It is easy to understand why Einstein said time is an illusion, what I cant understand is why he didn't say that both space and time are illusions caused by the ratio of the speed of light. What we call the space-time continuum is IMO a misnomer, I believe the continuum consists of distance and time, and as we all know time and distances in space, can be stretched or compressed. so neither component of the continuum has fixed dimension. Its all relative !
The total entropy of the universe always increases because heat flows from hot to cold and time flows in one direction. Time exists whenever two events occur sequentially. Stop that from happening and entroy can't increase. Flow from hot to cold is inevitable. Stop that and entropy can't increase. Best of luck to anyone making the attempt!
True, so true. The point is... If our universe is cyclic as I believe it is, and it transitioned from its current phase of expansion into a phase of contraction, although time would still be progressing toward the future, the spatial element and all contained within it would be contracting... could it continue contracting until it, and all contained within it, once again became a singularity?
A singularity is as simple a stage in its evolution that a universe can possibly be in , so if our universe could while contracting, transition from being in a high entropy state to being a low or zero entropy singularity, then entropy would have to have reversed during that contraction!
We exist within an expanding instance of space-time, so we know how entropy behaves in expanding space-time. What I would like to discuss is. What might happen if space-time was contracting in a big crunch scenario. A contracting universe would be transitioning from a very big, chaotic and cold state, to a very small simple and extremely hot state.
After the Big Bang, the universe began expanding. The matter in the universe was created everywhere inside it all at once. The BB was space itself expanding, not a bunch of galaxies expanding into an existing space.
If a Big Crunch comes, it will not be space contracting, it will be contraction of matter within a "non shrinking" universe. As it contracts, although it will heat up, there will be heat transfer going on between hotter areas and colder areas. Thus entropy will continue to increase. When a singularity is finally created, our laws of physics break down so we can't say what is going to happen. But since a singularity has no dimension then there cannot be a difference in position of two masses containing heat, thus heat transfer cannot occur, thus all the heat is useless. The entropy will be the temperature of that spot times the mass of that spot. This will be a very high number, no bigger entropy number could exist. Thus Big Crunch is highest possible entropy.
If a Big Crunch comes, it will not be space contracting, it will be contraction of matter within a "non shrinking" universe. As it contracts, although it will heat up, there will be heat transfer going on between hotter areas and colder areas. Thus entropy will continue to increase. When a singularity is finally created, our laws of physics break down so we can't say what is going to happen. But since a singularity has no dimension then there cannot be a difference in position of two masses containing heat, thus heat transfer cannot occur, thus all the heat is useless. The entropy will be the temperature of that spot times the mass of that spot. This will be a very high number, no bigger entropy number could exist. Thus Big Crunch is highest possible entropy.
I seem to have either accidentally deleted or got distracted and forgot to hit the post reply, when I first tried to reply to this post.
Anyway, the gist of my deleted/unsent post was that, although I have a rudimentary knowledge of quantum theory, I believe it will ultimately
turn out to be tightly bound to relativity, in the sense that relativity will explain why, gravitation, space-time, energy, and a host of other phenomena within our universe exist. Whereas quantum-theory will explain the relationships between all the small things in existence, plus those small things relationship with space-time.
Even those that know the most about quanta, admit that they don't fully understand its seeming vagaries. Spooky action at a distance, things being in two places at the same time etc.
Maybe I'm to long in the tooth to want to commit to a lengthy study of matters quantum, I can't really explain why it is, but the realm of quantum physics, just doesn't inspire me the way relativity does. I'm awaiting the delivery of a book which could possibly get me motivated, or even change my mind on that. I suppose I will just have to wait and see.
I will give your post more consideration when I'm not quite so tired. Although I'm on the road to recovery I still suffer occasional brain fogging due to having long-covid. So please make allowances.
Covid no joke for sure.
Wish more people understood how nasty it can be and did everything they could to stop it passing on.
I think with fluctuation and the rest of everything else is a source of activity and the receiver of it.
Fluctuation, everything else.
Big or tiny everything has fluctuation so IMO it is the source of entropy/time.
The property of fluctuations activity is time or what we think of as time.
Spooky action, i have given this many years of thought and had a brilliant moment thought of how it might work.
If the universe has a tiniest thing then between them is nothing.
Each Point is A or B wrapped in nothing, every point is A or B in the universe.
Traveling through Nothing with no properties takes no time/distance so what looks spooky is A and B right beside each together no matter what the location is.
That nothing between the smallest might allow gravity to travel in the same format of instant speed to any 2 points in the universe because they are all right beside each other.
Everything else is stuck going from point A to B to C at no faster than C the min wave distance of fluctuation.
Quantum entanglement IMO will be gravitational entanglement showing the true nature of our universe.
All JMO
What a refreshingly interesting take on things... You have certainly given me food for thought! Our perception of temporal asymmetry, AKA the arrow of time, can alone lead to a great many misconceptions. Doing away with time altogether, and also its partner in the crime of deceiving our senses, which we know as distance...
Wow... that opens up a whole new can of worms..
Einstein told us.. "Quote" [To understand the universe you must realise that it is simply matter expanding into the nothing, which is something! ] "Quote."
( I'm not sure whether that quote is verbatim, but if not, its close enough to convey the message. ) My take on what he meant, is that he believed that our universe and the instance of expanding space-time associated with it, is is expanding, into a higher dimension IE a volume outside our universe. ("Thats universe with a lower case u!")
So, yes, The nothing which is something, could certainly provide an arena for timeless distance-less events to occur. and as our own universe is totally immersed within it. there could be interactions between that dimension and our own.
I will try to wrap my mind around the gravitational aspect of your hypothesis , as gravitation is a topic which is very dear to my heart, and I will leave no stone unturned in my quest to understand it.
Wow... that opens up a whole new can of worms..
Einstein told us.. "Quote" [To understand the universe you must realise that it is simply matter expanding into the nothing, which is something! ] "Quote."
( I'm not sure whether that quote is verbatim, but if not, its close enough to convey the message. ) My take on what he meant, is that he believed that our universe and the instance of expanding space-time associated with it, is is expanding, into a higher dimension IE a volume outside our universe. ("Thats universe with a lower case u!")
So, yes, The nothing which is something, could certainly provide an arena for timeless distance-less events to occur. and as our own universe is totally immersed within it. there could be interactions between that dimension and our own.
I will try to wrap my mind around the gravitational aspect of your hypothesis , as gravitation is a topic which is very dear to my heart, and I will leave no stone unturned in my quest to understand it.
I don't think I ever suggested that the singular event, AKA big bang, entailed a bunch of galaxies expanding into an existing space.
If that is how my message came across, that's not how I intended it to.
I have just been checking the opinions of several notable others, on what they think would occur in the event of a big crunch and the general consensus seems to be that during a big crunch, the asymmetric nature of time, means that the arrow of time as I suggested would remain unchanged during that contraction, with the end result being a tiny, low entropy state universe, ultimately reverting to a singularity.
The best explanation I came across, was by Sean Carroll on his twitter page. I highly recommend checking it out, as he explains it much better than I possibly could.
Yes, forgive my misunderstanding. You said spacetime itself might begin contracting. It could happen I suppose but I don't know what would precipitate that.
Yes. I would assume, however, that a contracting universe would be an ATM supposition due to the objective evidence for an accelerating one. We don’t seem to have any real ideas how this works, though we do give it a label - Dark Energy. Could it flip around and produce contraction? If so, then how becomes the question. This DE change idea seems outside the purview of science. But we are only beginning to find answers to DE.
Misunderstandings are easy, when discussing possibilities, which may, or may not be true. There is no way we can say with any degree of certainty, what would actually occur in a universe undergoing a phase of contraction, and to complicate matters further, no hypothesis is testable, as our reality is contained within an expanding instance of space-time. not one which is contracting.
I think Roger Penrose, is probably partially correct, with his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology. in which he proposes that when in a state of maximum entropy
the universe would consist of just radiation and photons, at that stage of the ongoing cycle, time and space would become irrelevant. so there would be no difference between the size of an atom and the size of the universe. (Or as he put it,the universe forgets how big it is. ) if the universe were the size of an atom or smaller, yet still contained all the energy that it originally banged with... Then it would have reverted to a singularity and be ready to bang again.
I agree with the first part of his hypothesis, but not the second. In Penrose's version, there is no phase of contraction, so I cannot support it.
I will not offer an opinion on how I see things until my mind is clearer, as its a rather difficult concept to explain, and I'm feeling very tired.
I would put it more firmly, "We don't have a clue what dark energy is!!!" Although I do have a sneaky suspicion that I may have figured it out. The concept however, seems so bizarre, even to me, that I seriously doubt its validity.
Thanks
I love to try and break down things into the simplest format possible, I'm pretty sure nature will follow the same route.
I think you are totally correct that relativity is just part of the background properties, going from point A to B or being in a gravity influence.
Both pretty easy to explain if fluctuation is the source of time/space/activity wrapped in nothing to allow gravity to do it's thing.
Entropy can just be fluctuations activity bombarding everything all the time with time just a property of fluctuation.
Gravity sure is a mystery sending waves at C and yet able to communicate it's location at instant speed.
I think it's the key to understanding the true universe and nothing between regular tiny space is as good a reason for it's duel action as any.
IMO fluctuation probably sets all the laws and rules and self regulates them as the simplest energy balances.
Fluctuation can easy be the builder of everything until it balances energy, what we like to call conservation of energy.
Even the source of fluctuation could be endless nothing having an energy property or just being unstable.
All guesswork for sure but the simple of it is the attractive part of it.
Point / Singularity:
"The speed of light is constant in a vacuum." Of course it would be constant: Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)).
The circle (turning) (to turn) (in-turning (en-trope (tropos))) complete and closed:
Multiverse Universe (U): (Planck) Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)) | (Planck) Big Bang (E).
(M = E/C^2) (C^2 = E/M) (E = MxC^2)
Multiverse Universe (U): Big Mirror mirroring within (outside in) to infinities of universes (u) (inside out). Infinity = (+/-) '1' (constant!).
Multiverse Universe (U): Infinite 'welling' (infinities of 'welling') being the irresistible force, within, of the immovable object of Universe (U) (similarity (self-similarity): The Sarpinski Carpet (2- to 3-d (inclusive of time (0-point))) and/or the Menger Sponge (3- to 4-d (inclusive of time (0-point))) of Chaos Theory). Infinity = (+/-) '1' (constant!).
The circle (turning) (to turn) (in-turning (en-trope (tropos))) complete and closed.
"The speed of light is constant in a vacuum." Of course it would be constant: Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)).
Point/ Singularity.
"The speed of light is constant in a vacuum." Of course it would be constant: Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)).
The circle (turning) (to turn) (in-turning (en-trope (tropos))) complete and closed:
Multiverse Universe (U): (Planck) Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)) | (Planck) Big Bang (E).
(M = E/C^2) (C^2 = E/M) (E = MxC^2)
Multiverse Universe (U): Big Mirror mirroring within (outside in) to infinities of universes (u) (inside out). Infinity = (+/-) '1' (constant!).
Multiverse Universe (U): Infinite 'welling' (infinities of 'welling') being the irresistible force, within, of the immovable object of Universe (U) (similarity (self-similarity): The Sarpinski Carpet (2- to 3-d (inclusive of time (0-point))) and/or the Menger Sponge (3- to 4-d (inclusive of time (0-point))) of Chaos Theory). Infinity = (+/-) '1' (constant!).
The circle (turning) (to turn) (in-turning (en-trope (tropos))) complete and closed.
"The speed of light is constant in a vacuum." Of course it would be constant: Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)).
Point/ Singularity.
Last edited:
"Entropy can just be fluctuations activity bombarding everything all the time with time just a property of fluctuation."
You are reading too much into entropy. Entropy is simply the number of BTU's in a closed system that are not available to be moved to a cooler spot. When you have hot and cold areas inside a system, you have little entropy. When the heat flows and it all evens out then all the BTU's are unavailable and the entropy is highest.
Time and space are where the mystery is.
You are reading too much into entropy. Entropy is simply the number of BTU's in a closed system that are not available to be moved to a cooler spot. When you have hot and cold areas inside a system, you have little entropy. When the heat flows and it all evens out then all the BTU's are unavailable and the entropy is highest.
Time and space are where the mystery is.
The bottom line of your post, really is the bottom line, when it comes to understanding reality
I'm afraid I will have to take a time out for a while, as this damned long-covid is reminding me, "in no uncertain terms,"that I'm not entirely out of the woods yet.
Any system that has conservation of energy as it's property doesn't really have entropy from decay unless the systems activity is the decay.
Energy just converting from one format to another could be entropy but the source of time to convert from one to another as you said is the mystery.
Time and activity IMO are one in the same thing, happening when you go from point A to B or a Gravity source can effect time.
No better candidate for standard time than fluctuations activity or energy balance.
Moving at any speed and any gravity source will effect fluctuations activity on just your perspective.
All JMO and lots of guesswork.
"Any system that has conservation of energy as it's property doesn't really have entropy from decay unless the systems activity is the decay." - voidpotential energy
Energy (actually mass plus energy) is conserved in all closed systems.
Entropy can change although energy is conserved. Example:
A closed system consisting of two glasses of water in an insulated cooler.
Each glass contains 1,000 grams of water, one is at 100° C and the other at 0° C. Relative to zero degrees C the energy of the system is 10,000 gram calories. The entropy is the number of calories that are not available to do work. When all the work is done, both glasses will be at 50° C. Thus the work that can be done is 5,000 gram calories and the energy that cannot be converted to work is 5,000 gram calories thus "before" the entropy is 5,000. When both glasses reach the same temperature no work can be done and for the "after" situation, the entropy is 10,000.
Energy (actually mass plus energy) is conserved in all closed systems.
Entropy can change although energy is conserved. Example:
A closed system consisting of two glasses of water in an insulated cooler.
Each glass contains 1,000 grams of water, one is at 100° C and the other at 0° C. Relative to zero degrees C the energy of the system is 10,000 gram calories. The entropy is the number of calories that are not available to do work. When all the work is done, both glasses will be at 50° C. Thus the work that can be done is 5,000 gram calories and the energy that cannot be converted to work is 5,000 gram calories thus "before" the entropy is 5,000. When both glasses reach the same temperature no work can be done and for the "after" situation, the entropy is 10,000.
The total energy of the Universe (U), positive (+) and negative (-), is exactly '0', constant!
Mass and energy are equivalent, enter-changeably mass-energy / energy-mass, thus the total mass of the Universe (U), positive (+) and negative (-), is also exactly '0', constant!
The Cosmological Constant is primordially Base2 base,'0' and/or '1'. Infinity equals (+/-) '1'. constant!
Despite appearances from our foreground local, relative and myopic -- closed systemic -- point of view, neither the Universe (U) nor the universes (u) -- often depicted as divided cellular or 'bubble universes' -- have ever been insane or will ever go insane. But a freedom of unlimited -- open systemic -- frontiers (a. k. a. "boundarylessness" in all those (infinity of 0-point) point-bubble horizons to the background horizon) exists within a Cosmological Constant primordial Base2 base, '0' and/or '1'.
Mass and energy are equivalent, enter-changeably mass-energy / energy-mass, thus the total mass of the Universe (U), positive (+) and negative (-), is also exactly '0', constant!
The Cosmological Constant is primordially Base2 base,'0' and/or '1'. Infinity equals (+/-) '1'. constant!
Despite appearances from our foreground local, relative and myopic -- closed systemic -- point of view, neither the Universe (U) nor the universes (u) -- often depicted as divided cellular or 'bubble universes' -- have ever been insane or will ever go insane. But a freedom of unlimited -- open systemic -- frontiers (a. k. a. "boundarylessness" in all those (infinity of 0-point) point-bubble horizons to the background horizon) exists within a Cosmological Constant primordial Base2 base, '0' and/or '1'.
Last edited:
Oh i agree we can have loss of usable energy but the constant energy always remains the same so entropy is only a change in energy not really a degradation of energy.
Like any system things tend to want to become a simplest format.
Entropy can be that route of complex to simple, matter to energy to radiation.
The time to do such a thing and the why we have conservation of E is the mystery.
The mechanism for both can be properties of fluctuations E balance.
Time as just a property and conservation an eternal E check balance.
Entropy conversion to simple format with a side order of fluctuation bombardment to help that process along.
JMO
So I'm beginning to see a particle as a tightly bound arena of energy held together by a weak force--each particle is a jack-n-the-box yearning to escape its containment parameters ....
According to Sean Carroll, 'Something Deeply Hidden', a particle is nothing more nor less than an observation of a quantum wave function.
According to Chaos Theory, disorder (order) in any system (closed system) is in fact an order (a disorder), itself due for disordering (ordering).
According to Will Durant, among other noted historians all the way back to Plutarch and beyond, history always repeats in its large aspect, though rarely if ever in fine detail. "Large aspect" translating to "smoothly flat" and "fine detail" translating to "roughly lumpy." They follow, they are a continuum, they reduce to (one and the same time) co-existent parallel . . . equivalents (always 'turning' (in turning (en-trope))).
After all, the (Planck) Big Bang (E) is not always considered a big nova-like banger . . . but simply a big radiator.
According to Chaos Theory, disorder (order) in any system (closed system) is in fact an order (a disorder), itself due for disordering (ordering).
According to Will Durant, among other noted historians all the way back to Plutarch and beyond, history always repeats in its large aspect, though rarely if ever in fine detail. "Large aspect" translating to "smoothly flat" and "fine detail" translating to "roughly lumpy." They follow, they are a continuum, they reduce to (one and the same time) co-existent parallel . . . equivalents (always 'turning' (in turning (en-trope))).
After all, the (Planck) Big Bang (E) is not always considered a big nova-like banger . . . but simply a big radiator.
When you get right down to the makeup of an atom it's quit amazing solid exists.
A tiny bit of energy orbiting something that isn't more than a ball of energy.
Take away all the space involved and you are not left with much.
Take away all the nothing between the tiniest things and you have nearly nothing.
A handful of electrons that themselves are probably filled with mostly nothing.
Hats of to the designer of that idea
Last edited:
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