I'm dying for my pet theory to be read and criticised

[Sorcerer]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a consequence of the arrow of time. The universe started as a singularity, it was at a maximum level of order. It had minimum entropy. There is no other direction for entropy to go when something is at a minimum, it can only remain in that state, or increase.

The expansion of space, time and the increase in entropy are all linked. However, the system can be seperated via inflation which leads to the inability of information to flow from one part to another. Multiple universes are created.

Within our universe, we observe an accelerating rate of expansion, this has a paradoxical dual quality, entropy increases to a maximum within the system we call our universe, to a point where bubble universes seperate, that is where parts of the universe are travelling away from each other faster than the speed of light, much as which occured in inflation.

The inevitable consquence of this is a "big rip" and heat death. This is where everything is broken down into its smallest parts (quanta) and all parts are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. All quanta are in their own universe. All quanta in their individual systems (universes) are at minimum entropy.

Just as from the singularity that allowed the big bang, we have one singular point of energy, in a bubble of space time, which is at minimum entropy. There is only one direction for this to go.

• Honestly please let me know if that needs clarifying, it seems pretty simple to me.

  Oh I might add, that you could say, how can a quanta be divided into more parts to allow for another universe, well that I haven't really got an answer for. Just that entropy can only go in one direction.
  
  Also you might say that quantum theory allows for any quanta in space to blink in and out of existence over time. However, since entropy is at a minimum, there is no time. There is only 1 thing, there is nothing to move relative to it. Time only begins when entropy increases.
• So, time began after the big bang, and time ceases after the big rip. At these points we have entropy at a minimum. It can only remain that way or increase. Since there is no time, it seems it will just increase.
  
  Please someone, where did I go wrong?

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

fixed your title for you.

[Nicholas Kang]

Quantum effects should be taken into account, like quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling, etc. That is my personal idea.

[Sorcerer]

!

Moderator Note

fixed your title for you.

lol thanks, I speak real english, I sometimes forget some people find the antiquainted version preferable.

Quantum effects should be taken into account, like quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling, etc. That is my personal idea.

Yeah sure and how would they fit into this model (not that it really is one). I acknowledged the quantum vacuum and showed how it was of little relevance since time had ceased to exist.

 

How would quantum entanglement effect the various quanta in their own universes, would they still somehow be attached to each other even beyond an event horizon?

[Nicholas Kang]

Remember Stephen Hawking`s new article? Do you know why he insists that black holes do not exist? Because his foundings in 1974 contradicts Einstein`s Theory of Relativity, which states that falling into a black hole would be like free-fall. Here is why. In the year 1974, Hawking discovered that it is possible for one particle in a matter and anti-matter pair to fall into a black hole and the other would be left in permanent existence. These leftovers, heading away from the black hole in all direction, comprises the famous Hawking Radiation. Now, the problem is here. In 2010, a team of scientist from The University of California at (I have forgetton where the branch of the University is, either at Berkeley or Santa Barbara, iirc) found out one fact about quantum entanglement of particles around black hole. Now, when one particle falls into the black hole, it will be entangled with the leftover particle. However, the leftover particle might also entangled with the other leftover particles. The problem is quantum theory only allows one particle to be entangled with one particle. So, some force must break the entanglement, or untangling the particles. Then, this create a hot wall of particles surrounding the black hole, and contradicts Einstein`s Theory of Relativity. Thus, Hawking alter his theory, and simply abandoned the black hole idea but introduced a new grey hole theory.

 

In conclusion, entanglement across event horizon, I think, do exist.

[Strange]

The universe started as a singularity,

 

Almost certainly not true. So let's stick with what we know: the universe started in a hot dense state.

 

 

All quanta are in their own universe.

 

I suppose. If you redefine the word universe....

 

 

Just as from the singularity that allowed the big bang, we have one singular point of energy

 

And this is the energy of a single particle. An electron, for example. That is going to make a very tiny universe, even if you had a mechanism to do that.

 

 

Please someone, where did I go wrong?

 

Well, you haven't done the maths yet to show that your idea is plausible.

[Sorcerer]

@Nicholas why would you conclude this to be true, since relativity and quantum theory haven't been combined, one or both are wrong. I'll give you that anyway though. But the event horizon I'm talking about isn't one created by gravity, it's one created by the expansion of space, the hubble volume. I should have been more clear.

@ Strange,

1. To extrapolate backwards towards the beggining of the universe, you will get to a hot dense state, what prevents you from extrapolating to a singularity? If we stuck to what we "know" we'd be talking only about now. Our knowledge of what we can observe only begins after the big bang. Why will you make the leap to the small universe only up to a point (no pun intended)?

 

2. I should've said observable universe. Or perhaps event horizon or hubble volume.

3. Isn't "small" relative. If you have something and there is nothing else, isn't it actually infinately big?

4. I passed High School Calculus with an A+ and promptly forgot it all. I'll leave that up to the physicists.

Here is this idea clarified:

1. Entropy always increases.
2. The universe began as a singularity.
3. Entropy is at a minimum where energy is in its most highly ordered form.
4. Energy is in its most highly ordered form in a singularity.

5. The universe we observe is currently expanding at an increasing rate.

6. This expansion eventually leads to a big rip.
7. After the big rip the universe is also in a state of heat death (maximum entropy).

 

8. This creates a vast number of systems seperated via their hubble volumes, each within their own event horizons and at minimum entropy.

This is where there is a paradox, from the observing particle, within its own event horizon, it is in its most highly ordered form. Entropy is at a minimum. Even though from a point of view of the universe as a whole, entropy is at a maximum.

Just as any observer can only ascertain anything of their universe from what they observe, to the lone particle, it is at minimum entropy.

 

This is where the argument is circular. Paradoxical.

But how is it incorrect?

 

Challenge specifically directed at you Swansont since you thought it speculation.

1.http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

3.http://en.wikipedia...._minimum_energy

4.http://en.wikipedia....ularity#Entropy (avoid it then)

5.http://en.wikipedia....iki/Dark_energy

6.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

7.http://en.wikipedia....of_the_universe

8.http://en.wikipedia....i/Hubble_volume

Edited July 21, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Nicholas Kang]

What, you mean either Einstein or Planck and his team was wrong? Then, I should be in a dilemma now.

@Nicholas why would you conclude this to be true, since relativity and quantum theory haven't been combined, one or both are wrong. I'll give you that anyway though. But the event horizon I'm talking about isn't one created by gravity, it's one created by the expansion of space, the hubble volume. I should have been more clear.

 

I think they share the same properties. You see, they are related to expansion and explosion. One is space, another one is death of star.

[Strange]

1. To extrapolate backwards towards the beggining of the universe, you will get to a hot dense state, what prevents you from extrapolating to a singularity? If we stuck to what we "know" we'd be talking only about now. Our knowledge of what we can observe only begins after the big bang. Why will you make the leap to the small universe only up to a point (no pun intended)?

 

Because we don't have any theories that apply under those conditions. You can just naively follow the extrapolation and get to zero size (a singularity) but there is no reason to think that is physically meaningful.

 

You are suggesting that this meaningless extrapolation should be taken as seriously as highly detailed models that produce quantitative, testable results.

 

2. I should've said observable universe. Or perhaps event horizon or hubble volume.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

 

3. Isn't "small" relative. If you have something and there is nothing else, isn't it actually infinately big?

 

Not really. You know the mass of an electron. You know the mass of the Earth. How could the latter be created from the former?

 

 

 

4. I passed High School Calculus with an A+ and promptly forgot it all. I'll leave that up to the physicists.

 

As they currently have working theories and more than enough scientific ideas to look into, I'm not sure why they would bother.

 

 

Here is this idea clarified:

 

1. Entropy always increases.

 

3. Entropy is at a minimum where energy is in its most highly ordered form.

4. Energy is in its most highly ordered form in a singularity.

5. The universe we observe is currently expanding at an increasing rate.

6. This expansion eventually leads to a big rip.

7. After the big rip the universe is also in a state of heat death (maximum entropy).

 

That all seems pretty standard stuff. Although the idea of a "big rip" is still pretty much hypothetical.

 

This is where the argument is circular. Paradoxical.

 

 

I see no paradox. You are comparing the entropy of different things. You may also be comparing different definitions of entropy. (Without the maths, it isn't clear.)

 

 

But how is it incorrect?

 

Speculation with no maths and no evidence? What reason is there to consider it, never mind consider it to be correct?

What, you mean either Einstein or Planck and his team was wrong? Then, I should be in a dilemma now.

 

Not wrong but incomplete.

[swansont]

 

Challenge specifically directed at you Swansont since you thought it speculation.

 

 

Speculations need not be completely devoid of mainstream physics. Just some part of it.

[Sorcerer]

Not really. You know the mass of an electron. You know the mass of the Earth. How could the latter be created from the former?

 

 

Well, it's not, the earth was a part of the previous universe. The next universe is made of what is there for it to make it of. Entropy always increases. One thing turns into many things which become disordered and along the way create time in which something like us is able to observe and measure it and at it's end it's at maximum disorder, yet every piece is seperated into it's own observable universe. There is no information flowing into or out of the system, the system is at minimum entropy because it is in its most highly ordered state. Entropy always increases.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

Well, it's not, the earth was a part of the previous universe. The next universe is made of what is there for it to make it of.

 

But you are saying that the "next universe" is created from a single isolated particle. How do you get enough energy to create a whole universe from that?

 

 

Entropy always increases.

 

Thermodynamic entropy increases. How do you define that for a single particle?

 

 

One thing turns into many things

 

Are you just ignoring the various conservation laws?

 

 

Entropy always increases.

 

But it doesn't magically create mass or energy from nothing.

[Sorcerer]

The energy comes from the division of that particle. The particle is at minimum entropy, it is at maximum order, it must increase in entropy, the only way for this to happen is for it to divide into many parts. Any energy at all is some energy, if we infinitely divide something, something still remains.

 

What I was actually saying is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a consequence of the initial conditions of the universe, being a singularity and the necessary one directionality this enables, it can only remain the same or become more disordered. The second property to be taken into account is the expansion of the universe.

 

The total energy of the system remains the same, nothing is destroyed or created, only transformed.

 

Nothing was created. Everything always existed.

I do understand the very easy rebuttals, like a quanta is a quanta for a reason, it is the smallest indivisible thing. Photons even high energy ones don't change into two lower energy ones do they. So how can 1 thing at minimum energy (heat death) change into multiple things?

But then I'd ask the question, why did the singularity at the moment of the big bang seperate into many parts?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let me put it to you this way. I will assume you agree that something exists. That is axiomatic.

There are 3 possible outcomes when something exists.

1. It ceases to exist - this clearly didn't happen, so it is clearly likely given alot of "somethings" existing, chances are it won't happen to all of them.
2. It remains the same - in a universe containing only one thing there is an absence of time due to no interaction relative to anything else there is no moment when this occurs.
3. It changes - this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given the initial condition of only one thing existing, the only possible change is for it to turn into more than one thing.

Anyway it's pretty easy: What if it just splits into two things and they become gradually less and less ordered and undergo heat death? In an expanding universe?

Then there are eventually two things in their own universe, with no time, because they are too far apart (beyond event horizons) to exchange information.

You just doubled my chances of being correct.

 

Speculations need not be completely devoid of mainstream physics. Just some part of it.

Which part?

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

What if it just splits into two things and they become gradually less and less ordered and undergo heat death? In an expanding universe?

There is no evidence that fundamental particles can split in two. That is what fundamental means.

[hoola]

in post #1 you say time began with the big bang. I see time as having been around to cause the accumulated complexity of the big bang to occur in the first place. Certainly some rather lengthy list of functions must have been accomplished before the "switch was thrown" with the big bang...or there wouldn't have been any energy, let alone the specific low entropy energy system you describe. Some aspect of a facilitator must have the been the instructions allowing orderly arrangements and another aspect with the ability to carry out that function. All of this could have taken considerable time. I see one fundamental aspect of the facilitator as logic, which ordered chaotic information into the repeatable and sustaining functional units of math, and orderly arrangements described by the big bang would suggest a very baroque state to the maths at that particular point in time...

[Sorcerer]

There is no evidence that fundamental particles can split in two. That is what fundamental means.

Was the initial condition of the universe fundamental?

[Strange]

Was the initial condition of the universe fundamental?

As no one knows what the initial condition was (or even if there was one) and I don't know what fundamental means in that context, the only answer is: boh.

 

Also, with not quantitative predictions to test, this is all just random and rather pointless speculation.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Strange

[Sorcerer]

in post #1 you say time began with the big bang. I see time as having been around to cause the accumulated complexity of the big bang to occur in the first place. Certainly some rather lengthy list of functions must have been accomplished before the "switch was thrown" with the big bang...or there wouldn't have been any energy, let alone the specific low entropy energy system you describe. Some aspect of a facilitator must have the been the instructions allowing orderly arrangements and another aspect with the ability to carry out that function. All of this could have taken considerable time. I see one fundamental aspect of the facilitator as logic, which ordered chaotic information into the repeatable and sustaining functional units of math, and orderly arrangements described by the big bang would suggest a very baroque state to the maths at that particular point in time...

Time requires more than one thing to move relative to another. So yes as soon as there was more than one thing and they both exchanged information with each other there was time. As soon as there was 1 thing, there was only the possibility there was two things or nothing again. But then those two things became two seperate "one things", with no exchange of information between them. It went on ad infinitum. Untill at one moment, the accumulation of things was so vast that the probability of this occuring approached one, because this was a possibility.

 

You cannot refute something exists. You cannot refute this existence is a possibility.

 

It only has to be allowed that one thing can exist. No matter how small, to create the possibility of an infinite ammount of things. Since there is no time without two things exchanging information/moving relative to each other. There was no time when nothing existed, and no time when only one thing existed, there was only a time when more than one thing existed and this propagated into what we observe now.

 

And as a far out consequence, what we observe now will create a multitude of "one thing" unable to exchange information with each other at the far end of its timeline. And if we apply the same argument to that, we have a far greater chance that we are just infact the product of a naturally selected universe, one which is able to survive.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

Time requires more than one thing to move relative to another.

 

No it doesn't.

[Sorcerer]

As no one knows what the initial condition was (or even if there was one) and I don't know what fundamental means in that context, the only answer is: boh.

 

Also, with not quantitative predictions to test, this is all just random and rather pointless speculation.

Are the laws of physics universal and fundamental?

 

No it doesn't.

How does time exist when theres is less than two things, a point moving through the 4th dimension in a line is the same in every direction.

 

If entropy always increases, then there cannot be a line.

 

Infact I don't know why they call it the 4th dimension, surely it is the first.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

Are the laws of physics universal and fundamental?

 

They are assumed to be universal (if you mean "the same everywhere"). What does "fundamental" mean?

 

 

How does time exist when theres is less than two things, a point moving through the 4th dimension in a line is the same in every direction.

 

Time is independent of the existence of matter or energy. There are several solutions to Einstein's Field Equations which describe an empty universe (which still consists of space and time).

 

You may be confusing the ability to measure time which, arguably, requires change of some sort with the existence of time.

[Sorcerer]

I actually like you strange, you argue with me on the same level that I argue with myself, except you point out the part I neglect.

Yes now we're heading away from argument into semantics.

In regards to einsteins equations, well they don't mesh with quantum physics, and quantum physics would say space isn't truely empty, but a probability field, teeming with virtual particles.

Neither truely make sense in regards to the other. Both are not quite right. Like Newtons laws of gravity, they will soon be found to be incomplete models (if it wasn't apparent already), so, where does the truth lie?

You may be confusing the ability to measure time which, arguably, requires change of some sort with the existence of time.

And if you can't measure it, does it exist?

 

To me an observer is anything that interacts with another thing and thereby has an influence on it. For there to be time there requires an observer. When there is something (an observer), yet nothing to observe there is no time.

Or relativistically, there needs to be two things moving relative to each other.

Does heat death apply to a quantum vacuum?

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

In regards to einsteins equations, well they don't mesh with quantum physics

 

They are still the best description of space-time we currently have.

 

 

And if you can't measure it, does it exist?

 

If there is nothing in your universe, then you can't measure space either. Does that exist?

 

Spacetime has four dimensions whether there is anything in it or not.

[Sorcerer]

 

If there is nothing in your universe, then you can't measure space either. Does that exist?

 

Spacetime has four dimensions whether there is anything in it or not.

No space doesn't exist without matter, as far as I know according to Relativity, time and space is actually a quality of having THREE things seperated from each other where one can measure the relative distance between the other two.

 

I was looking at it from an outside observers 'point of view'. So I was considering two things to be able to have space time.

 

Well, can you please point me to the peer reviewed paper that says this. Because you seriously have me baffled.

 

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

No space doesn't exist without matter, as far as I know according to Relativity, time and space is actually a quality of having THREE things seperated from each other where one can measure the relative distance between the other two.

 

Relativity doesn't say anything like that. It defines the geometric background of time and distance.

 

 

Well, can you please point me to the peer reviewed paper that says this. Because you seriously have me baffled.

 

That says what? Here is a description of one "empty" universe model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model