What is the nature of entropy ?

[Starcrow]

(...)

So, my question is whether the "cosmological constant" is, in fact, a constant to begin with.

(...)

You're not the only one who is puzzled. Unzicker warns that NO ONE knows what that is. Not even Einstein knew what that idea of his really meant.

Unzicker is an iconoclast. He is one of those who think that physics is in a state of utter chaos and that we are all being swindled. Physics is like a caravan with a blind guide making it go around in circles endlessly on an empty plain. If they had any eyesight, they would see lofty mountains far away that will never be reached.

The Standard Theory (of particle physics), he tells us, is part of this mess. It makes too many assumptions, has too many unexplained parameters. Its devotees say it managed to simplify matters wonderfully, but after so many years of discovering new particles in the bubble chambers every few weeks, until they had hundreds of them, ANYTHING that would boil it all down to just a few would have been a miraculous feat. It almost reached a point where if you hadn't discovered a new one then you were a fourth-rate scientist.

Then there's "the Higgs fake", the title of a book of his. They haven't discovered any "God particle" that magically explains why things have mass. They managed to trick the Nobel Committee into believing that they had and that they deserved a Nobel prize, but their purpose was to justify throwing ever more money on useless "atom-smashers" it would take you about two to three hours to go around if you used a bike.

He doesn 't include Penrose in his crowd of "overhyped physicists". In a video that deflates Steven Weinberg he quotes Penrose's book titled The Road to Reality -- A Complete Guide to the Laws of Physics, which deflates Alan Guth's cosmological inflation, thus: "Since I believe that there are powerful reasons for doubting the very basis of inflationary cosmology, I should not refrain from presenting the reasons to the reader."

All of this corroborates what is said in the book I have already mentioned elsewhere, one titled Betrayers of the Truth -- Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science.

In another YouTube video, "Why quantum mechanics is an inconsistent theory -- Roger Penrose and Jordan Peterson", Penrose says that the Schrodinger equation does not agree with the experimental data.

 

[Catastrophe]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ), alternatively called Einstein's cosmological constant, is the constant coefficient of a term Albert Einstein temporarily added to his field equations of general relativity. He later removed it. Much later it was revived and reinterpreted as the energy density of space, or vacuum energy, that arises in quantum mechanics. It is closely associated with the concept of dark energy.[1]

Just for background information.

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Einstein said, that to understand the universe you must realise that the universe is expanding into the nothing which is something. Exactly how that was interpreted as meaning... Prior to the ongoing event we know as the big bang neither space or time existed, is to me beyond comprehension. I most certainly believe that there was a before the erroneously named big bang, as there needs to be an elsewhere/time or the origin of the big bang could never have evolved

What both Einstein and Minkowski said about space-time, seems to be ignored by many of todays physicists. This is most strange. as their observations hold the answers to how our reality emerged. It is regrettable that they didn't collaborate when making statements, as that statement might have read...
"Henceforth space and time can no longer be considered separate, rather their values are interchangeable, thus making the speed of light a constant for all observers, and preserving our independent reality !"

We exist within a volume of expanding space-time so it is hardly a great stretch of the imagination to assume that space-time can also contract.
The big question is... if space-time instead of expanding, was contracting toward what had originally been its point of origin, is it likely that entropy would be reversed.
(With particular emphasis on the words space-time, which must be treated as a single phenomenon!)

I am currently suffering from long Covid, after suffering from both covid 19 and the omicron strain, hence my absence from these forums, but I'm beginning to feel a little better, so maybe I'm over the worst of it

some other thought which trouble me, are the bizarre idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This holds true within the instance of spacetime we inhabit.
but within Einsteins Nothing which is something. there is a simple answer to this apparent enigma.
Just for good measure, There is also a simple solution for the superluminal inflation problem.

 

[billslugg]

Entropy increase is a simple outcome of the tendency of heat to move from hotter areas to cooler areas. Until you can find a way to reverse that, entropy will always increase.

 

[Catastrophe]

Without checking back on all this thread, I think that "my" ideas of flatlander analogy, and the perception of expansion being resolved in a higher dimension are well known.

billslugg, whilst I take your point, there is another criterion of entropy, which is ability to do work. In the purely imaginary and hypothetical case of a cyclic Universe, or other situation where a "crunch" might arise, a decreasing "volume" of the Universe would result in compression and increase in temperature which would increase in ability to do work, e.g., fund a new "big bang. This is a purely imaginary and hypothetical situation, and I do not see why entropy should not be considered in a different hypothetical light (no pun intended).

As expansion is often linked with decreasing "pressure", even to the point where molecules and atoms are ripped apart, I do not see why the opposite might not be invoked in an appropriate imaginary and hypothetical situation.


Cat

P.S. Re entropy. If there is a reversal of expansion, then this must be caused by, presumably, gravity. Thus the Universe would be "wound up" again, so this would presumably solve the entropy issue?

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

we can only ever observe the effect of entropy within this instance of space-time, which constitutes our reality. What laws of physics might exist in a contracting instance of space-time lay so deep within the realm of metaphysics that we likely have little or no hope of predicting them, The end result of a contraction of all the space-time which contains our universe should be a much simpler matter to predict.

There is no actual evidence to support the supposition that our universe emerged from an infinitely small infinitely dense primordial atom which it has been suggested appeared from nowhere into nowhere and simultaneously created space and time during the process. In fact the whole idea smacks of witchcraft .
We also have no idea of the total extent of our universe prior to a possible crunch but I believe it was many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe, so suggesting that all this energy could be crammed into something smaller than an atom is laughable. The term singularity is actually a word stolen from the term singular event which the big bang was formerly known as, with the word singular meaning strange, peculiar, unknown and possibly unknowable. it is a term that should be reinstated because once again there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of these mythical beasts known as singularities

Cosmic redshift is synonymous with the metric expansion of space, and our best telescopes suggest that the most distant galaxies we can currently observe are much younger than those which are much closer to us. This would certainly be the case if our universe had undergone a phase of superluminal inflation,
But, I would suggest instead that the big bang event resulted from an immense amount of energy concentrated within a colossal volume of space time.
This would give the same end result, but preclude the need for the magic of superluminal inflation.

it is possible for galaxies unimaginably far away from us to recede from us at superluminal rates, but it is impossible for nearer galaxies to do so, the speed of light/causality denies the possibility of anything being able to move at superluminal speed , but there is no such limit imposed on extremely distant galaxies which are receding due to cosmic expansion.

I can see the need to put a little flesh on the bones of what I am saying, so I hope this damned Covid gives me the chance to do so.

 

[Catastrophe]

Curiosity, I hope that you are well along the road to recovery. We are looking forward to the expansion of your post #81. I am sure you will be checking that long post for an odd typo which might reflect on what you actually meant. I had covid 7 weeks ago, and I know its nasty effects.

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Entropy increase is a simple outcome of the tendency of heat to move from hotter areas to cooler areas. Until you can find a way to reverse that, entropy will always increase.

we can only ever observe the effect of entropy within this instance of space-time, which constitutes our reality. What laws of physics might exist in a contracting instance of space-time lay so deep within the realm of metaphysics that we likely have little or no hope of predicting them, The end result of a contraction of all the space-time which contains our universe should be a much simpler matter to predict.

There is no actual evidence to support the supposition that our universe emerged from an infinitely small infinitely dense primordial atom which it has been suggested appeared from nowhere into nowhere and simultaneously created space and time during the process. In fact the whole idea smacks of witchcraft .
We also have no idea of the total extent of our universe prior to a possible crunch but I believe it was many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe, so suggesting that all this energy could be crammed into something smaller than an atom is laughable. The term singularity is actually a word stolen from the term singular event which the big bang was formerly known as, with the word singular meaning strange, peculiar, unknown and possibly unknowable. it is a term that should be reinstated because once again there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of these mythical beasts known as singularities

Cosmic redshift is synonymous with the metric expansion of space, and our best telescopes suggest that the most distant galaxies we can currently observe are much younger than those which are much closer to us. This would certainly be the case if our universe had undergone a phase of superluminal inflation,
But, I would suggest instead that the big bang event resulted from an immense amount of energy concentrated within a colossal volume of space time.
This would give the same end result, but preclude the need for the magic of superluminal inflation.

it is possible for galaxies unimaginably far away from us to recede from us at superluminal rates, but it is impossible for nearer galaxies to do so, the speed of light/causality denies the possibility of anything being able to move at superluminal speed , but there is no such limit imposed on extremely distant galaxies which are receding due to cosmic expansion.

I can see the need to put a little flesh on the bones of what I am saying, so I hope this damned Covid gives me the chance to do so.

In a contracting instance of spacetime the outermost galaxies must stay within the horizon of a contracting instance of space time and I believe as they are pushed closer together and toward their point of origin they will get hotter ang hotter, once again that sounds very much like negative entropy to me

 

[Catastrophe]

What is the nature of entropy ?

We have two considerations here - the science of today's world, and also the interesting imaginary scenarios relating to alternative situations.

It is generally agreed by those thinking 'outside the box', that the singularity, as used cosmologically, refers to the (imho) infinite everything point - infinite density, extreme temperature, infinitely tiny, nonsense.

For example, as I posted on 14 July 2021:
"As far as the Big Bang is concerned, I do not believe in the singularity model. I believe that all this "infinity" and division by zero stuff is just an expression of our ignorance." . . . . . . . . . and my opinion is the same today.

I still consider the constriction as I described it on 6 May 2020:
The eggtimer here is the old-fashioned one, with a figure of 8 section, which contained sand which flowed through the constriction, when uprighted.
(An eggtimer) "On its side the constriction represents the BB, coming to the right is the expansion of the Universe - to the left - something else.
Note the expansion is not linear - it is curved. So forget linear expansion and forget linear contraction to an infinitesimal point. "

In a cyclic model, a contracting phase approaches the nexus (not singularity) from the left, passes through the nexus, which is nothing infinitely anything, and passes smoothly into the big bang phase to the right.

Entropy has been discussed many times before, e.g., 5 April 2020 I asked:
"Is there some entropy involvement here? Or are we working too close to the point where our normal physics breaks down?" This was discussing the contracting phase approaching the nexus from the left, and before smooth transition through the nexus to the big bang phase. At that point the discussion was around where the transition between increasing and decreasing entropy occurred.

If you want lots of interesting viewpoints on entropy, try a Google!


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated."
Poul Anderson

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated."
Poul Anderson

As the area of knowledge illuminated by science grows, so does the circumference of the darkness which surrounds it.
Einstein ??? possibly?

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

What is the nature of entropy ?

We have two considerations here - the science of today's world, and also the interesting imaginary scenarios relating to alternative situations.

It is generally agreed by those thinking 'outside the box', that the singularity, as used cosmologically, refers to the (imho) infinite everything point - infinite density, extreme temperature, infinitely tiny, nonsense.

For example, as I posted on 14 July 2021:
"As far as the Big Bang is concerned, I do not believe in the singularity model. I believe that all this "infinity" and division by zero stuff is just an expression of our ignorance." . . . . . . . . . and my opinion is the same today.

I still consider the constriction as I described it on 6 May 2020:
The eggtimer here is the old-fashioned one, with a figure of 8 section, which contained sand which flowed through the constriction, when uprighted.
(An eggtimer) "On its side the constriction represents the BB, coming to the right is the expansion of the Universe - to the left - something else.
Note the expansion is not linear - it is curved. So forget linear expansion and forget linear contraction to an infinitesimal point. "

In a cyclic model, a contracting phase approaches the nexus (not singularity) from the left, passes through the nexus, which is nothing infinitely anything, and passes smoothly into the big bang phase to the right.

Entropy has been discussed many times before, e.g., 5 April 2020 I asked:
"Is there some entropy involvement here? Or are we working too close to the point where our normal physics breaks down?" This was discussing the contracting phase approaching the nexus from the left, and before smooth transition through the nexus to the big bang phase. At that point the discussion was around where the transition between increasing and decreasing entropy occurred.

If you want lots of interesting viewpoints on entropy, try a Google!


Cat

I'm pleased that we share some common ground, with our mutual distain of the suggested type of singularity, which supposedly initiated the birth of our universe. It will likely take me a while to digest your postulation, regarding the nexus, as although the brain fogging associated with the long Covid is diminishing, the insomnia and fatigue is still troublesome.

Did you get any interesting replies to your question about the transition between increasing and decreasing entropy?

 

[Starcrow]

"I most certainly believe that there was a before the erroneously named big bang, as there needs to be an elsewhere/time (...). " -- Curiosity

Not according to the illogical idea that something can issue from nothing, foisted upon us ever since a Belgian priest came up with the Primordial Egg concept taken up by the astronomers. The "pagans", as Christians call them, were fundamentally logical people who concluded that "ex nihilo nihil (fit)", meaning literally "from nothing, nothing (can be made) ".

Then the Judaeo-Christian culture came along and replaced that fact with the idea that once upon a time there was Nothing, but then Something created Everything where there had been Nothing, and ever since then in the West that's what one must believe, even though it's meaningless, and that Holy Writ survives in atheistic mainstream science, where it was planted by the priest.

"(...) there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of these mythical beasts known as singularities." -- Curiosity

If you're involved in academic matters then you had better be careful about going around saying such things. Professors are expelled from universities for doing that, as was the case for Stephen Crothers, who was not allowed to finish his doctorate studies in the Univ. of South Wales (Sydney) for being so bold. He refuses to believe in the existence of black holes and other holy cows, such as relativity.

You must specify what kind of singularities you reject. You seem to be alluding to the Cosmic-Egg singularity, and maybe not necessarily to the relatively milder stellar and galactic singularities, and the ones that some people think could issue from a particle accelerator and absorb the entire planet, like the trumpet-muzzle character in "The Yellow Submarine", even though they're all supposed to imply infinite point-density (or what else can one call it?).

Crothers has a comrade-in-arms, Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille (Ohio State U.), who claims that the Kirchhoff law of radiation is illegitimate. This has huge implications concerning stellar evolution and cosmology. If he is not mistaken then another explanation must be found for the CMBR discovered by Wilson and Penzias.

Note: The Cosmic Egg from which everything hatches is Egyptian mythology, so it turns out that modern cosmology is purely pharaonic. I predict that in the post-Apocalypse, as we roam the land in famished gangs, we will return to the cult of Amon-Ra. All the Glory to the gods of the Hallowed Nile.

 

[COLGeek]

Let us not wander into religious topics, please. Just a friendly reminder. Thank you.

 

[Starcrow]

I object, Your Honor, on the grounds that such a course of action might jeopardize my legal status.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

"I most certainly believe that there was a before the erroneously named big bang, as there needs to be an elsewhere/time (...). " -- Curiosity

Not according to the illogical idea that something can issue from nothing, foisted upon us ever since a Belgian priest came up with the Primordial Egg concept taken up by the astronomers. The "pagans", as Christians call them, were fundamentally logical people who concluded that "ex nihilo nihil (fit)", meaning literally "from nothing, nothing (can be made) ".

Then the Judaeo-Christian culture came along and replaced that fact with the idea that once upon a time there was Nothing, but then Something created Everything where there had been Nothing, and ever since then in the West that's what one must believe, even though it's meaningless, and that Holy Writ survives in atheistic mainstream science, where it was planted by the priest.

If you're involved in academic matters then you had better be careful about going around saying such things. Professors are expelled from universities for doing that, as was the case for Stephen Crothers, who was not allowed to finish his doctorate studies in the Univ. of South Wales (Sydney) for being so bold. He refuses to believe in the existence of black holes and other holy cows, such as relativity.

You must specify what kind of singularities you reject. You seem to be alluding to the Cosmic-Egg singularity, and maybe not necessarily to the relatively milder stellar and galactic singularities, and the ones that some people think could issue from a particle accelerator and absorb the entire planet, like the trumpet-muzzle character in "The Yellow Submarine", even though they're all supposed to imply infinite point-density (or what else can one call it?).

Crothers has a comrade-in-arms, Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille (Ohio State U.), who claims that the Kirchhoff law of radiation is illegitimate. This has huge implications concerning stellar evolution and cosmology. If he is not mistaken then another explanation must be found for the CMBR discovered by Wilson and Penzias.

Note: The Cosmic Egg from which everything hatches is Egyptian mythology, so it turns out that modern cosmology is purely pharaonic. I predict that in the post-Apocalypse, as we roam the land in famished gangs, we will return to the cult of Amon-Ra. All the Glory to the gods of the Hallowed Nile.

"(...) there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of these mythical beasts known as singularities." -- Curiosity

 

[COLGeek]

I object, Your Honor, on the grounds that such a course of action might jeopardize my legal status.

Overruled. Proceed.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

As an atheist I have no interest whatsoever in religious mumbo jumbo, and had you read my posts you would see that I did specify which proposed type of singularity I had an issue with.
I am also a proponent of relativity and the existence of black holes, so can't help but wonder what made you think otherwise.
I will make my views on these matter plain in future posts, and I actually welcome critique from anyone who choses to question my beliefs. (As that's how science works.)

I am a staunch proponent of the concept of pairs of virtual matter/anti matter particles making up what we think of as empty space, as if this is true it would instantly solve the problem of where all the energy within our universe came from. plus add yet more proof to Einstein's theory of relativity, by confirming that what he called the nothing which is something, really exists, I can only hope that the equipment being built actually works, and the experiments are successful

If you are unfamiliar with the concept the following link should help...
sciencehttps://www.science.org/content/article/physicists-are-planning-build-lasers-so-powerful-they-could-rip-apart-empty-space

 

[Catastrophe]

Entropy has been discussed many times before, e.g., 5 April 2020 I asked:
"Is there some entropy involvement here? Or are we working too close to the point where our normal physics breaks down?" This was discussing the contracting phase approaching the nexus from the left, and before smooth transition through the nexus to the big bang phase. At that point the discussion was around where the transition between increasing and decreasing entropy occurred.

If you want lots of interesting viewpoints on entropy, try a Google!

"Did you get any interesting replies to your question about the transition between increasing and decreasing entropy?"

The more likely eventuality (bearing in mind that this is a highly imaginative issue) was that contraction, being the opposite of expansion, possibly had the opposite effect on entropy. If there were to be a cycle, then each 'phase' would not, in itself, constitute a closed system.

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

As an atheist I have no interest whatsoever in religious mumbo jumbo, and had you read my posts you would see that I did specify which proposed type of singularity I had an issue with.
I am also a proponent of relativity and the existence of black holes, so can't help but wonder what made you think otherwise.
I will make my views on these matter plain in future posts, and I actually welcome critique from anyone who choses to question my beliefs. (As that's how science works.)

I am a staunch proponent of the concept of pairs of virtual matter/anti matter particles making up what we think of as empty space, as if this is true it would instantly solve the problem of where all the energy within our universe came from. plus add yet more proof to Einstein's theory of relativity, by confirming that what he called the nothing which is something, really exists, I can only hope that the equipment being built actually works, and the experiments are successful

If you are unfamiliar with the concept the following link should help...
sciencehttps://www.science.org/content/article/physicists-are-planning-build-lasers-so-powerful-they-could-rip-apart-empty-space

The more likely eventuality (bearing in mind that this is a highly imaginative issue) was that contraction, being the opposite of expansion, possibly had the opposite effect on entropy. If there were to be a cycle, then each 'phase' would not, in itself, constitute a closed system.

Cat

I will take a while longer to consider your nexus approach to the singularity problem. I believe with what I consider to be a reasonable degree of certainty, that I have solved the relativistic side of the big bang. Although I wish I had taken notes about what I believe started the original phase of contraction. This damned Covid has played havoc with my recall, but I'm sure I will be able to retrieve my thoughts on it in the not too distant future.

The bare bones of an idea is also beginning to form in my mind, in which your own idea could be responsible for the quantum aspect of the big bang. Wow...that really would be something , as it would also stop all this senseless bickering about whether quantum or relativity theory best describe our reality, as these theories are both equally important components of reality

 

[billslugg]

In a contracting instance of spacetime the outermost galaxies must stay within the horizon of a contracting instance of space time and I believe as they are pushed closer together and toward their point of origin they will get hotter ang hotter, once again that sounds very much like negative entropy to me

Entropy is not a measure of how hot something is, it is a measure of how much unusable energy there is in a system. Ususable energy is unable to move to a cooler area and thus do work. If the universe contracts heat will still move towards cooler areas thus entropy will still increase. You cannot decrease entropy by contracting a system. You cannot decrease entropy in any closed system unless you can make heat flow from cooler areas to hotter areas. This can only be done by making time go backwards, which can't be done.

 

[Catastrophe]

billslugg,
Of course you are making sense in the present, albeit limited, existence that we enjoy.
However, I think the point is that, whilst accepting the present situation, there is a wish to explore other world scenarios. This is recognised as 100% imagination and conjecture, and is no way "at war" with science. Indeed, from a strictly scientific point of view, one might ask what observations have been made of contracting systems and what authority may be invoked to comment on them?
And would any such hypothetical question - would a cyclic universe idea be a closed system be closed?, for one, would suggest that one "phase" of a cycle would not be closed - in which the entropy question is suddenly changed.

Google gives:
"If anything can pass into, or out of, a system, we say it is an open system. If only matter can pass into, or out of, a system, but not energy, then we call it a closed system. If neither matter nor energy can pass into, or out of, a system, then we call it an isolated system." Emphasis not mine.

Make no mistake, I am with you on the strict interpretation, dealing with our world as it is here and now. I am suggesting that, in a scenario so opposite, albeit it hypothetical, we are not competent to judge. Vide, the lack of authority of science to address t = 0. There are similarities.

Cat

 

[Starcrow]

"(...) I did specify which proposed type of singularity I had an issue with./I am also a proponent of relativity and the existence of black holes, so can't help but wonder what made you think otherwise." -- Curiosity

... and you had previously said: "If our universe is cyclic as I believe it is (...) could it continue contracting until it, and all contained within it, once again became a singularity?".

.. so you believe in the existence of black holes, and in the singularity at what they say was "time zero", and I guess the only singularities you dismiss are of the atom-smasher variety that only conspiracy fanatics believe in.

... but that's an insignificant matter --someone who can't speak clearly about his preferences regarding singularities-- and so is not why this discussion is disturbing. Just blame it all on the savage Chinese memory-gobbling bug that has murdered millions.

The problem here is that everybody seems to be assuming that the Universe is a closed system ("by definition", someone says), except maybe Catastrophe, so that, according to the rules of thermodynamics, entropy can only increase, but what we see everywhere is an awesome order, from the subatomic level, as evidenced by the periodic table of elements, then going through the cellular scale, and all the way up to the macroscopic level, at the human scale, at the planetary scale and at the galactic scale.

It's as though, either it was always thus in an eternal state of affairs, or else an initial mess or chaos was unexplainably transformed into its complete opposite by unknown factors beyond what would have to be an open system, which was then closed and allowed to start falling into an ever greater disorder or disrepair that anticipates an eventual total chaos, a return to the starting point, if the laws of thermodynamics are applied rigorously, from starting point to endpoint.

Nowhere have I ever come across the story told in this way, which would seem to be the most logical one, so I hereby claim the patent and the ©, the ®, and every other exclusive right, and will call it the Grand Cosmic Open-to-Closed-System Theory of Almost Everything, or the GRANCOSTALE.

 

[Catastrophe]

Starcrow, you posted:
"The problem here is that everybody seems to be assuming that the Universe is a closed system ("by definition", someone says), except maybe Catastrophe, so that, according to the rules of thermodynamics, entropy can only increase"
My emphasis.

What do you mean maybe? I have long advocated the possibility of a cyclic system (although nothing can be proven as to its value) - which would necessitate a reduction in entropy as part of the cycle. Otherwise, it would not be cyclic, but open, with ever increasing entropy between cycles.

From my post of 18 July 2020:
"Yes. Have you seen my egg timer posts? Remember the old fashioned egg timers with sand running through? Still very effective - even in the 21st Century. I suppose I could use figure 8 but this may suggest a zero size nexus whereas the egg timer suggests some way through between."

Since before then, I had been using the egg timer idea to stress that there was no singularity with infinite da de da de da's but a nexus which allowed more relaxed flow between phases of a cyclic Universe. Vide:
What happened before the Big Bang? | Page 3 | Space.com Forums

The nexus might (and we are here still in the realms of imagination and conjecture) preclude enormously high temperatures which lead on the near "infinitely small" time intervals close to t = 0.

There was considerable activity before you joined, on 15 September 2021. Since then, you have, in my opinion, contributed some really interesting posts, for which I thank you

So, the ideas of open cyclic Universe, nexus over singularity, decreasing entropy within cycles, and more related issues, are by no means new or the 'property' of anybody here, myself included. There is an old adage "There is nothing new under the sun", and, I am sure, that if there are any witty aliens around, they will have something similar embodying this concept.

BTW, there was a thread in 2020 which ran into over 200 posts: See post #202 et seq..
Question - Cyclical Universe | Page 9 | Space.com Forums

So please keep on giving us the pleasure of your clever and well-informed posts - you have become one of the members whose posts are well worth reading - even the rather long ones

Cat

 

[Starcrow]

Catastrophe, you're the only one here who forbears my wild comments (surely because, as a veteran, you feel it's your duty to be a polite host and encourage all newcomers, no matter how annoying they are), which is why the discussion ended. One can't keep ranting in the desert to the sand and this will have to be my last post at this website.

Your egg timer metaphor is simply an endless chain of big bangs and big crunches, so it's like a line of fat sausages issuing from a machine. Each half of an hourglass is the usual diagram of the Universe timeline, from B.B. to the present moment. No novelty there.

The marrow of the matter is whether thermodynamics can be applied to cosmology. My quick description was just a messy doodle and a joke, but that's also what particle physics and cosmology happen to be right now.

Ever since the 1940s, not even the scholars know what they're talking about. That's why Unzicker says that we must go back to "the founding fathers of modern physics", or "real physics", as it stood back in the 1930s.

Vittorio Silvestrini, a professor of physics at the U. of Federico II in Naples, in his little book titled Che cos'e` l'entropia, meaning "what entropy is'" (freely available on the Net in e-facsimile, diagrams included, translated into another Latin-based language), says that the Universe is not an "isolated system" because stars scatter their energy into "cosmic space", so that their energy is "lost". First he accepts the B.B. theory, but then he says that stars race towards the infinitude of space. He's not being consistent since bigbangers reject the idea of space extending infinitely in all directions, but they, too, are inconsistent when claiming that the Universe is closed but has no limits and you keep returning to the starting point on the surface of a globe. The inflating balloon metaphor explains nothing. Silvestrini's rhetoric is standard physics.

... so thermodynamics as applied to cosmology is another road going nowhere. Maybe it unknowingly gives a clue by saying that entropy can be decreased (locally, not absolutely) with motors. If the Universe, too, shows order being created from disorder, then an Aristotelian First Motor ( "Primum Mobile") would be introducing that order.

One of the old classics of science of the 70s, which I read in my youth, Chance and Necessity, by Jacques Monod, one of the founders of molecular biology and a Nobel prize-winner, tried to explain how order appears at the molecular level in progressively more complex structures, and an even older classic, by Oparin, makes similar reasonings to show how life started, all of that in entirely random events. Chance, then, is ever the Grand Architect of modern science, at all levels.