The cyclic universe hypothesis

[shmogie]

Your arguing against the fundamental Law of Thermodynamics that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but transformed from one form to another. There is a lack of fundamental science that is universally accepted, which cripples your argument, because of a self-imposed ignorance of actual science.

No, I am not arguing against thermodynamics. An ad hominem again, professor.


I did not say energy was destroyed, I said energy in certain forms is expended, not the same at all.

Energy from nuclear reaction, which fuels the fuels the stars will become expended, no more nuclear reaction.

It exists and becomes part of the equilibrium of the universe, or in some manner is converted to matter, yet the energy in the form of nuclear reaction, light, volcanic energy, thermal energy, will all ultimately be expended, those things will no longer exist.

Well professor Corey, capiche ?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I am not arguing against thermodynamics. An ad hominem again, professor.


I did not say energy was destroyed, I said energy in certain forms is expended, not the same at all.

Energy from nuclear reaction, which fuels the fuels the stars will become expended, no more nuclear reaction.

It exists and becomes part of the equilibrium of the universe, or in some manner is converted to matter, yet the energy in the form of nuclear reaction, light, volcanic energy, thermal energy, will all ultimately be expended, those things will no longer exist.

Well professor Corey, capiche ?

No, that is not what you said, and you are still incorrect concerning the relationship between energy. matter and the Quantum World.

If certain(?) kinds of energy are expended, where and how, what's next? What happens to the energy in your examples?

You said, "Available energy certainly can be used up,"

After used up what happens to the energy?

The fundamental principle of Thermodynamics is matter, energy, and universes do not simply spontaneously appear nor begin from nothing nor die, nor used up.

 

[wellwisher]

Energy can also go into entropy. Any increase in entropy, requires the absorption of free energy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means that once energy goes into entropy, this energy is taken out of the loop, and terms of being reusable.

If start with the BB, and reach full expansion, ready for a reversal, the useable energy is less at full expansion than it was at the beginning, because a lot of the energy will not be reusable, since that energy will be tried up as entropy. Entropy cannot net decrease based on the second law. The rebound point starts out, with too little useable energy, to go all the way back.

The logical result would be a cycling universe action, but with decreasing amplitude, as though being acted upon by an invisible force; entropic force. The analogy is a weight on a spring, that bounces up and down, with smaller and smaller amplitude, due to gravity. In the case of the universe, this is due to an entropic force analogy; unusable energy within entropy, that is acting like a force, that is always increasing, in both directions, every cycle.

The concept of entropy was developed to explain the loss energy within early stream engines. When an energy balanced was done, based on inputs and outputs, there was always missing energy. This missing energy could be measured and was termed entropy. They did not try to explain what it was but, that they could measure it, to know it was somehow lost.

Like the steam engine, the universe keeps missing energy, based on the second law. Entropy, among other things is what gives the universe its diversity and personalty. It is connected to the blue print of the universe including quantum affects. Like building a house to specifications, it takes extra energy to align, nail and meet codes. This energy is not retuned when the house is dismantled. If anything, even more energy is required and loss; entropy, if we try to carefully recycle the parts.

 

[shmogie]

No, that is not what you said, and you are still incorrect concerning the relationship between energy. matter and the Quantum World.

If certain(?) kinds of energy are expended, where and how, what's next? What happens to the energy in your examples?

You said, "Available energy certainly can be used up,"

After used up what happens to the energy?

The fundamental principle of Thermodynamics is matter, energy, and universes do not simply spontaneously appear nor begin from nothing nor die, nor used up.

Ever heard of entropy, like in the second law of thermodynamics ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ever heard of entropy, like in the second law of thermodynamics ?

Yes, but that does not answer the question. Entropy only applies to closed systems on the macro scale. First problem is the Quantum World is described on the micro scale of Quanta, and not a closed system based on Quantum Mechanics.

Does not explain your assertions.

You need to go to Quantum Thermodynamics, and give up your antiquated Newtonian world.

We need to start here before the argument goes further:

From: Quantum thermodynamics - Wikipedia
"Quantum thermodynamics is the study of the relations between two independent physical theories: thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The two independent theories address the physical phenomena of light and matter. In 1905 Einstein argued that the requirement of consistency between thermodynamics and electromagnetism[1] leads to the conclusion that light is quantized obtaining the relation {\displaystyle E=h\nu }

. This paper is the dawn of quantum theory. In a few decades quantum theory became established with an independent set of rules.[2] Currently quantum thermodynamics addresses the emergence of thermodynamic laws from quantum mechanics. It differs from quantum statistical mechanics in the emphasis on dynamical processes out of equilibrium. In addition there is a quest for the theory to be relevant for a single individual quantum system."

 

[shunyadragon]

Energy can also go into entropy. Any increase in entropy, requires the absorption of free energy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means that once energy goes into entropy, this energy is taken out of the loop, and terms of being reusable.

If start with the BB, and reach full expansion, ready for a reversal, the useable energy is less at full expansion than it was at the beginning, because a lot of the energy will not be reusable, since that energy will be tried up as entropy. Entropy cannot net decrease based on the second law. The rebound point starts out, with too little useable energy, to go all the way back.

The logical result would be a cycling universe action, but with decreasing amplitude, as though being acted upon by an invisible force; entropic force. The analogy is a weight on a spring, that bounces up and down, with smaller and smaller amplitude, due to gravity. In the case of the universe, this is due to an entropic force analogy; unusable energy within entropy, that is acting like a force, that is always increasing, in both directions, every cycle.

The concept of entropy was developed to explain the loss energy within early stream engines. When an energy balanced was done, based on inputs and outputs, there was always missing energy. This missing energy could be measured and was termed entropy. They did not try to explain what it was but, that they could measure it, to know it was somehow lost.

Like the steam engine, the universe keeps missing energy, based on the second law. Entropy, among other things is what gives the universe its diversity and personalty. It is connected to the blue print of the universe including quantum affects. Like building a house to specifications, it takes extra energy to align, nail and meet codes. This energy is not retuned when the house is dismantled. If anything, even more energy is required and loss; entropy, if we try to carefully recycle the parts.

These assumption concerning entropy and the universe are clearly mechanistic Newtonian assuming that our universe is a closed system, which as cited previously; the Quantum World of Quantum Thermodynamics, which contains our universe, is not a closed system.

As I told @shmogie we need get beyond mechanistic Newtonian Thermodynamics, and deal with Quantum Thermodynamics before we go on.

 

[wellwisher]

These assumption concerning entropy and the universe are clearly mechanistic Newtonian assuming that our universe is a closed system, which as cited previously; the Quantum World of Quantum Thermodynamics, which contains our universe, is not a closed system.

As I told @shmogie we need get beyond mechanistic Newtonian Thermodynamics, and deal with Quantum Thermodynamics before we go on.

In chemistry, entropy is a state variable, which means any specific state of matter, has a fixed amount of measurable entropy. For example, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere pressure has a measured entropy value of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. This is not a random number but is a constant for that state. The value for entropy reflects everything going on, within a mole of water; 6.02 x 10-23 molecules of water in a beaker at 25C and 1 atmosphere, including quantum tunneling affects, if present. It is measurable in the lab, and is the same within open or closed systems. A state reflects a snap shot.

If the universe, stopped changing, and remained in one state forever, then the universal entropy would never change. This is not the case. As our universe evolves, the sum of all its many states continue to change, as entropy follows the second law and increases. The sum of all universal states, increases entropy.

The expansion of space-time, in our expanding universe, also reflects an entropy increase and the impact of the second law. This reflects movement to new states. One way to explain this is to consider two identical factories, that both make widgets. One factory is in our spacetime reference, and the other is in a more expanded spacetime reference, where time moves faster relative to the first factory. Say both factories, in their references; law of physics are the same in all references, make 1000 widgets per hour with 1 defect per hour. The defect reflects a state of higher widget entropy.

Since the second factory is in a reference where time moves faster, and both have the exact same production rates in their own references, in a side by side comparison, the second factory will make more defects over time. Our expanding universe is accelerating the rate of universal entropy, relative to the earlier universe, when it was less expanded and time moved slower. An accelerated expansion implies the second law is accelerating the rate it which entropy is absorbing energy, taken this energy out of the loop, so it is no longer re-useable energy.

Dark energy is being absorbed by entropy, as reflected by dark energy being assumed responsible for the universal space-time expansion. We don't see dark energy in the lab, because it is no longer in play, since it gets absorbed into entropy. It has no observed impact, in the lab, since it is taken out of the game by entropy.

 

[shunyadragon]

In chemistry, entropy is a state variable, which means any specific state of matter, has a fixed amount of measurable entropy. For example, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere pressure has a measured entropy value of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. This is not a random number but is a constant for that state. The value for entropy reflects everything going on, within a mole of water; 6.02 x 10-23 molecules of water in a beaker at 25C and 1 atmosphere, including quantum tunneling affects, if present. It is measurable in the lab, and is the same within open or closed systems. A state reflects a snap shot.

You are still only describing entropy at the macro scale from a Newtonian perspective.

If the universe, stopped changing, and remained in one state forever, then the universal entropy would never change. This is not the case. As our universe evolves, the sum of all its many states continue to change, as entropy follows the second law and increases. The sum of all universal states, increases entropy.

Again, again, and again . . . entropy only applies to the macroscale, and absolutely no at the Quantum level entropy does not apply nor increase.

The expansion of space-time, in our expanding universe, also reflects an entropy increase and the impact of the second law. This reflects movement to new states. One way to explain this is to consider two identical factories, that both make widgets. One factory is in our spacetime reference, and the other is in a more expanded spacetime reference, where time moves faster relative to the first factory. Say both factories, in their references; law of physics are the same in all references, make 1000 widgets per hour with 1 defect per hour. The defect reflects a state of higher widget entropy.

Since the second factory is in a reference where time moves faster, and both have the exact same production rates in their own references, in a side by side comparison, the second factory will make more defects over time. Our expanding universe is accelerating the rate of universal entropy, relative to the earlier universe, when it was less expanded and time moved slower. An accelerated expansion implies the second law is accelerating the rate it which entropy is absorbing energy, taken this energy out of the loop, so it is no longer re-useable energy. [/quote]

Still describing entropy at the macro scale assuming the universe is a closed system.

Dark energy is being absorbed by entropy, as reflected by dark energy being assumed responsible for the universal space-time expansion. We don't see dark energy in the lab, because it is no longer in play, since it gets absorbed into entropy. It has no observed impact, in the lab, since it is taken out of the game by entropy.

We do not see dark energy nor any impact in the lab, because dark energy is only described to have an impact on the universe scale. It is presently unknown what dark energy nor matter actually are.

You are avoiding and have not addressed the nature of our universe at the level of Quantum Mechanics, which is not a closed system, nor has entropy known to exist on the Quantum micro scale. Your argument like @shmogie is still stuck in Newtonian Thermodynamics.

Again, you have not addressed the issue of Quantum Thermodynamics.

Still waiting. . .

 

[shmogie]

You are still only describing entropy at the macro scale from a Newtonian perspective.



Again, again, and again . . . entropy only applies to the macroscale, and absolutely no at the Quantum level entropy does not apply nor increase.



Since the second factory is in a reference where time moves faster, and both have the exact same production rates in their own references, in a side by side comparison, the second factory will make more defects over time. Our expanding universe is accelerating the rate of universal entropy, relative to the earlier universe, when it was less expanded and time moved slower. An accelerated expansion implies the second law is accelerating the rate it which entropy is absorbing energy, taken this energy out of the loop, so it is no longer re-useable energy.

Still describing entropy at the macro scale assuming the universe is a closed system.



We do not see dark energy nor any impact in the lab, because dark energy is only described to have an impact on the universe scale. It is presently unknown what dark energy nor matter actually are.

You are avoiding and have not addressed the nature of our universe at the level of Quantum Mechanics, which is not a closed system, nor has entropy known to exist on the Quantum micro scale. Your argument like @shmogie is still stuck in Newtonian Thermodynamics.

Again, you have not addressed the issue of Quantum Thermodynamics.

Still waiting. . .[/QUOTE]
So, the quantum world is where you believe the universe began. Correct so far ? Do you adhere to the idea that this occurred in a massive vacuum whereby nothing which actually is something, quantum particles and energy, began the creation process ?

You obviously believe that quantum mechanics and the macro laws of physics are intertwined, could you tell me how, and what observations have been made of this combination of the two ?

You told me how stupid I was, so lets take step by step where you are coming from, so you can correct my stupidity. Perhaps what I thought Bohr was saying re quantum theory was wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, the quantum world is where you believe the universe began. Correct so far ? Do you adhere to the idea that this occurred in a massive vacuum whereby nothing which actually is something, quantum particles and energy, began the creation process ?

Not a 'massive vacuum,' whatever that is? The term Quantum nothing is indeed not the philosophical absolute nothing. Fundamental properties of this Quantum World are expressed on the level of Quanta size energies, Quantum particles, Quantum zero-point energy, and Quantum Gravity. The Quantum World, which is an open system, and lies at the foundation of our universe, therefore our universe cannot be considered a closed system.

You obviously believe that quantum mechanics and the macro laws of physics are intertwined, could you tell me how, and what observations have been made of this combination of the two ?

Not intertwined as such. The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of Physics describe the macro world of the universe are a result of Quantum Mechanics.

You told me how stupid I was, so lets take step by step where you are coming from, so you can correct my stupidity.

I did not refer to you as stupid. I said before the discussion can go further we have to deal with Quantum Thermodynamics, and go beyond Newtonian Thermodynamics. I gave a reference to begin the discussion, which describes Quantum Mechanics as underlying The second Law of Thermodynamics. Other sources describe the relationship in more detail:

In Quantum Thermodynamics the Thermodynamic Laws of the macro world are emergent from the Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics.

From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379718312117

We are, at this stage, ready to lay down the foundation for a quantum thermodynamics involving no temperatures, but energies and quantum numbers instead, and no Boltzmann constant, but just the Planck constant as delineated by Eq. (36). Recall that this latter equation becomes a universal gas equation rooted in QM, with its rhs remaining constant only in the case of adiabatic transformations.

Finally, it is important to enumerate the approximations we made. Our first assumption was that we overlooked any irreversibility, which would lead to the Clausius inequality instead of Eq. (15) [13]. We have worked with just one kind of constituent. With respect to an adiabatic transformation, we considered the formula PV5/3=Constant" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: normal; font-size: 16.2px; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; position: relative;">PV5/3=Constant, assuming that Cp/Cv (i.e., the ratio of specific heat under constant pressure to the specific heat under constant volume) is 5/3.

At the same time, we emphasize that the key relationship (25d) is of a universal character, and can further be straightforwardly recast into fully relativistic cases. At any rate, we were able to demonstrate herein the foundational steps for a natural symbiosis of the second law of thermodynamics with quantum mechanics.

Perhaps what I thought Bohr was saying re quantum theory was wrong.

Perhaps what I thought?!?!?!?!. Not a reliable source.

No, Neils Bohr never said Quantum Mechanics was wrong. In fact he was instrumental in developing the initial concept which has been greatly refined since. Neils Bohr was the first to develop the basic unit of Quantum Mechanics as a 'Quanta.'

 

[wellwisher]

One main difference between the macro world and the quantum world is, the observation of the quantum world, has more of an impact, on the quantum world, than does observation of the macro world have on the macro world.

The largest and most energy intensive tools of science; particle accelerators, deal with the smallest things; CERN. These tools have an impact on the observation, since they add energy that can alter the observational entropy of these tiny things. Even if we assume CERN is 99% efficiency, that means there is still about 2 megawatts going into experimental entropy, continuously. There is a good chance we are altering the natural information, of tiny things, into synthetic information with higher entropy; new states of matter.

On the other hand, if I stick a thermometer into a breaker of the water, the impact of my experiment is much smaller and therefore more accurate with respect to reality. On the other hand, a quantum level experiment at CERN, even if repeatable, would still add the same entropy, leading to the same altered states, thereby leading to a consistent artificial result, assumed to be natural. Theory deals with altered data.

Another series of assumptions, that I read about quantum thermodynamics was they equated entropy to information and that universal information was conserved. If you think of it, this assumption of information conservation is the same assumption behind the idea of eternal souls in religion, since the soul is eternally conserve personal information. The theory is borrowing from religion, without even realizing it.

Another problem, which is also connected to information, is the direct information we receive from the universe, from which we infer all theories in cosmology, is all based on energy signals. Almost none of the informational data is based on direct contact with matter and mass. This can cause the problem of assuming an energy based mirage reflects tangible reality, with no direct way to touch the mirage, other that assume the mirage is consistent with assumptions and theory. Dark energy fits into that category.

With respect to chemistry and entropy, one is dealing with tangible things with the experimental results often used by applied science, to manipulate other tangible things, to make new tangible things, helping us verify this is not an energy information mirage of tangible things. I like the classic chemical entropy theory because it is based on tangible things that are less influenced by experimental entropy inductions and mirage based assumptions of tangible things.

Common sense would say that a quantum interface to thermodynamics needs to use the tangible macro data as the baseline, since this data is less impacted by informational energy mirage and experimental entropy. It is also the preponderance of data in all of science, There is more data about water than anything else. Going the other way, could be useful in situations, like computers, where processor energy is altering entropy of quantum states, into new states, we need to deal with. But if bulk reality, as is, is important, classical has a better data baseline for natural; as is. Extrapolation from this base is a better way to deal with cosmology.

 

[wellwisher]

Let me add one more problem. The statistical approach toward the quantum world does not make any sense, other than being used as an approximation method due to lack of logical understanding.

For example, the energy levels of the hydrogen proton are quantized and very specific. For any give situation, the probability is 1.0 or 0.0. This is not how random works. Random assumes all possibilities can occur and have at least very small finite odds. However, in the case of hydrogen energy quanta, the odds are 1.0 or 0.0, based no the situation. Quantum is naturally designed to be casual. The real problem is connected to induced experimental entropy; random.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me add one more problem. The statistical approach toward the quantum world does not make any sense, other than being used as an approximation method due to lack of logical understanding.

For example, the energy levels of the hydrogen proton are quantized and very specific. For any give situation, the probability is 1.0 or 0.0. This is not how random works. Random assumes all possibilities can occur and have at least very small finite odds. However, in the case of hydrogen energy quanta, the odds are 1.0 or 0.0, based no the situation. Quantum is naturally designed to be casual. The real problem is connected to induced experimental entropy; random.

This response does not make sense based on the current science of Quantum Mechanics. Personal reflections like this have no merit in the discussion. You need to provide scientific references to support your view as I did for a view well grounded in science.

Please come back with a better more coherent response supported by scientific references.

 

[shunyadragon]

One main difference between the macro world and the quantum world is, the observation of the quantum world, has more of an impact, on the quantum world, than does observation of the macro world have on the macro world.

There is a problem with the coherence of your response based on science.

The largest and most energy intensive tools of science; particle accelerators, deal with the smallest things; CERN. These tools have an impact on the observation, since they add energy that can alter the observational entropy of these tiny things. Even if we assume CERN is 99% efficiency, that means there is still about 2 megawatts going into experimental entropy, continuously. There is a good chance we are altering the natural information, of tiny things, into synthetic information with higher entropy; new states of matter.

The bold needs clarification and references, because at present it reflects your personal reflection and not science.

On the other hand, if I stick a thermometer into a breaker of the water, the impact of my experiment is much smaller and therefore more accurate with respect to reality.

Only for a very superficial Newtonian observation of the macro world

On the other hand, a quantum level experiment at CERN, even if repeatable, would still add the same entropy, leading to the same altered states, thereby leading to a consistent artificial result, assumed to be natural. Theory deals with altered data.

This again reflects a biased personal interpretation on your part without an understanding of Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Thermodynamics.

Another series of assumptions, that I read about quantum thermodynamics was they equated entropy to information and that universal information was conserved. If you think of it, this assumption of information conservation is the same assumption behind the idea of eternal souls in religion, since the soul is eternally conserve personal information. The theory is borrowing from religion, without even realizing it.

A flat no here, Quantum Thermodynamics is based on very real objective verifiable evidence of Quantum Mechanics. Your religious assumptions above are just that religious assumptions with absolutely no corroborating evidence.

Another problem, which is also connected to information, is the direct information we receive from the universe, from which we infer all theories in cosmology, is all based on energy signals. Almost none of the informational data is based on direct contact with matter and mass. This can cause the problem of assuming an energy based mirage reflects tangible reality, with no direct way to touch the mirage, other that assume the mirage is consistent with assumptions and theory. Dark energy fits into that category.

With respect to chemistry and entropy, one is dealing with tangible things with the experimental results often used by applied science, to manipulate other tangible things, to make new tangible things, helping us verify this is not an energy information mirage of tangible things. I like the classic chemical entropy theory because it is based on tangible things that are less influenced by experimental entropy inductions and mirage based assumptions of tangible things.

Your persisting on clinging to an ancient personal perspective of a mechanistic Newtonian world, which is very unfortunate.

Common sense would say that a quantum interface to thermodynamics needs to use the tangible macro data as the baseline, since this data is less impacted by informational energy mirage and experimental entropy. It is also the preponderance of data in all of science, There is more data about water than anything else. Going the other way, could be useful in situations, like computers, where processor energy is altering entropy of quantum states, into new states, we need to deal with. But if bulk reality, as is, is important, classical has a better data baseline for natural; as is. Extrapolation from this base is a better way to deal with cosmology.

Science is not based on common sense, and it remains you are persisting on clinging to an ancient personal perspective of a mechanistic Newtonian world, which is very unfortunate.

What is lacking in your argument are scientific references All I see here is personal anecdotal assumptions and opinions grounded in a religious agenda.