What is the nature of entropy ?
- Thread starter Curiosity killed the cat
- Start date
No, entropy will not decrease in a shrinking universe, entropy increases continuously in any closed system. It could not go the other way unless the arrow of time was reversed.
Last edited:
I agree with time progressing in one direction, meaning that the arrow of time is irreversible, but as both Einstein and Makowski said we must stop thinking of space and time as being separate phenomenon. In reality they form a single phenomenon known as the space-time continuum. Our universe, which is also our reality, is currently going through a phase of metric expansion and as our universe gets more voluminous, things within it get more dispersed, which sounds very much like entropy to me. If the expansion of our universe stopped and it entered a phase of contraction, all that the universe contains would come back toward the point from which it originated ie the singular event, or as most people know it the singularity this sounds very much like neg entropy to me.
If you were making a return journey to the moon you would be going forward on the outbound leg and also forward on the return leg, so time still elapses normally regardless of the direction through space taken, and unless Einstein got it wrong the fabric of spacetimeis not rigid, it can be curved stretched compressed or expanded, with gravitation being an end result.
I am familiar with the text book explanation, or should I say"non explanation" of the cause and nature of entropy, But as with the nature of the proposed singularity which supposedly initiated the evolution of our universe it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If you were making a return journey to the moon you would be going forward on the outbound leg and also forward on the return leg, so time still elapses normally regardless of the direction through space taken, and unless Einstein got it wrong the fabric of spacetimeis not rigid, it can be curved stretched compressed or expanded, with gravitation being an end result.
I am familiar with the text book explanation, or should I say"non explanation" of the cause and nature of entropy, But as with the nature of the proposed singularity which supposedly initiated the evolution of our universe it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Entropy is unlike forms of energy that can be increased or decreased. Entropy can only go in one direction as long as time is progressing in the usual direction. Entropy increases on your outbound journey and it increases on your inbound journey. It is a measure of disorder and when you consider all the inputs to the equation it always increases. Please note the caveat - this must be a closed system. That means that while your house can lose entropy by cleaning it, when you add in the loss of entropy from the outside world that arranged to clean it the net number is always an increase.
According to the Penrose model, there will be an end to the universe when the last particle converts to energy. With no particles there can be no sequence of events thus no time. The universe will start over.
According to the Penrose model, there will be an end to the universe when the last particle converts to energy. With no particles there can be no sequence of events thus no time. The universe will start over.
When spacetime expands all the energy and matter contained within it is dispersed,,.
If spacetime was contracting though, all the energy space and time would be scrunched together until it annihilated. Like a big bang in reverse.
I have the greatest respect for Roger Penrose, but he is a mere mortal like you and I, so I reserve the right to question even him. Could you tell me why it is he might believe that our universe evolved from a space-less time-less dimension? maybe he and I are on the same page. as I believe that too.
If spacetime was contracting though, all the energy space and time would be scrunched together until it annihilated. Like a big bang in reverse.
I have the greatest respect for Roger Penrose, but he is a mere mortal like you and I, so I reserve the right to question even him. Could you tell me why it is he might believe that our universe evolved from a space-less time-less dimension? maybe he and I are on the same page. as I believe that too.
I'm off to bed now as I have an early start tomorrow, but I will leave you with this thought. Where does the dark energy paradox fit in the scheme of ever increasing entropy?
I can only tell you what I have read. I don't understand the "why" so probably can't answer any questions:
- As we go farther back in time, things get more dense and they get hotter.
- This ends at about 10^-43 second, when the universe is 10-^35 meters across and the temperature is 10^32°K. Atthis temperature the particle wavelength becomes smaller than the wavelength of the energy surrounding it so the particle cannot get any hotter.
- We don't know the physics prior to that.
- Prior to zero seconds there was no time.
- When the last particle disappears (ca 10^100 years) there will be no way to have an event thus there will be no time. Entropy goes back to zero and it all starts over again.
- As we go farther back in time, things get more dense and they get hotter.
- This ends at about 10^-43 second, when the universe is 10-^35 meters across and the temperature is 10^32°K. Atthis temperature the particle wavelength becomes smaller than the wavelength of the energy surrounding it so the particle cannot get any hotter.
- We don't know the physics prior to that.
- Prior to zero seconds there was no time.
- When the last particle disappears (ca 10^100 years) there will be no way to have an event thus there will be no time. Entropy goes back to zero and it all starts over again.
The total of positive (+) and negative (-) energy is zero (0). Zero balanced, net (and Stephen Hawking said it was nothing to worry over since the universe was, apparently, never anywhere but there regarding mass-energy). The collapse, the return (verse (turn)), from the supercooled lumpy complex-buildout is always back to the superheated mass-energetic 'Wild', a. k. a. "Flatland" (the smoothly flat Universe (U) ('1') (is it particle or wave? || is it point or plane?)). Supercooled buildout to complex 'lumpy'-ness is always in progress. Collapse, return, to the boiling cauldron ((Planck) BC/BB) of the superheated (mass-energetic) 'Wild' is always in progress. Since all blackholes throughout space and time (throughout all space / throughout all time) also 'jet', is the (Planck) BC (M) / BB (E) "point" of Universe or "plane" of Universe?
The Cosmological Constant is Base2 base, '0' and/or '1'. The infinity constant, as I see it, is '1' (to include '-1').
Also (t=0) and/or (t=1). Albert Einstein didn't include "Now (t=0)" in his entity of "past (-) > future (+)" (pasts (-) > futures (+)). And certainly not "Infinity (t=1)." So, mathematician-logician Kurt Godel pointed out to him the other side, the alternative side, of that particular coin and its omission, 'future (+) > past (-)' ('futures (+) > pasts (-)' ("history is -- histories are -- always repeating in large aspect, though rarely in small detail" (history, time, in context of Chaos Theory, is always "self-similar"))). Einstein apparently never disputed his friend and walking buddy's realization of the possibility. We observe, locally and representatively, collapses and returns to the mass-energetic primordial 'Wild' (the Base), in just about everything domestic or civilized, or become massively complex, all the time.
"Entropy" is literally fr. 'trope' or gk. 'tropos'. In-turn or 'to-turn'; or 'in change' or 'to change'. Entropy regarding the Universe (U) and universes (u) is not the one-way street too many physicists would have us have believe it to be. We, in copying the universes (u), literally produce entropy in everything we produce. The Universe (U) is always reversing the coolly lumpy production and collapsing it back down to the hot flat smooth base . . . a never-ending process, always both ways turning, of provision.
The Cosmological Constant is Base2 base, '0' and/or '1'. The infinity constant, as I see it, is '1' (to include '-1').
Also (t=0) and/or (t=1). Albert Einstein didn't include "Now (t=0)" in his entity of "past (-) > future (+)" (pasts (-) > futures (+)). And certainly not "Infinity (t=1)." So, mathematician-logician Kurt Godel pointed out to him the other side, the alternative side, of that particular coin and its omission, 'future (+) > past (-)' ('futures (+) > pasts (-)' ("history is -- histories are -- always repeating in large aspect, though rarely in small detail" (history, time, in context of Chaos Theory, is always "self-similar"))). Einstein apparently never disputed his friend and walking buddy's realization of the possibility. We observe, locally and representatively, collapses and returns to the mass-energetic primordial 'Wild' (the Base), in just about everything domestic or civilized, or become massively complex, all the time.
"Entropy" is literally fr. 'trope' or gk. 'tropos'. In-turn or 'to-turn'; or 'in change' or 'to change'. Entropy regarding the Universe (U) and universes (u) is not the one-way street too many physicists would have us have believe it to be. We, in copying the universes (u), literally produce entropy in everything we produce. The Universe (U) is always reversing the coolly lumpy production and collapsing it back down to the hot flat smooth base . . . a never-ending process, always both ways turning, of provision.
Last edited:
I'm not at your level, but I might aswer this question though...
I know little about entropy, but returning to the basics sometimes may help: entropy meansures the disorder, and the more the disorder the more equilibrium there is in a close system. Matter always tends to occupy space in the most "confortable" way, so the system with matter inside it always tends to create equilibrium.
I don't know if this may help, but I did my best...
I know little about entropy, but returning to the basics sometimes may help: entropy meansures the disorder, and the more the disorder the more equilibrium there is in a close system. Matter always tends to occupy space in the most "confortable" way, so the system with matter inside it always tends to create equilibrium.
I don't know if this may help, but I did my best...
Yes, entropy is a measure of the amount of heat in a system that is not available to do work. If you have a closed box with two beakers of water, one hot and one cold, you can do work as the hot beaker cools down and the cool beaker heats up. The entropy of the system is the temperature of the cold beaker times the mass of both. When they end up at the same temperature the entropy is the absolute temperature of both times the mass of both. That number will always be higher than the first number and no amount of machination can change that.
Nicely put. Imagine if energy from the colder beaker did actually transfer to the hotter, then the entropy of both the system and the universe would decrease. But this never happens, hence the 2nd law always works in closed systems.
I love the saying, "Heat won't flow from a cooler to a hotter. You can try if you like, but you far better notter!"
Which comes (came) first, the chicken or the egg? I have it as the chicken is in the egg and the egg is in the chicken (Schrodinger's cat) (superposition).
But you are talking "closed system," making sure to qualify, thank goodness. That makes all the difference. An absolute difference. "Hence the 2nd law always works in closed systems."
I work in both systems, closed and open, at once. The Universe (U) I model is (altogether) the Big Mirror, the "immovable object" that mirrors to infinities of universes within (instantaneously opening to infinities within a naked singularity (is it closed system or open? Or 'superposition' binary? Is it "point" or "plane"?). I attempt to picture and model the 'irresistible force' intrinsic in -- intrinsic to -- the 'immovable object' of Universe (U).
The Planck heat level of the Universe (U) is the Big Crunch / Big Bang ((Planck) BC (M) / BB (E)) mass-energy heat level of the Universe (U). And it isn't going anywhere in space and/or time . . . it is a universal base constant! "A never-ending process, always both ways turning, of provision." It applies as much to the uppermost horizon limits of the macrocosm as it does to the lowermost horizon limits of the microcosm. One and the same constant of "horizon."
But you are talking "closed system," making sure to qualify, thank goodness. That makes all the difference. An absolute difference. "Hence the 2nd law always works in closed systems."
I work in both systems, closed and open, at once. The Universe (U) I model is (altogether) the Big Mirror, the "immovable object" that mirrors to infinities of universes within (instantaneously opening to infinities within a naked singularity (is it closed system or open? Or 'superposition' binary? Is it "point" or "plane"?). I attempt to picture and model the 'irresistible force' intrinsic in -- intrinsic to -- the 'immovable object' of Universe (U).
The Planck heat level of the Universe (U) is the Big Crunch / Big Bang ((Planck) BC (M) / BB (E)) mass-energy heat level of the Universe (U). And it isn't going anywhere in space and/or time . . . it is a universal base constant! "A never-ending process, always both ways turning, of provision." It applies as much to the uppermost horizon limits of the macrocosm as it does to the lowermost horizon limits of the microcosm. One and the same constant of "horizon."
Last edited:
The egg came first. All mutations occur at the moment the two strands of DNA are joined, this can only occur inside an egg at the moment of conception. Chicken has nothing to do with it.
Because as Einstein said... Nothing can happen until something moves. Having a somewhere where something can move is an essential component of
reality. Motion is a simultaneous progression through space and time (space-time) so the somewhere required is space-time
Neither space or time have any physicality, because they are concepts, but when combined in a single phenomenon which we call the space-time continuum, they can be the cause of physical effects. Temporal progression, (or time as we usually refer to it, ) by its very nature, progresses... That progression can be outward from a point which is expansion. (The phase our universe is currently going through. ) or, in a universe which has already reached the limit of possible expansion, the progression is from the outer limit of the expansion, toward the origin of the expansion, I.E. the singularity. the progression of time alone would be meaningless, but because time alone, cannot exist, the three dimensions of distance, AKA space, which along with time make up the space-time continuum, must also progress. that progression of distances mirrors the progression of time in either direction, resulting in either an instance of expanding or an instance of contracting space-time
Non physical concepts such as space and time don't need a pre existing time or place to exist within, together they make up their own time and place, so , as with virtual particles can likely pop into and out of existence spontaneously
I'm not a betting man, but if I thought I would live long enough to claim my winnings I would wager that dark energy is an effect of time. However, proving that it is, will make the search for the Higgs boson, seem like a Sunday morning stroll in the park.
reality. Motion is a simultaneous progression through space and time (space-time) so the somewhere required is space-time
Neither space or time have any physicality, because they are concepts, but when combined in a single phenomenon which we call the space-time continuum, they can be the cause of physical effects. Temporal progression, (or time as we usually refer to it, ) by its very nature, progresses... That progression can be outward from a point which is expansion. (The phase our universe is currently going through. ) or, in a universe which has already reached the limit of possible expansion, the progression is from the outer limit of the expansion, toward the origin of the expansion, I.E. the singularity. the progression of time alone would be meaningless, but because time alone, cannot exist, the three dimensions of distance, AKA space, which along with time make up the space-time continuum, must also progress. that progression of distances mirrors the progression of time in either direction, resulting in either an instance of expanding or an instance of contracting space-time
Non physical concepts such as space and time don't need a pre existing time or place to exist within, together they make up their own time and place, so , as with virtual particles can likely pop into and out of existence spontaneously
I'm not a betting man, but if I thought I would live long enough to claim my winnings I would wager that dark energy is an effect of time. However, proving that it is, will make the search for the Higgs boson, seem like a Sunday morning stroll in the park.
The physicality of the egg itself, its very existence including the potential embryonic material inside it, comes from the biological processes inside of the chicken.
You said the chicken has nothing to with it. So, where does the egg come from if not from the biology of the chicken? The proverbial magical stork?
To clarify, egg came from a bird that was not a chicken. Sperm came from another bird also not a chicken. The first chicken emerged into the universe as an egg created from two non-chicken objects.
"Neither space nor time have any physicality . . ."
Einstein made time the fourth dimension of space, a point of space. Thus, time, as the straight arrow of time, ceases to exist for Einstein's purposes. Then there is the alternative dimensionality Einstein didn't mention if he even considered it, space being the fourth dimension of time, a point of time. Thus, space, disappears as space, for purpose. That is two alternative 4-dimensionalities and 8 dimensions altogether (both sort of gravitationally 'pointedly'(!), that is). According to Albert Einstein, mass and energy are equivalent (mass-energy). So, space and time should also be reduced to equivalency (space-time), according to Albert Einstein.
'C^2' is no simple mathematical device, though too many see it as just that. It is a physic, a base constant and almost force-like (hyper-spatial-time) dimension changer in its own right, of the Universe. In my picturing, my modeling of the Universe (U), I've dubbed it "the Big Vacuum (C^2)" . . . the tri-partite BC (M) | BV (C^2) | BB (E). the irresistible force of the immovable object (Universe (U), which is itself, the 'Big Mirror' mirroring within to infinities (including infinities of elastic point-bubble spaces-times (universes, including universes within universes, planes within planes))).
-------------------------------
The Cosmopolis is far, far, more than we so myopically narrowly observe it to be. It's a "many worlds" world. It's a Multiverse Universe. It's endlessly "next frontiers." It's never, in its large aspect, dead or even dying . . . never, in its large aspect, to be cold in the grave as some would have it be because they are blind to even observed possibilities.
Last edited:
To clarify! The "egg" I mention simply represents all eggs everywhere and everywhen, inclusive of simply formative beginnings. To clarify! The "chicken" I mention simply represents all life everywhere and everywhen, inclusive of all cellular-like universes. Sheesh! We will part ways from here on. Live long and prosper.
I am sorry I fall so far under your head. I will work on improving things. Now I must go into deep thought. Ciao!
you are true . or correct . But in the spacetime continuum space and time has to be parallel and not interlaced or perpendicular . as to . create a gravity tense . we need the two entities as parallel . its not that reperesentation of a tray ( your GRID) . waving in with masses in and out to create gravity . it any deformation creates gravity .
### -
_the death of the cat has created a new question ? !! whether the concentration gas is still in the chamber .? - ) shrodinger shot the cat ?..(just to LAUgh)I have realised that asking what appeared to be a simple question about a single phenomenon has led to a plethora of other questions. (the dynamics of spacetime is certainly much more complex than it first appears.) However... Its all part of the learning curve, and serendipity has played its part, by giving me an answer to a different question, which had been troubling me. " Happy days!!!"
I was led to this book by sam85geo on Forum Feedback, 'Quantum Entanglement - Possible on the Macro Level' and though I am only part way through it, so far, I'm finding it a terrific read. To the point I also recommend it highly:
Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime, by Sean Carroll.
Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime, by Sean Carroll.
Thanks, I will certainly check it out. There is a library just two hundred yards from my doorstep, I doubt they will have it in stock, but they will get it for me within a few days, (and all for free.) I have watched some of his videos and found him to be very good at explanations. so I will look forward to reading it
Entropy because of time might not be a thing.
If the concept of time is just a property of A to B in quantum fluctuations energy balance then time might not really exist.
Entropy might simply be the temp particle creation/destruction of Fluctuations degradation of everything from that activity.
JMO
If the concept of time is just a property of A to B in quantum fluctuations energy balance then time might not really exist.
Entropy might simply be the temp particle creation/destruction of Fluctuations degradation of everything from that activity.
JMO
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
-
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram