Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Parry: on 8/5/09 at 20:48pm UTC, wrote You can not have disorder without stuff to make the mess.Whether at home or...

Georgina Parry: on 3/12/09 at 5:19am UTC, wrote Proud daddy, cute kid. That aside I could not finish reading the article as...

paul valletta: on 4/12/08 at 0:54am UTC, wrote At the Universe's end phase, there will be less and less interacting...



FQXi FORUM
June 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Baby Steps [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Apr. 12, 2008 @ 00:54 GMT
At the Universe's end phase, there will be less and less interacting particles, there will be a resulting low-entropic signature. The early Universe's low entropy will almost certainly be of similar make up, a closed system with just a few "large" symetric particles, has the same entropy value as a closed system with a similar few micro particles?

A box containing 10 super sized particles, and a box contianing 10 fractional particles can be in entropic equilibrium, but can also evolve to opposite entropic values?. if both boxes evolve at different rates large particles slowly, and the micro particles fast, then there will, over a great timscale, be a time where both boxes have the same entropy value, there is one and only one "instant" of "in-phase" identity?..if the box with fractional particles has been in existence long enough, then it will settle down to a low interacting phase, with very few collisions, this can match the box of super sized particles, which has a slower evolving history factor.

The cyclic nature of the Universe may have two opposite phase state zones, the early state and the late state, both may have a similar low number of particles, thus have identical entropy values.

If one could take a snapshot of the early "time" instants of this Universe 13 billion yrs ago, say a fraction of a nano second into the birth of the Universe, and take a similar snapshot, say a fraction of a femto second before the Universe's end, then it is my guess these instants are identical, one cannot distinguish where one ends and the other begins, they have identical "in-phase" or rollover values?

If one could take a snapshot large number Universe cycles, and put it onto a photographic plate, one would get a spectrum of pulse's, bright lines, fading to dark blotches, then brightening, a cyclic Universe is really a pulsing Universe?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 12, 2009 @ 05:19 GMT
Proud daddy, cute kid. That aside I could not finish reading the article as it all just sounds too wrong.

Entropy is not the answer here it is a red herring.

Things do not fall up and put themselves together because all matter loosing potential energy. (The potential energy of the matter is equivalent to its 4th dimensional position. So it always takes up the most afore 4th dimensional position it can.)

The once separate vase has lost potential energy and has now become a part of the floor on which it lies.If not swept up it will in time become embedded and completely continuous with the floor rather than being separate pieces. This is an example of matter coming together as a result of loosing potential energy or in other words the result of gravity. It is not a vase falling apart but the ground gaining an extra layer of substance.

If the broken pieces were picked up and loaded into a special chute that guided them into the correct positions as they descended, then they would come together. But only because they can do so by loosing potential energy.

All of the matter of the universe can be visualised in motion along the 4th dimension from aft to afore space if it is considered spatial or is loosing potential energy if it is considered in energetic terms only.

To move aft-wards along the 4th dimension i.e. to gain potential energy, an energy change must take place that provides the necessary energy to move against the normal direction of change. i.e. against gravity. So the vase can be lifted back onto the table, because there is energy input into this manoeuvre.

Rather than the structures of the universe fragmenting and becoming more disordered, the universe is becoming more complex and ordered. From dust and gas to planets and stars to spiral galaxies.As potential energy is lost, (giving rise to gravity), mass energy and kinetic energy is formed and the process of creation builds the universe into ever larger and more complex forms.

This is not entropy in action. This is a continual energy change, higher to lower potential energy. It is the cause of gravity and the source of the experience of subjective time.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 5, 2009 @ 20:48 GMT
You can not have disorder without stuff to make the mess.Whether at home or out in the expanse of the universe. Maximum amount of separate matter gives maximum disorder.As the universe develops more and more energy is converted to mass energy. More matter is made. However the matter is also drawn together along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension into larger objects and structures.

There may be, some range of position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension, where the universe could be assigned maximum entropy.(I do not currently know why this would be a useful exercise to do.) I have perhaps wrongly assumed that the maximum production of matter, as in atoms, was further aft than the current 4th spatio-energetic dimensional position of the objective universe and therefore that it is predominantly matter already in existence that is being ordered, decreasing entropy.I would be happy to know if there is evidence to show that that is an incorrect assumption.(By objective I mean the actual material universe, rather than an electromagnetic image of it.)

The position of destruction of the universe and the position at which birth of new universe is initiated is the same.It is the singularity.There is at that position an identical entropy. In my opinion.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.