At Rest with our Hubble view

quantum_wave said:
You don't think he knows the answer? You read his mind. Care to say how? Or how the question was related to the quote he used? Or are you just bored silly?
Click to expand...

I see you're out of the closet in full regalia trolling your own thread again.

Bored isn't quite the reaction to the "layman's view" of Penrose.

Silly is closer, only with a dash of melancholy.
 
I mean the energy being taken in would be in a lower entropy state and thanks to your corrections and assertions have more potential energy.

I'll take champagne :)
 
Aqueous Id said:
I see you're out of the closet in full regalia trolling your own thread again.

Bored isn't quite the reaction to the "layman's view" of Penrose.

Silly is closer, only with a dash of melancholy.
Click to expand...
Of course. I'd ask what your so called professional take on it is, but I know you don't answer my questions put directly to you, ... and that is fine.
 
To reiterate. The original question which began this argument was, "a photon is absorbed by an electron. Is the photon in a state by itself of lower entropy?"
 
PartyBoy said:
To reiterate. The original question which began this argument was, "a photon is absorbed by an electron. Is the photon in a state by itself of lower entropy?"
Click to expand...

What photon? It was absorbed by the electron, remember?
 
Huh? When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist? I believe the word was entropy by the way. Your description of events is farfetched. Are you serious or is this some kind of mental test to see if I was paying attention to the words I was writing?
 
quantum_wave said:
If you think about what Penrose said, once all the useful energy was out of the system, and if you call that complete entropy, he implied that a new system with low enrtopy (high useful energy) emerged in the wake of the former system, or so I surmise. He didn't connect the dots though as to how entropy was defeated in his "theory".
Click to expand...

Actually he did connect the dots. You can disagree with how he draws the connection lines, but he did have an explanation.

Further, Penrose believes that information is lost when it falls to the singularity within a black hole, and is not preserved in some correlation at the event horizon or in the particles emitted as the black hole evaporates. (In this view he is now in a distinct minority of theoretical physicists.) This makes black holes into entropy destroying machines. They devour all of the degrees of freedom of the particles that fall into them and then, when they evaporate with a “pop”, it's all lost and gone away. This allows Penrose to avoid what would otherwise be a gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In his scheme the big bang has very low entropy because all of the entropy created in the prior æon has been destroyed by falling into black holes which subsequently evaporate.​
 
Information differs from energy in that energy is an amount. Information is the specific substance reduced by a black body. In other words it looses shape not quanta which is in observance with the holographic principal.
 
quantum_wave said:
...
The Penrose Article:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang
Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang

WMAP's view of the past: can it see beyond the Big Bang?
Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". That is the sensational claim being made by University of Oxford theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who says that data collected by NASA's WMAP satellite support his idea of "conformal cyclic cosmology". This claim is bound to prove controversial, however, because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology.

According to inflationary theory, the universe started from a point of infinite density known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, expanded extremely rapidly for a fraction of a second and has continued to expand much more slowly ever since, during which time stars, planets and ultimately humans have emerged. That expansion is now believed to be accelerating and is expected to result in a cold, uniform, featureless universe.

Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe.

Big Bang all over again

Central to Penrose's theory is the idea that in the very distant future the universe will in one sense become very similar to how it was at the Big Bang. He says that at these points the shape, or geometry, of the universe was and will be very smooth, in contrast to its current very jagged form. This continuity of shape, he maintains, will allow a transition from the end of the current aeon, when the universe will have expanded to become infinitely large, to the start of the next, when it once again becomes infinitesimally small and explodes outwards from the next big bang. Crucially, he says, the entropy at this transition stage will be extremely low, because black holes, which destroy all information that they suck in, evaporate as the universe expands and in so doing remove entropy from the universe.

Penrose now claims to have found evidence for this theory in the cosmic microwave background, the all-pervasive microwave radiation that was believed to have been created when the universe was just 300,000 years old and which tells us what conditions were like at that time. The evidence was obtained by Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia, who analysed seven years' worth of microwave data from WMAP, as well as data from the BOOMERanG balloon experiment in Antarctica. Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have clearly identified concentric circles within the data – regions in the microwave sky in which the range of the radiation's temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere.

Seeing through the Big Bang

According to Penrose and Gurzadyan, these circles allow us to "see through" the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. The circles, they say, are the marks left in our aeon by the spherical ripples of gravitational waves that were generated when black holes collided in the previous aeon. And they say that these circles pose a problem for inflationary theory because this theory says that the distribution of temperature variations across the sky should be Gaussian, or random, rather than having discernable structures within it.

Julian Barbour, a visiting professor of physics at the University of Oxford, says that these circles would be "remarkable if real and sensational if they confirm Penrose's theory". They would, he says, "overthrow the standard inflationary picture", which, he adds, has become widely accepted as scientific fact by many cosmologists. But he believes that the result will be "very controversial" and that other researchers will look at the data very critically. He says there are many disputable aspects to the theory, including the abrupt shift of scale between aeons and the assumption, central to the theory, that all particles will become massless in the very distant future. He points out, for example, that there is no evidence that electrons decay.

End of article

Penrose's paper is on arXiv, which Grumpy has already discussed, pointing out the lack of peer review, but you can read it here:*http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

Penrose went out on a limb, wouldn't you say, lol.

(23598)
Click to expand...
The article expresses the view that inflationary theory says that the distribution of temperature variations across the sky should be smooth, or isotropic also referred to as Gaussian, rather than having discernible structures within it. The anomalies are non-Gaussian and point to energy density perturbations in the earliest low entropy, high denstiy stage of the big bang arena. Regardless of the causes of the perturbations, the cosmic microwave background is nonrandom and non-Gaussian, pointing to preconditions to the big bang.

Remember why Inflationary Theory was laid in on top of GR? It was theorized as a fix to explain how the observation of the CMB could be caused by the Big Bang, and not by preconditions.

Agree or not, my so called model invokes preconditions and attributes the CMB to the energy density that was outside the tiny space occupied by the low entropy, high denstiy condition at the moment of the bang. The idea is that there is a greater universe that preexisted our big bang, and it is characterized by a cosmic microwave background perpetuated by a potentially infinite and eternal landscape of active big bang arenas in various stages of formation and maturity.

That eliminates the exponential inflation which is necessary to connect the CMB to the big bang event, and eliminates the singularity as well. Those are two characteristics of the standard cosmology that cannot be falsified, but neither can it be falsified that there were preconditions, and the simple preconditions of a preexisting greater universe immediately eliminates two of the most controversial aspects of BBT, without adding any controversial aspect other than the Big Bang did not represent something from nothing. And that makes three controversial aspects of BBT that go away with my scenario.

Hence I stand by my so called model, and the parent arena concept that would predictably cause the observed wide angle anomaly in the CMB, due to gravitational profiles of each parent arenas being imprinted on the space into which our arena is expanding, and thus imprinted in the CMB that is encountered and encompassed by our arena as it expands.

(24018)
 
Qw. Could we chalk it up to the universe being inside a black body and calling the universe a wash?

In other words we are the balance of radiation between two black bodies?
 
quantum_wave said:
Hence I stand by my so called model, and the parent arena concept that would predictably cause the observed wide angle anomaly in the CMB, due to gravitational profiles of each parent arenas being imprinted on the space into which our arena is expanding, and thus imprinted in the CMB that is encountered and encompassed by our arena as it expands.
Click to expand...

I'll have Italian, please.
 
Penrose Mistates/Mispeaks

RPenroese.via QW......"He says that at these points the shape, or geometry, of the universe was and will be very smooth, in contrast to its current very jagged form. This continuity of shape, he maintains, will allow a transition from the end of the current aeon, when the universe will have expanded to become infinitely large, to the start of the next, when it once again becomes infinitesimally small and explodes outwards from the next big bang."
Click to expand...

QW, his use of words here are oxymorons(?) i.e. do not cojoin in same sentence properly.

At best he could have been refering to a macro-infinite, and such concept cannot have outer boundary shape. This should not take much rational logic for a common sense person on to understand.

As I made clear in various cosmic heirarchies macro-micro infinite non-occupied space can only be shaped from within, by a finite occupied space( our Universe ) shape. These are simple concepts that few grasp, much less acknowledge if they do grasp, and no one has every conceded the rational logic of such a concept/scenario.

Micro-infinite can have no shape either. Infinity can have no shape.

Finite = shape = 1D line, 2D polygon, 3D polyhedron etc....and not infinity.

I like his ideas on black holes or some celestial phenomena that does remove entropy tho.

< O > = finite non-occupied space shaping from within macro-micro infinite non-occupied space.

Simple not complex conceptual scenario.

...time arrow >...past )( future....> time arrow..

Eternal NOW is the non-dimensional kissing point )( where past and future meetynad are conceptually seperate.

Think of NOW as a finite 2D frame/slice of our finite 3D Universe.

If I recall Brian Greene expresses this in his book "Fabric of the Cosmos".

And do not forget, jacob bekenstiens comments, that, "we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusions of 3D"....via his black hole mathematics and subsequent holographic scenarios.

For a simplistic view of singularity ideas of a black hole and their evaporation, then go to following link to see a zero-volume tetrahedron i.e. what your seeing is a 3D volume tetrahedron as it comes to zero volume but maintains its four planes.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate31.html

A zero volume tetrahedron evolves into the cubo(6)-oct(8)hedron aka Vector Equlirbrium aka 12-around-1 spheres/sphericals with 12 external triangles as the that which has evaporated away.

The spherical cubo-octahedrons surface area is equal to the four curved, great/equlatorial, hexagonal planes that bisect and define the cubo-octahedra/vectro equilibrium.

This is a simple way of grasping how what is happeing when you read about what is inside a black hole--- ie. the four hexagonal planes ---are expressed o the black holes surface. That too may be Bekenstien/Hawking finding. I forget where that concept originally came from.

r6
 
PartyBoy said:
Information differs from energy in that energy is an amount.
Click to expand...

If there was any measure of information in that statement I could weigh it and the scale would still point to zero. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Information is the specific substance reduced by a black body.
Click to expand...

Shannon's theorem for blackbody information reduction . . . plus noise. :crazy:

In other words it looses shape not quanta which is in observance with the holographic principal.
Click to expand...

This salad has got magic mushrooms in it. :eek:
 
rr6 said:
A zero volume tetrahedron evolves into the cubo(6)-oct(8)hedron aka Vector Equlirbrium aka 12-around-1 spheres/sphericals with 12 external triangles as the that which has evaporated away.

The spherical cubo-octahedrons surface area is equal to the four curved, great/equlatorial, hexagonal planes that bisect and define the cubo-octahedra/vectro equilibrium.

This is a simple way of grasping how what is happeing when you read about what is inside a black hole--- ie. the four hexagonal planes ---are expressed o the black holes surface. That too may be Bekenstien/Hawking finding. I forget where that concept originally came from.

r6
Click to expand...

Buckminster Fuller meets Stephen Hawking in that contraption that made The Human Fly.

Waiter, there's an icosahedron in my salad! :wtf:
 
Reading too much of it could lead to drinking. I'd like to see the label: Warning: the National Academy of Sciences has determined that excessive consumption of word salad can be detrimental to your intellectual health. :cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top