String theory... Is this what could have created the universe?

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Would not a universe collapsing through contraction be a universe where entropy decreases as a whole ?</font><br /><br />Collapse would suggest that matter is broken down to smaller parts again, but not infinitely broken down. The entropy of such matter would be much higher compared to living things because the matter would be relatively homogeneous. Despite that, if not broken down entirely (which is probably impossible), then this entropy is still not infinite, and the collapsed matter therefore still exists - though in much higher entropy than living things. An advanced civilization can be thought of as having very low entropy. A primitive civilization like ours has relatively higher entropy. Life in itself is very low in entropy. Destruction is rather high in entropy, which increases with temperature.<br /><br />Entropy actually increases when things go below room temperature like they do when they reach exceeding temperatures. Life must operate at very low entropy. Protiens must operate at very low entropy. Protiens can denature at cold temperatures as well as high temperatures. A universe that has expanded too much would be high in entropy. Matter that has collapsed is also high in entropy.

 

[arit]

kmarina,<br /><br />"If masses were negative then masses would repel instead of attract each other because gravity is a function of mass"<br /><br />Well, you are not seeing my bigger picture: Our Newtonian gravity equation is -(G M M / R^2). The minus sign in front means that the masses attract each other.<br /><br />In a negative universe, the equation would be -(G -M -M / R^2). Since BOTH masses are negative, the multiplication (-1) * (-1) is 1, so it cancels each other. As I said before, the dwellers of such universe would have no clue as to their living in a negative universe.<br />However,<br />If you bring such mass to our universe, you get -(G M -M / r^2). This means that the whole result is POSITIVE, and then we could use it to fly.<br />You like it?<br /><br />zavy:<br />What? Can it be that you and I agree on something???????<br /><br /><br />Regards<br />arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

 

[jatslo]

TEMPTATION: This thread is making me stir; however, I do not have time to keep track of everything that is going on, with respect to the "Unification of Everything".<br /><br />I think it would be cool, if we could focus all our energy into one point of space-time, i.e. one thread...<br /><br />There is a lot of diversity at Space.com, and we should find a way to harness its power, to do this we would have to all get on the same page, or the same thread.<br />Think about it. We might actually accomplish something meaningful, and beneficial to humanity.<br /><br />For example, there are String Theory Threads, Tachyon Threads, Time Travel Threads, QM Tunneling Threads, etc. How can we possibly keep up with all the threads?<br />Some of you might say that this is simply writing on the bathroom wall, but is more than that, much more.<br /><br />TEAMWORK: Work done by a number of associates each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.<br /><br />Think about it. We are all contributing to what? What are we all trying to do? What is the big picture? We want to know what? Why are we here? etc..<br /><br />Is there a God? Is there a String? Is there a Tachyon?<br /><br /><br />UNIFICATION: The act, process, or result of unifying; the state of being unified:<br /><br />We are strongest in vast numbers, POWER TO THE PEOPLE!<br /><br />The Internet makes this possible. Is it morally and ethically wrong to call a string or tachyon something when 95% of the Earth's population refers to "GOD"?<br /><br />Maybe we should focus on a thread simply titled "UNIFICATION", and if power trips and competitions come into play, we could default to seniority, as in Comet, Planet, Star, Solar System, Universe, or whatever. <br /><br />Who is with me?<br /><br />Not a source, just signing my name ;o)<br />--- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">In a negative universe, the equation would be -(G -M -M / R^2). Since BOTH masses are negative, the multiplication (-1) * (-1) is 1, so it cancels each other. As I said before, the dwellers of such universe would have no clue as to their living in a negative universe.</font><br /><br />How do you know that mass can be negative? If mass were imaginary then gravity would be reverse. But mass is not imaginary. Some physical formulas require that mass be positive because you cannot have a square root of a negative mass.<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="root+of+the+mass"<br /><br />1) <font color="yellow">the length of the oscillation period is proportional to the square root of the mass</font><br /><br />2) <font color="yellow">The speed is also proportional to the square root of the mass of the object<br />being orbited</font><br /><br />Rates and Lengths cannot be proportional the square root of a negative mass.

 

[thechemist]

<font color="yellow">Collapse would suggest that matter is broken down to smaller parts again, but not infinitely broken down.</font><br /><br />kmarinas86, you have misunderstood. Universe collapse suggests the opposite of expansion.<br />Expansion is what is happening to the universe right now according to present scientific knowledge.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[thechemist]

kmar please...<br />try to understand the difference between "negative" and "imaginary" numbers before continuing your diatribe.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">try to understand the difference between "negative" and "imaginary" numbers before continuing your diatribe.. </font><br /><br />I understand what imaginary numbers are. It is you that needs to understand what I'm saying.<br /><br />sorry... but, everybody is not reading me correctly today!

 

[kmarinas86]

Mass cannot be negative. Period. There's no erred logic in that. You cannot have a square root of a negative mass - that is imaginary. The pendulum formula cannot be imaginary (though it has a square root in it), so the mass involved with that system cannot be negative! <br /><br />If a negative mass existed it would have an imaginary escape velocity - and that's not possible!

 

[arit]

yevaud,<br />Well, I try, but I don't see why entropy would flow backwards. If you remember the entropy equation:<br /><br />S = Q[joules]/T[deg]<br /><br />S is the entropy, Q is the heat content of the system, and T is the temperature of the system.<br /><br />I don't see any of the basic universal constants in here (even hidden inside the jouls definition). So entropy would flow forwards... correct me if I am wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Regards<br /><br />arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

 

[arit]

kmarina<br /><br />"How do you know that mass can be negative? "<br /><br />I don't. I don't know that mass can be negative. I would like to believe so. Regarding your square root example: As I said before, if you take the minus sign to outside of the parenthesis, you can take the square root of it. My hypotetical parenthesis is the negative universe.<br /><br />And this is all speculation. Nothing proved yet. So don't worry too much.<br /><br />Regards<br />arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

 

[thechemist]

arit,<br />It's entropy changes, S(final) - S(starting), that have to be negative or positive.<br />Your equation is correct for the absolute entropy of a system.<br />cheers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[arit]

chemist,<br />You are right. S(final) AND S(starting) are non dependant of negative constants, the Delta will be positive. Correct? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:6pt;color:#009999"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'">"We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal<br /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#009999;font-family:'CourierNew'"><br /></span></strong></p></span></strong></strong></font></span></span> </div>

 

[yevaud]

KMarinas:<br /><br />Entropy has noting to do with life, except peripherally (in fact, who knows? That may be our purpose - to counter entropy, and bring organiaztion). <b>Everything</b>, whether dead or alive, contributes to it.<br /><br />The total amount of energy present in a system - the universe - is fixed. It can be transformed, of course, but there can't be any additional inputted into the system. Now negative entropy, by definition as you've hypothesized it, would tend towards a constant <b>increase</b> towards organization. Where's the energy going to come from?<br /><br />And String theory, in the context you made reference to it, has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Chemist: <font color="yellow">Would not a universe collapsing through contraction be a universe where entropy decreases as a whole ?</font><br /><br />That's a really good question. I'll have to think about that one. My belief is "no," but...<br /><br />Arit: well, that has to do with, I believe, the initial conditions, yes? Entropy is time-dependent. If time flowed backwards (which is stated as a condition for this hypothetical "negative" universe), entropy would have to do so also. That'd violate the conservation of energy, I'd think. You'd be getting work for nothing. In fact, wouldn't everything have to be doing so - tending towards organization from disorganization, yes?<br /><br />I don't know. This is one of those "my head hurts" kind of discussions.<br /><br />Arrgh! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

It draws its energy from itself. Very complex!<br /><br />No time to get into it.<br /><br />---Jatslo

 

[kmarinas86]

http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy1.html<br /><br />Here's something about "entropy"<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In classical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system is the ratio of heat content to temperature (equation 1), and the change in entropy represents the amount of energy input to the system which does not participate in mechanical work done by the system (equation 3). In statistical mechanics, the interpretation is more general perhaps, where the entropy becomes a function of statistical probability. In that case the entropy is a measure of the probability for a givem macrostate, so that a high entropy indicates a high probability state, and a low entropy indicates a low probability state (equation 6). </font><br /><br />When I talked entropy of "life" and "death" I was probably using the general idea of entropy in "statistical mechanics". <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Entropy is also sometimes confused with complexity, the idea being that a more complex system must have a higher entropy. In fact, that is in all liklihood the opposite of reality. A system in a highly complex state is probably far from equilibrium and in a low entropy (improbable) state, where the equilibrium state would be simpler, less complex, and higher entropy.</font><br /><br />This fits in well with my idea that life has low entropy and that death has a high entropy that levels off with the enviornment's level of entropy.