Large Scale Thinking!

[sigurdV]

Understanding our Universe is an example of what I mean by the topic.

You have heard about Poincares "Eternal Recurrence", no?

Well then: He said that if the universe is finite in mass, but infinite in time then any situation will occur infinitely many times!

This will be written infinitely many times!? Nah! I dont believe that, do you?

Welcome!

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems we face, is we have no good definition of time that can equate time to energy and matter so we can know proportional relationship. Time tends to remain a philosophy variable resulting in philosophical science. It is stuck as a reference variable, in a world where reference is relative. This allows anything you wish from time. What we need is a tangible link to known science that is not based on philosophical reference.

The closest tangible science concept to time, in terms of functionality, is entropy. Both entropy and time, within the universe, move in one direction; time moves forward and entropy will increase. Energy/mass is conserved and therefore stays the same so it does not flow like time.

Since entropy needs energy to increase, you cannot get infinite entropy out of a finite amount of mass/energy. The amount of theoretical entropy is proportional to the amount of mass/energy. This suggests that time cannot be infinite with a finite about of mass/energy.

As entropy increase in one direction and time flows forward, mass/energy is absorbed into entropy, causing the usable mass/energy of the universe to decrease. The energy is conserved, but no longer useable once it is converted into entropy, since the entropy of the universe cannot decrease nor can universal time be made to go backwards.

Entropy, by decreasing the useable mass/energy, places mass/energy into the stream of time; useable mass/energy of the universe decreases with time. As time moves forward, useable mass/energy is lost. We will have only a finite time until entropy maxes out, by absorbing all the useable mass/energy. Without useable energy, there are no further changes of state possible. Since time is defined as changes of state, time will stop.

 

[sigurdV]

Just pointing out an interesting statement:

One of the problems we face, is we have no good definition of time that can equate time to energy and matter so we can know proportional relationship. Time tends to remain a philosophy variable resulting in philosophical science. It is stuck as a reference variable, in a world where reference is relative. This allows anything you wish from time. What we need is a tangible link to known science that is not based on philosophical reference.

The closest tangible science concept to time, in terms of functionality, is entropy. Both entropy and time, within the universe, move in one direction; time moves forward and entropy will increase. Energy/mass is conserved and therefore stays the same so it does not flow like time.

Since entropy needs energy to increase, you cannot get infinite entropy out of a finite amount of mass/energy. The amount of theoretical entropy is proportional to the amount of mass/energy. This suggests that time cannot be infinite with a finite amount of mass/energy.

As entropy increase in one direction and time flows forward, mass/energy is absorbed into entropy, causing the usable mass/energy of the universe to decrease. The energy is conserved, but no longer useable once it is converted into entropy, since the entropy of the universe cannot decrease nor can universal time be made to go backwards.

Entropy, by decreasing the useable mass/energy, places mass/energy into the stream of time; useable mass/energy of the universe decreases with time. As time moves forward, useable mass/energy is lost. We will have only a finite time until entropy maxes out, by absorbing all the useable mass/energy. Without useable energy, there are no further changes of state possible. Since time is defined as changes of state, time will stop.

 

[sigurdV]

Well met wellwisher! That was an interesting refutation of Poincare

Would you perhaps also care to comment the fact
that scientists trusting the Theory of Relativity
have (approximately) measured the Absolute age of our Universe?

 

[wellwisher]

Relative to special relativity, time slows in a faster reference, while time speeds up in a slower reference. Relative to entropy, if time and entropy are directly related, if time slows in a reference, the rate of entropy generation should decrease. If time speeds up in a reference, the rate of entropy should increase.

One experiment to prove this would be to design an entropy generator, such as waste heat from a machine of efficiency equal to K. We will make two exact machines and place one in each reference; fast and slow.

One machine will be in the fast velocity reference, where time slows, and the other in the slow velocity reference where time moves faster. We compare the rate of entropy generation in each references. Since time is slower in one reference, the machine slows and the entropy rate slows, due to the waste heat being generated at a trickle relative to the observation reference. The other is opposite. This is consistent with rate of entropy proportional to rate of time passage, as defined by SR.

The actual age of the universe would need to be based on the physical amount of universal entropy, the generation rate of which, would have changed along with the time dilation due to changing SR.

If we assume the earth time reference is the standard, this may result in the assumption of more entropy in the universe that actually is, since it does not take into account the variable rate of entropy generation as a function of SR. The earth reference rate of entropy generation; time passage, will calculate less useable energy left in the universe than there actually is, since it is using a faster reference that was not always in the universe.

To do it right, we need to place ourselves on each time dilated reference as the universe evolves, so we can calculate the left over useable mass/energy, and the true age of the universe that is proportional to this entropy. This is why you can't use philosophical reference and expect to be right, unless might is right.

I would go back to BB and use the actual universal reference and not transpose it to the earth since this will assume too much entropy and not enough available mass/energy.

 

[sigurdV]

My worry is that the age of our universe seem to be an "absolute"!

To a layman of physics (as I am) it seems as if Termodynamics and Relativity might contradict each other.

Plainly: Isnt the age of the universe independent of what frame we might be in?

Im thinking of the thought experiment where two spaceships with constant velocity pass each other.

According to relativity it cant be decided if one ship is in rest and the other is in motion.

But if a ship had a clock measuring the age of the university and another clock measuring local time...

Would not comparing their speed reveal how fast the ship travels?

Does this mean a clock measuring universal time is not possible?

 

[sigurdV]

Entropy has been mentioned. Its connection with time makes it unavoidable when looking at a large scale picture of the universe. For example:

(From Wikipedia)

Penrose examines implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and its inevitable march toward a maximum entropy state of the universe. Illustrating entropy in terms of information state phase space (with 1 dimension for every degree of freedom) where particles end up moving through ever larger grains of this phase space from smaller grains over time due to random motion. He disagrees with Stephen Hawking's back-track over whether information is destroyed when matter enters black holes. Such information loss would non-trivially lower total entropy in the universe as the black holes wither away due to Hawking radiation, resulting in a loss in phase space degrees of freedom.

Penrose goes on further to state that over enormous scales of time (beyond 10100 years), distance ceases to be meaningful as all mass breaks down into extremely red-shifted photon energy, whereupon time has no influence, and the universe continues to expand without event . This period from Big Bang to infinite expansion Penrose defines as an aeon. The smooth “hairless” infinite oblivion of the previous aeon becomes the low-entropy Big Bang state of the next aeon cycle. Conformal geometry preserves the angles but not the distances of the previous aeon, allowing the new aeon universe to appear quite small at its inception as its phase space starts anew.

Penrose cites concentric rings found in the WMAP cosmic microwave background survey as preliminary evidence for his model, as he predicted black hole collisions from the previous aeon would leave such structures due to ripples of gravitational waves.

(to be continued)

 

[sigurdV]

Most large scale theories (such as the thinking of Roger Penrose)
does not take into account eventual effects life can have.

I would like to know if the following speculation is refuted somewhere.

In short:

1 Life originates in stellar clouds and will eventually by building an object called a "Dyson Sphere" collect all energy (and matter) coming from their sun.

2 In the process a powerful ray is directed towards their closest neighbouring stellar system. This ray is used for transport of matter.
Among other things living matter in what I call "Ray Cities"

3 I assume the friction in the ray is very low and that the Ray City somehow surviving in the Ray can accelerate as close to the velocity of light as the energy recieved from the ray admits.

4 Local time inside the city goes on as usual but seen from outside their time is slowed depending on their speed.

5 Each time a city approaches a sun, that suns energy output is automatically collected by dropped off machinery and the rest of the matter in the system gets vaporised and is introduced into the ray

6 Eventually all there is are Rays and Ray Cities.

7 This may,or may not, have unexpected effects on the fabric of the universe itself!

 

[quantum_wave]

Lol, I see you have nothing more interesting to contemplate ... because what could be more interesting than contemplating the universe?

I recently saw a Tweet from Sean Carroll that included a saying on a T-shirt. It said, "Entropy isn't what it used to be". Penrose and M Theory, string theory, and various multiverse theories in general all deal with entropy in their own way, but it is still generally seen as a continually increasing process. Would you agree that increasing entropy would be a flaw in an infinite universe. My thinking is that entropy would eventually equalize all energy differentials and win out; no life could exist without energy differentials.

Your large scale thinking might be taken to the limit by invoking an infinite and eternal universe where entropy is defeated. Any thoughts?

 

[sigurdV]

Lol, I see you have nothing more interesting to contemplate ... because what could be more interesting than contemplating the universe?

I recently saw a Tweet from Sean Carroll that included a saying on a T-shirt. It said, "Entropy isn't what it used to be". Penrose and M Theory, string theory, and various multiverse theories in general all deal with entropy in their own way, but it is still generally seen as a continually increasing process. Would you agree that increasing entropy would be a flaw in an infinite universe. My thinking is that entropy would eventually equalize all energy differentials and win out; no life could exist without energy differentials.

Your large scale thinking might be taken to the limit by invoking an infinite and eternal universe where entropy is defeated. Any thoughts?

Hi quantum_wave! For personal reasons I think The relation of life and universe tops the list. Is life a disease of universes? Or is life part of the sexual apparatus of universes... And here at a limit I yet see no way to continue serious speculations.

The question of the effect of entropy to our universe is at the forefront of forecasting, and your question of how entropy works in an infinite universe is (I think) hitting the nail on its head. Somehow its difficult for me to believe theres only a finite amount of energy...perhaps here... but where did it come from ...so what about the elsewhere?

Its nice to see the expression:"No life could exist without energy differentials."
I tend to be blunt so I usually say:
What shall we eat when we have consumed our universe?

There is the suggestion that by slowing down our metabolism in tempo with the diminishing energy differential,
perhaps sustaining life indefinitely is possible as a result of quantum uncertainty...

 

[quantum_wave]

Hi quantum_wave! For personal reasons I think The relation of life and universe tops the list. Is life a disease of universes? Or is life part of the sexual apparatus of universes... And here at a limit I yet see no way to continue serious speculations.

I'm more of the optimistic persuasion ... if the universe is infinite and eternal, and life is generative and evolvative, then there has always been and always will be life. Life arising under hospitable conditions and evolving to intelligent beings is at least natural and if any more than that, it could be an "eternal intention" of the universe more than a disease, lol.

The question of the effect of entropy to our universe is at the forefront of forecasting, and your question of how entropy works in an infinite universe is (I think) hitting the nail on its head. Somehow its difficult for me to believe theres only a finite amount of energy...perhaps here... but where did it come from ...so what about the elsewhere?

I could agree with an infinite amount of energy; in fact it would be a given in an infinite and eternal universe. As for where would I say it came from, it didn't come about, it has always existed and cannot be created or destroyed.

I say yes to the "elsewhere" though to the extent that we seem to be in a big bang arena that is causally connected to our very own big bang. But our BB might very well be one of a potentially infinite number of big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe; the infinite landscape of the greater universe being the "elsewhere".

Its nice to see the expression:"No life could exist without energy differentials."
I tend to be blunt so I usually say:
What shall we eat when we have consumed our universe?

There is the suggestion that by slowing down our metabolism in tempo with the diminishing energy differential,
perhaps sustaining life indefinitely is possible as a result of quantum uncertainty...

Perhaps, be if not, I am comfortable thinking of life being generated everywhere across the universe and across eternity, and if so, life has always existed and is as natural as the stars and planets.