as well as a blessing, that homo sapiens insists on ‘knowing all about everything’. His quest for truth may result in his ignorance. Is the Universe, whatever it is, a closed system? And are we addressing only the <5%?"
Cat
Last edited:
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
That is an interesting food for thought, Cat.
Although I don't understand the "<5" part about what you are referring to (maybe that's a reference to the thread you are posting it in), I get the gist of it. But I do get that you are proposing that the Universe is not "the Universe", it's now "a universe" if it's not a closed system (the penultimate sentence). I would like to know more about that.
Although I don't understand the "<5" part about what you are referring to (maybe that's a reference to the thread you are posting it in), I get the gist of it. But I do get that you are proposing that the Universe is not "the Universe", it's now "a universe" if it's not a closed system (the penultimate sentence). I would like to know more about that.
IG,
1. the <5% relates to baryonic matter in the (one and only) Universe. My bad - the % sign was missing.
It may well be, in the future, the word Universe may be replaced with some word like protoverse, or fractoverse, reserving Universe for "all there is". Until that day, discussions on Cosmology will be plagued with words which mean different things to different people, and anarchy will result. (Vide Korzybski).
2. "But I do get that you are proposing that the Universe is not "the Universe", - wherever did you get that from?
" it's now "a universe" - wherever did you get that from?
"if it's not a closed system".
Ah! I see what you mean. My bad. I did not explain well. I meant that the 'phase' - each bit *, between BB-*-BH-*-BB-*-BH, was only an element of the whole Universe, which, of course, is a closed system.
Cat
1. the <5% relates to baryonic matter in the (one and only) Universe. My bad - the % sign was missing.
It may well be, in the future, the word Universe may be replaced with some word like protoverse, or fractoverse, reserving Universe for "all there is". Until that day, discussions on Cosmology will be plagued with words which mean different things to different people, and anarchy will result. (Vide Korzybski).
2. "But I do get that you are proposing that the Universe is not "the Universe", - wherever did you get that from?
" it's now "a universe" - wherever did you get that from?
"if it's not a closed system".
Ah! I see what you mean. My bad. I did not explain well. I meant that the 'phase' - each bit *, between BB-*-BH-*-BB-*-BH, was only an element of the whole Universe, which, of course, is a closed system.
Cat
IG,
"because space itself doesn't really exist without any effect of matter in it."
Does this mean that the odd molecules (per cubic km) in space are sufficient to prevent instantaneous transport between here and alpha Centauri?
(Once out of the SS, of course.)
Cat
OK, more than the odd few, but are these enough?
"
The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 106 particles per m3, but cold molecular clouds can hold 108–1012 per m3. A number of molecules exist in interstellar space, as can tiny 0.1 μm dust particles."
Outer space - Wikipedia
Is it a concentration effect? Fewer particles, less space?
"because space itself doesn't really exist without any effect of matter in it."
Does this mean that the odd molecules (per cubic km) in space are sufficient to prevent instantaneous transport between here and alpha Centauri?
(Once out of the SS, of course.)
Cat
OK, more than the odd few, but are these enough?
"
The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 106 particles per m3, but cold molecular clouds can hold 108–1012 per m3. A number of molecules exist in interstellar space, as can tiny 0.1 μm dust particles."
Outer space - Wikipedia
Is it a concentration effect? Fewer particles, less space?
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
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.
Anyway, coming to the concept of having no end or having no beginning - that sounds like a concept as old as Science, even older, Natural Philosophy, even older, Philosophy. And, yet... I still cannot imagine or comprehend the Universe without a beginning, maybe I can understand it without an end, but without a beginning is something beyond my senses. 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, I am not inclined to argue for the former. Moreover, remember Occam's razor? "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". One can argue how the Universe having no beginning or/and no end is subject to Occam's razor. Well, I say that a Universe without a beginning or/and end goes on infinitely, and that basically multiplies the entities... infinitely.
IG,
" but the opposite, everything can be understood or perceived by humans, can also be argued as true."
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?
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.
I don't see how you can argue that away.
Cat
" but the opposite, everything can be understood or perceived by humans, can also be argued as true."
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?
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.
I don't see how you can argue that away.
Cat
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
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 would say that we don't know, rather than don't understand.
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?
"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?
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
Cktc,
The problem is that science, by its very nature, functions by making observations, constructing experiments, and feeding the results through models to theories.
The problem is that non-physical phenomena are not amenable to the scientific method, and thus cannot be studied. They cannot be produced to order to enable stuy.
I agree with you, it would be very nice to have some data to confirm and study. Roll on the day!
Cat
,
The problem is that science, by its very nature, functions by making observations, constructing experiments, and feeding the results through models to theories.
The problem is that non-physical phenomena are not amenable to the scientific method, and thus cannot be studied. They cannot be produced to order to enable stuy.
I agree with you, it would be very nice to have some data to confirm and study. Roll on the day!
Cat
,
iconoclast
BANNED
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
And I hope someone illuminates your capacious darkness . . . .
"And I hope someone illuminates your capacious darkness . . . . "
The position is vacant if you wish to apply . . . . . . . . .
This is what I am looking for . . . . . . . . .
"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).
Cat
The position is vacant if you wish to apply . . . . . . . . .
This is what I am looking for . . . . . . . . .
"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).
Cat
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are there because we can see their effects plainly, so something must be there.
Looking at every rotating galaxy out there, the outer edge rotates just as fast as the inner areas. Only a bunch of unseen mass could explain this.
There are multiple lines of evidence showing the acceleration of large red shift galaxies. This could only be explained by a bunch of energy floating around out there repelling them.
As I understand it, Dark Matter interacts with normal Baryonic matter only through the force of gravity. It is not charged, does not interact with the EM force and I suppose would not be involved in the "matter - antimatter" battle.
Looking at every rotating galaxy out there, the outer edge rotates just as fast as the inner areas. Only a bunch of unseen mass could explain this.
There are multiple lines of evidence showing the acceleration of large red shift galaxies. This could only be explained by a bunch of energy floating around out there repelling them.
As I understand it, Dark Matter interacts with normal Baryonic matter only through the force of gravity. It is not charged, does not interact with the EM force and I suppose would not be involved in the "matter - antimatter" battle.
iconoclast
BANNED
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
Yes, I agree, this thread has maximum entropy . . . .
iconoclast
BANNED
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. . . .
iconoclast
BANNED
Well, perhaps it will help if you would kindly clarify what is that meaning.
Cat
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 . . . .
Dr. G.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram