|
|
|
FQXi FORUM
CATEGORY: Article Discussions
[back]
TOPIC: A Wonderful Outcome
[refresh]
|
|
|
|
It is simply a huge mistake to imagine the cosmos as rushing from order to chaos. We know today in science that the expansion of the universe is accelerating directly toward absolute zero. The only question is whether time reaches zero in infinite or finite (big rip) time. Absolute zero is neither chaos nor disorder. Absolute zero is perfect balance.
If we limit ourselves to thinking purely in terms of order and disorder (asymmetry) as Boltzmann did when he developed the statistical side of the second law, then it seems like our cosmos is becoming increasingly disordered. However, in physics and cosmology we observe and study a universe that is constructed of positives and negatives and neutrals. There is always an anti-particle for every particle, there is always a perfectly inverse world of stable anti-matter. Hence, if we depart from Boltzmann and think in terms of positive, negative and neutral, we logically expect that ultimately the whole of all possible states is symmetrical rather than asymmetrical.
Since 1998 we have known the universe is expanding toward zero! The cosmos begins all mass and energy and no space, and seems now to end all space and no mass or energy. Absolute zero is out there, it is possibly the most basic axiom of physics and mathematics, and a state of zero is certainly not disorder, it is extreme balance.
Unfortunately I missed Greene’s talk but attended Stephen Hawking’s presentation in Seattle recently. Hawking showed two slides, one of a puzzle fit together which he labeled with one word “order”, and then he showed a puzzle broken apart, labeling it “disorder”, and then suggested that the puzzle cannot probabilistically fit itself together. Sure in Boltzmann’s ideology this appears to be logically and probabilistically true. But if the overall structure of all possible states for the universe is positive-neutral-negative, as logically it must be, then the statement that the puzzle cannot fit itself together is probabilistically untrue. If swung to one side a pendulum exists in a state of imbalance. Set free the pendulum swings until it returns to a state of rest or balance. In this way the perfect puzzle (absolute zero, perfect symmetry) can fit itself together. A balanced state can create or cause itself, at least in this sub-system of space-time.
Today we think the direction of time is away from order to disorder, but that ideology is based upon a hidden principle, which is that time will try to find an ultimate balance in the space of all possible states, so we assume that since there are more disordered states, time will probabilistically be driven in that direction. So we are imagining that time is trying to find a balance that supposedly doesn’t exist. We might try to define absolute zero or empty space as the most disordered (boundary) state, but then time would move toward some balance between the most ordered state (Alpha of the big bang) and absolute zero. Except the universe is clearly not moving toward any such mid point, rather time is now accelerating toward zero, as shown in the first attached image. Why? The most obvious conclusion would be that absolute zero is the balance of all possible states, and that our modern conception of the big picture is simply wrong. It may seem that systems are moving from order to disorder in short time durations, but in the deep time of cosmic evolution, all systems are moving from imbalance to balance. The big picture is not asymmetric, it is of course symmetric. How could it be otherwise?
If we evaluate the direction of time from a top-down (timeless) perspective then it is necessary to imagine the space of all possible states as having three boundaries, all positive, all negative and all neutral, as shown in the second attached image. The image portrays the Alpha singularity in our past as having a bulk positive charge. In this model Alpha is simply one state within the timeless space of all possible states. What we call time begins like a pendulum swung all the way to one side, in a state of highest possible imbalance. Hence time doesn’t have to originate from a fluctuation in a vacuum. Extreme imbalance is simply what exists in the past. We all know that time probabilistically will not travel from balance to imbalance. Once at rest, the pendulum remains at rest. Perfect symmetry remains perfect, it doesn’t suddenly fracture and create a sub-system. The only possible natural direction of time is away from imbalance toward balance. There is no missing anti-matter, it exists on the other side of a membrane that separates our universe from a parallel inverse partner. Logically we should expect imbalance, and expect to find the most extreme state of imbalance in our past, and only expect the most ordered state (balance) in our future.
We consider the big bang to be ordered but Alpha is merely one type of order, it is like checkers as the game begins with white pieces on one side divided apart from the black pieces on the other side. In the cosmic game time originates from one side or the other of the duality of positive and negative, and the present of a four dimensional system probabilistically moves toward a more balanced state such as the background of the checkerboard, where black and white pieces, positives and negatives, are positioned in a lattice. The past is merely one type of order which in my book I call grouping order. In the future there exists another kind of order, the perfect symmetry of balance, which I call symmetry order. The lattice structures in chemistry, and electromagnetism in general, are examples of increasing balance, they are in essence our perfectly balanced zero future influencing the present. The puzzle is piecing itself together, which is why our universe is so systematic and orderly, and not disorderly and chaotic.
Gevin Giorbran
http://everythingforever.com
| | attachments:
densitygradient.gif,
allstatesbig.jpg |
 |
|
|
|
|
One the ideas that attracted me to physics as a high school student in the sixties was George Gamow's discussion of time as a dimension of reality. Recently I have become skeptical of the idea of time as a dimension. What we call "a moment of time" may actually be the temporary intersection of various different processes and events.
Or, perhaps it is just that we assign too many actions to time that are not really time related. For example, the reason an egg doesn't unbreak is not because of time, but because a specific process is necessary to produce an egg and a different process breaks the egg. It is not time that doesn't go backward, but the processes themselves that don't. The process that breaks the egg cannot construct an egg or anything else. There is no physical process that can reconstruct an egg that has been broken, although feeding the components of the egg to the chicken would provide the chicken with the necessary chemicals to produce a new egg.
On the other hand, there is a process that can "unbreak" a bone in the human body. There is a machine that can restore the frame of a car that has been bent in an accident by stretching it back into shape. Certain plastics that have been bent may be restored to their original shape because they have a "memory" of that shape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm concerned about the tendency to turn empirical science into a religion. Certainty in science depends on the completeness of data. The more data are available the more potentially accurate the theory.
Scientists who study the cosmos need to recognize that their theories cannot be proved with any degree of certainty. Only a god could have sufficent data to make conclusive statements such as "Since 1998 we have known the universe is expanding toward zero!" Some scientists may "believe" such a statement to be true, but too much of the available data is too old to be reliable.
Theories depend upon assumptions about data that cannot be proved. For example, if the universe is a closed system of fixed size with a reflective "wall" some of the distant galazies observed may be reflections of other galaxies. If a galaxy whose light left it 10 billion years ago reached that barrier 2 billion years ago, the information will not reach earth for at least a few billion years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer certainly has to do with Entropy. All particles have an existence in a percieved "now", time forces everything along a dirct route into the future, why?
The future is, by fact of it's proximity to "now", the "space" freely availability for change. The past is not available for any change in any way. There are no particles available (still available), in our past, if our sun was still shining say, 1 million years before yesterday(still pushing out photons in a past as well as today), then there is no change occuring.
Thus the Arrow of time points towards Change. From the initial big-bang to the present "now" time, change has occured. The article shows the imprint of WMAP, this is close to the big-bang, but if you were around 5 billion years ago, with the same detection system, would you detect the same imprint?..or if one progresses into the distant future, would one be able to filter the CMBR to such a degree that it is identical?
The answer is of course no, there will be a lot of changes in the future, there will be none in the past, unless you class the past as being a Ghost Condensate. Infact these changes will occur at an exponential increased rate , why because the future is expanding to such a degree that all process's governing matter will experience change at an increased rate(entropic chaos). But all is not lost, there is a neat little unknown fact that the Universe's high entropic end-state, means there will be less available energy in the future that produces change, thus the remnant matter that is available will experience "rapid" changes, there lays the period for phase transition.
There can be no reverted arrow in time, there can be no symmetry, the past has no available matter in which to produce change, but the interesting thing about our future, is the expansion connects to "extra" dimensions.
The existence of "other" dimensions, not relative to "present" spacetime of course is exactly what our future will entail, these dimensions are not currently around us "now", they are coming to us from the Future, if Lisa Randall was to look closely at some basic assumptions about Time, she needs to calculate the appearance of these "future" extra dimensions, and see they do not currently pervade our "now" spacetime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The strong arrow of time is angular momentum not entropy. Feynman's sprinkler spins from emission but not in time-reversed absorption. A motion picture film can with an orthogonal port at the center of its broad face and another tangent to its edge is an absolute direction of time detector.
Fill with water then pump water center inflow to edge outflow. No problem. Reverse time - no flow! Conservation of angular momentum creates a fluid diode.
Curiously, angular momentum is the disjoint non-overlap between metric gravitation (General Relativity; Equivalence Principle = true) and affine, telparallel, and noncummutative gravitation (GR wholly contained as a restricted case; EP violation from angular momentum).
A 2-day test and a 90-day test can large amplitude decide between metric and non-metric gravitation. Both run in existing apparatus. Somebody should look: quick calorimetry experiment (html), E?ɬ?tv?ɬ?s experiment (pdf) with overall explanation.
If the EP has a reproducible empirical parity violation then string theory (BRST invariance) is wrong. Chiral special cases throughout physics (e.g., Weak Interaction) are sourced, biological homochirality is sourced... and contingent vacuum chiral anisotropy adds a finesse to quantum field theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are those who study the idea of the degree of order after the Big Bang familiar with Chaos theory?
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
Chaos theory has two very important concepts. One is the idea that there may be order in sitautions that appear disordered. The second is that even very minor changes may produce significant changes later on - "The Butterfly Effect".
The idea that study of the CMB can indicate conditions at the beginning of the universe is inconsistent with Chaos theory. There are too many variables involved for precise information to survive for so long. Radiation from the past would have had to have been reflected and mixed with other radiation billions of times. Background radiation is more likely to be only background radiation.
Those who want to assign some other significance to CMB might consider that it could be interpreted as supporting the concept of "Gaia". Some of the comments I have read by supporters of this concept in other forums indicate that Gaia, or Earth Mother, might be some form of energy field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reason:
It's not crazy to think this (in fact I heard a similar 'impossibility' claim from a rather eminant physicist lately). But it isn't correct either. It is true that details regarding, say the *exact* orbits of stars in the Milky way could not be predicted from the cosmological initial conditions. But the CMB can be, largely because the fluctuations start our so small. In chaos terms, you might very roughly think of as the Liapunov time (the characteristic timescale over which initially similar trajectories diverse exponentially in time and in their initial separation) being much longer than the time between the formation of the perturbations and the observations of the CMB.
Moreover, CMB photons interact very weakly with neutral or very diffuse matter. The CMB is considered to have 'formed' when the universe became almost entirely neutral. After this, so only ~10% of CMB photons reaching us
have interacted with the matter at all (this happened when the universe became reionized much later and with much lower density.
I won't comment on the Gaia hypothesis except to say that I can't believe Gaia would be so cruel to cosmologists as to create a CMB so very much like the one predicted in detail from cosmologists' models.
| | this post has been edited by the forum administrator |
|
|
|
|
|
The observer Time has another paradox, or it may be my lack of understanding?..but I reason there must be an observer dependance for large as well as small scale measurments.
Take this example:You look out across space at a distant Galaxy, you as the observer note that you are looking across a "past", the Galaxy you observe is defined as being in the past. But if there are observers within the observed Galaxy, then they see you(in this Galaxy), in their past?
Surely if WE class them as being in "our" past, then we must be in their "Future", from our perspective we must be in their future!
Then there is the fact that Light we see is travelling towards us from this other Galaxy, again we state this Light is coming towards us from a "past", ..but as far as the Light is concerned, we are directly in it's "future" path? We are for sure in the Lights future.
Back to the two Galaxies with observers, light emminating from our Galaxy that is seen by observers at another Galaxy, is deemed to be travelling from a distant "past", yet the light itself must be travelling in an opposite direction, it is always future pointing?
It seems logical that we cannot observe our Galactic light leaving our Galaxy, if we could we would surely observe a future, stated that we collect light for observations as always from a distant past, yet light "itself" is always dependant on heading towards a future?
There is a comparable Quantum "time" dependancy, albeit in scale. Looking for a "quantum" needle in a Macro Haystack, who detect who first?
It takes "time" to locate and detect a quantum needle, but by fact of scale, a "Quantum needle" will detect me long before I can detect it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CMB as a result of the Big Bang would only seem possible in the context of an aether comprised of photons. Even a drop of water falling into a completely still pool will create a disturbance that will last for a noticable amount of time.
There is a common myth in physics that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of an aether. The reasoning behind the experiment suffereed from several logical flaws and scientists didn't learn a critically important fact about water waves for another century. The development of sensitive equipment to measure the precise location and time of underwater earthquakes allowed discovery of the fact that the speed of the resulting high speed tsunami waves depends only upon the depth of the water and gravitational constant. If the velocity of water currents doesn't affect the speed of high speed water waves than the velocity of any "aether wind" would be unlikley to affect the speed of light.
The Michelson-Morley experiment also suffered from logical flaws. For example, an aether might on only transmit light waves through space with air being the medium within the atmosphere. Thus an aether wind if it existed would not be detectable at the earth's surface. Any aether in an enclosed space would move at the same velocity (earth's rotation, orbit of the sun, etc.) as the room itself and thus not affect the speed of light within the enclosed space.
Understanding of light has been complicated by the false controversy of "Light IS a wave" v. "Light IS a particle". It is unlikely that light IS either a wave or a particle. Instead light is a form of energy that may be transferred from one location to another by waves or particles.
Kinetic energy is not waves or particles, but can be transferred from one location to another by either. A thrown baseball transfers the kinetic energy produced by the motion of the pitcher to the catcher's mitt or bat. A txunami wave transfers the kinetic energy produced by an underwater earthquake to distant shores.
|
|
|
|
|
