What was the Big Bang

[exchemist]

It appears you have never heard of the Casimir Effect!

It is my understanding that the Casimir effect can be explained quite well in terms of Van der Waals forces, without reference to zero point energy.

 

[exchemist]

I just took at look at it. It's an interesting way to describe the calculations involved in quantum mechanics. The 'bowtie' is simply an example of a projection operator with the 'offer' a ket and the 'acceptance' a bra vector. The problem is that in no way does this eliminate the basic issue in QM: that it is inherently probabilistic. As described in this book, the 'collapse' of a potential transaction is *exactly* the collapse of a wave function, or in other interpretations, the splitting of potential universes.

I guess, in a sense, the 'quantumland' of this book is simply the overarching Hilbert space upon which the operators of QM work and in which the 'states' exist.

Aha, now that would make sense.

Thanks for the extra perspective on this. I admit I instinctively hated the notion of some special place called, childishly, "Quantumland" Especially since I managed the QM supplementary option in my chemistry degree without recourse to anything like that. But maybe I was too hasty.

I'll need to read what you say more carefully and follow up the links...not something for a Bank Holiday weekend, however.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I just took at look at it. It's an interesting way to describe the calculations involved in quantum mechanics. The 'bowtie' is simply an example of a projection operator with the 'offer' a ket and the 'acceptance' a bra vector. The problem is that in no way does this eliminate the basic issue in QM: that it is inherently probabilistic. As described in this book, the 'collapse' of a potential transaction is *exactly* the collapse of a wave function, or in other interpretations, the splitting of potential universes.

I don't see how they're equivalent. In fact, you could say that the collapse or fulfillment of the transaction actually keeps it in the universe it which it was initiated--and that's assuming we have more than one universe to deal with in the first place.

I don't normally like appealing to Occam's Razor, but in this case I think it applies. I mean, splitting off a new universe for every quantum transaction, instead of accepting the transaction at face value seems overwrought in the extreme. Scientists are pretty split over the multiverse issue anyway, with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking being on the pro side, which for me is a big negative.

 

[exchemist]

I don't see how they're equivalent. In fact, you could say that the collapse or fulfillment of the transaction actually keeps it in the universe it which it was initiated--and that's assuming we have more than one universe to deal with in the first place.

I don't normally like appealing to Occam's Razor, but in this case I think it applies. I mean, splitting off a new universe for every quantum transaction, instead of accepting the transaction at face value seems overwrought in the extreme. Scientists are pretty split over the multiverse issue anyway, with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking being on the pro side, which for me is a big negative.

But he's not necessarily arguing for the multiverse interpretation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is my understanding that the Casimir effect can be explained quite well in terms of Van der Waals forces, without reference to zero point energy.

Perhaps, there generally are alternative possible explanations/theories in science.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps, there generally are alternative possible explanations/theories in science.

Indeed. Especially in my subject. We often use different models of the same thing, depending on what we are trying to do.

Chemists, I think, do not get very much hung up on what is "really" going on: they know we see through a glass darkly.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, entropy .

I am not sure how useful that idea really is, considering that the degree of entropy change in processes varies so widely. I know about entropy being said to be the "arrow" of time, but all that does is give you the difference between the past and the future. Nobody uses entropy change as a measure of time.

It seems to me that time is more fundamentally associated with change. Entropy increase is certainly also associated with change, but only directionally and not in any quantitative way. (A reversible process involves no entropy increase.) We generally measure time by means of change in the form of periodic motion, though I suppose there are other ways, such as an hourglass or a burning candle, which might more easily lend themselves to an entropy measurement.

 

[ChristineM]

I am not sure how useful that idea really is, considering that the degree of entropy change in processes varies so widely. I know about entropy being said to be the "arrow" of time, but all that does is give you the difference between the past and the future. Nobody uses entropy change as a measure of time.

It seems to me that time is more fundamentally associated with change. Entropy increase is certainly also associated with change, but only directionally and not in any quantitative way. (A reversible process involves no entropy increase.) We generally measure time by means of change in the form of periodic motion, though I suppose there are other ways, such as an hourglass or a burning candle, which might more easily lend themselves to an entropy measurement.

As i said before, time as used by humans is arbitrary, how people measure the passage of time is by mutual agreement.

Essentially time is indefinite, its only defining factor is that it's a dimension that inexorably only moves in one direction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Indeed. Especially in my subject. We often use different models of the same thing, depending on what we are trying to do.

Chemists, I think, do not get very much hung up on what is "really" going on: they know we see through a glass darkly.

Indeed, always waiting on the intuitive insight for direction...

 

[Polymath257]

As i said before, time as used by humans is arbitrary, how people measure the passage of time is by mutual agreement.

Essentially time is indefinite, its only defining factor is that it's a dimension that inexorably only moves in one direction.

While coordinate time is arbitrary, proper time is not. And that is the one more accurately described as 'time' in this context.

Entropy is a strange beast and I'm still not convinced I fully understand it (even after the grad courses in stat mech). In a sense, it represents the information loss when we go from a microscopic description to a macroscopic description.

There is even some ambiguity in the concept of the entropy of a system. For example, if there are two gases that are actually different, but for which *we* cannot, at present, distinguish, the entropy can be calculated either with the knowledge of the difference or without it. The answers are different, say, in the case of a separated volume with one on each side. If the separation is removed, one calculation gives a zero entropy change and the other a positive change based on mixing.

The point is that *both* calculation are correct and can be used *as long as we keep our knowledge level the same*.

This arbitrariness comes, in part, from a difference in macroscopic description of the situation and the amount of information loss in the two scenarios.

So, here's the big question: why should there be one consistent direction of time (one half of the light cone) for which information loss always increases? Why does it not vary from spacetime event to another? There is a HUGE symmetry breaking here and I don't at all understand why it is a global rather than a local breaking.

@exchemist or @ChristineM and @sayak83 : any ideas?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see how they're equivalent. In fact, you could say that the collapse or fulfillment of the transaction actually keeps it in the universe it which it was initiated--and that's assuming we have more than one universe to deal with in the first place.

I don't normally like appealing to Occam's Razor, but in this case I think it applies. I mean, splitting off a new universe for every quantum transaction, instead of accepting the transaction at face value seems overwrought in the extreme. Scientists are pretty split over the multiverse issue anyway, with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking being on the pro side, which for me is a big negative.

I'm not suggesting the multiverse description here. It's closer to the Copenhagen interpretation, or even the one based on decoherence (which is why the macroscopic produces a collapse, even in your system).

 

[james blunt]

While coordinate time is arbitrary, proper time is not. And that is the one more accurately described as 'time' in this context.

Entropy is a strange beast and I'm still not convinced I fully understand it (even after the grad courses in stat mech). I

Entropy is easy to understand if you take away the ''legalese'' science uses.

Start with an absolute empty box (an isolated system)

Now there is only one way the interior can change, by adding something.

Now the randomness involved (disorder or randomness in the system) is the something that ''fills'' the system, not the underlying absolute of the system. The randomness is an observable change comparative to the absolute zero of the underlying system.

Time is a period of existence , it is not arbitrary

Δ t = Δ S

Δ S = Δ t

Hope that helps you understand.

P.s If the box is empty S = 0

If the box is full S = t

t=010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010∞


Perpetual motion and energy, perpetual time.

Dimensional time loop?

 

[ChristineM]

While coordinate time is arbitrary, proper time is not. And that is the one more accurately described as 'time' in this context.

Entropy is a strange beast and I'm still not convinced I fully understand it (even after the grad courses in stat mech). In a sense, it represents the information loss when we go from a microscopic description to a macroscopic description.

There is even some ambiguity in the concept of the entropy of a system. For example, if there are two gases that are actually different, but for which *we* cannot, at present, distinguish, the entropy can be calculated either with the knowledge of the difference or without it. The answers are different, say, in the case of a separated volume with one on each side. If the separation is removed, one calculation gives a zero entropy change and the other a positive change based on mixing.

The point is that *both* calculation are correct and can be used *as long as we keep our knowledge level the same*.

This arbitrariness comes, in part, from a difference in macroscopic description of the situation and the amount of information loss in the two scenarios.

So, here's the big question: why should there be one consistent direction of time (one half of the light cone) for which information loss always increases? Why does it not vary from spacetime event to another? There is a HUGE symmetry breaking here and I don't at all understand why it is a global rather than a local breaking.

@exchemist or @ChristineM and @sayak83 : any ideas?

I don't know and to be honest not sure i really understand but it has raised a question. When maximum entropy is reached and the universe is in heat death will time continue?

 

[james blunt]

I don't know and to be honest not sure i really understand but it has raised a question. When maximum entropy is reached and the universe is in heat death will time continue?

When we die, does the Universe continue to exist?

 

[ChristineM]

When we die, does the Universe continue to exist?

It always has up to now, i see no reason for that to change.

 

[james blunt]

It always has up to now, i see no reason for that to change.

Me neither and something began from nothing, if something ends making nothing again, then it is logical that something can happen again . So time is on and off in my mind.

 

[ChristineM]

Me neither and something began from nothing, if something ends making nothing again, then it is logical that something can happen again . So time is on and off in my mind.

It is possible something began from nothing, its certainty one theory. Not sure maximum entropy is nothing

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know and to be honest not sure i really understand but it has raised a question. When maximum entropy is reached and the universe is in heat death will time continue?

My suspicion is that the relativistic light cones will still exist, but that there would not be a preferred directionality. The universe has had several stages where there was minimal entropy change over time (most of the expansion of the universe is adiabatic). But, at this point, it is merely a suspicion.

 

[james blunt]

It is possible something began from nothing, its certainty one theory. Not sure maximum entropy is nothing

The problem with a maximum entropy is suggestive of an enclosure. Science is different based on infinite and finite. A maximum entropy would be based on an enclosure. Then the logic suggests an enclosure would be a possible heat sink, a solid. The laws of thermodynamics apply. Heat is lost at a rate, if time is accelerated within the system then like we would , if something starts to heat up, turn it off. So if the Universe is finite, don't be to surprised if God turns off the system.
However if the Universe is infinite, which I by logic have concluded, there would be no maximum entropy to the universe. Localised heating as opposed to Universal.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm not suggesting the multiverse description here. It's closer to the Copenhagen interpretation, or even the one based on decoherence (which is why the macroscopic produces a collapse, even in your system).

It appears that the CI unfavorability is accelerating in the last few years, due largely to the fact that it isn't clearly defined, I'm told. It got tied up early with the role of the observer, and now has the appearance of even more elaborate tap dancing to extract itself from that embarrassment. Regarding it and the EPR paradox, the Wiki article on CI presented a neat turn of phrase, declaring that it shows that the "Copenhagen interpretation is fatally non-local".

Some scientists seem to think that the universe is either non-local or local. I think the beauty of TIQM is that is shows that they both exist, and display massive interaction at the quantum level through the local space-time Planck minimums <and> non-local gravity/string theory, interface. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.