What was the Big Bang

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

That's what he has said, but his statement that "the 'collapse' of a potential transaction is *exactly* the collapse of a wave function, or in other interpretations, the splitting of potential universes", pits the multiverse against TIQM, which in no way suggests the multiverse.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Unlike maths, Science does not involve itself with infinite. Invoking infinite in science implies failure.

Having said that, the universe has been measured as flat to within 5 decimal places implying the universe is potentially infinite. That does not mean heat death is not possibly.

A close system, not an enclosure.

If god turns up then ask him to show himself, never happened yet so o wont hold my breath.

 

[james blunt]

If god turns up then ask him to show himself, never happened yet so o wont hold my breath.

God is not a him, that would be subjective. God is space, you can observe space. Without a space to exist in, a closed system cannot exist. If god as opposed to God was to look in, we would all die. To create a vacuum, you have to have a space and closure and the beauty of God is outside of a vacuum , must exist air.

P.s Say hi to God.

 

[ChristineM]

God is not a him, that would be subjective. God is space, you can observe space. Without a space to exist in, a closed system cannot exist. If god as opposed to God was to look in, we would all die. To create a vacuum, you have to have a space and closure and the beauty of God is outside of a vacuum , must exist air.

P.s Say hi to God.

God is what your imagine, i prefer evidence based reality

 

[james blunt]

God is what your imagine, i prefer evidence based reality

Space is immortal, it cannot be created or destroyed, nothing can exist outside of space. Space is all around you. Space is synchronous with God.

That is objective reality.

 

[ChristineM]

Space is immortal, it cannot be created or destroyed, nothing can exist outside of space. Space is all around you. Space is synchronous with God.

That is objective reality.

Or perhaps you have evidence for such claims? You should publish, you would become rich and famous, a celebrity with the world's church leaders on your speed dial. I am only surprised you have not published already with riches like that beckoning.

Or right, you confuse the term objective reality and subjective fantasy. A common error among woo merchants

 

[james blunt]

Or perhaps you have evidence for such claims? You should publish, you would become rich and famous, a celebrity with the world's church leaders on your speed dial. I am only surprised you have not published already with riches like that beckoning.

Or right, you confuse the term objective reality and subjective fantasy. A common error among woo merchants

An interesting post, I am not majorly interested in money . As long as I and my siblings survive, are happy with life, comfy , what more is needed?
You want proof? Lets us have a nuclear war, those that survive, if any, will know that space was not destroyed , just people and dwellings.
Then you can see that space is God. Alternative you can view you-tube videos of nuclear blasts that can't hurt God. They can only hurt us and the earth.
I spread the word of the real God , free and in good faith. My rewards are peace on Earth if everyone was to accept the truth.

 

[exchemist]

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?

Golly I can't begin to think of this in terms of light cones. But thermodynamic entropy is certainly "symmetry-breaking", in that increase in it prevents systems from being reversible, hence the "arrow of time" thing.

I was taught that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not the same, so I am chary of pontificating about information loss. In thermodynamic terms, considering those states which can be realised in more ways as being the more probable (i.e. thinking in S=k lnW terms), it seems not unreasonable that things go forward rather than back in time. But I suspect your question is rather out of my league.

 

[exchemist]

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 son, who is 15, asked me exactly this at lunchtime today! He was thinking time might eventually run backwards towards a "big crunch" and I found myself starting to argue it couldn't because of entropy increase. But then I thought of our discussion about the arrow of time and was less sure. Maybe in a universe moving back towards a big crunch systems would spontaneously order themselves.

But in fact, at the point of heat death, would all change cease, rendering time redundant? One could argue that since the universe would not be at absolute zero, thermal motion would continue and thus change would still be going on.

 

[james blunt]

it seems not unreasonable that things go forward rather than back in time. .

Illogical , this line of dots .................................... all exist in the present

 

[exchemist]

That's what he has said, but his statement that "the 'collapse' of a potential transaction is *exactly* the collapse of a wave function, or in other interpretations, the splitting of potential universes", pits the multiverse against TIQM, which in no way suggests the multiverse.

What's wrong with good old Copenhagen? Oops I see he has replied saying more or less that.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

What's wrong with good old Copenhagen?

Nothing, if you can believe that the Moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it.

 

[Polymath257]

Golly I can't begin to think of this in terms of light cones. But thermodynamic entropy is certainly "symmetry-breaking", in that increase in it prevents systems from being reversible, hence the "arrow of time" thing.

I was taught that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not the same, so I am chary of pontificating about information loss. In thermodynamic terms, considering those states which can be realised in more ways as being the more probable (i.e. thinking in S=k lnW terms), it seems not unreasonable that things go forward rather than back in time. But I suspect your question is rather out of my league.

But that is exactly the point. Why should there be a consistent direction for 'more probable' across all space that we know of? Why is it that the direction of 'more probable' development is the same here and in the Andromeda galaxy?

And yes, thermodynamic and information entropy are not identical, but none-the-less the example I gave of two indistinguishable gases shows there is something of the information entropy in the thermodynamic one.

 

[Polymath257]

Nothing, if you can believe that the Moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it.

Which is why I prefer the decoherence model. large, complex things like the moon tend to decohere very quickly. Of course, this is analogous to what the TQIM posits.

 

[exchemist]

Nothing, if you can believe that the Moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it.

Haha, coat-trailling, eh?

Nah, I'm not going down the notorious rabbit hole of arguing about the Copenhagen interpretation, when the sun is shining. Moi, je vais faire du jardinage.

 

[Polymath257]

Golly I can't begin to think of this in terms of light cones. But thermodynamic entropy is certainly "symmetry-breaking", in that increase in it prevents systems from being reversible, hence the "arrow of time" thing.

I was taught that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not the same, so I am chary of pontificating about information loss. In thermodynamic terms, considering those states which can be realised in more ways as being the more probable (i.e. thinking in S=k lnW terms), it seems not unreasonable that things go forward rather than back in time. But I suspect your question is rather out of my league.

Another aspect here is the very definition of the W in your formula. it represents the number of microstates 'equivalent' to the given macrostate. But how is a macrostate defined? We identify certain variables (temperature, volume, total energy, molar composition) as relevant for the macrostate. But, for example, if we cannot distinguish two different substances, the corresponding molar compositions are different, making the entropy different. And, again, there is a sense that this measures the loss of information in going from the microscopic states (where we get W=1 for each microstate) to the macrostate where we only use macroscopic variables to describe the system.

So, why should the number of equivalent microstates for a system increase for one direction of time consistently across space?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Which is why I prefer the decoherence model. large, complex things like the moon tend to decohere very quickly. Of course, this is analogous to what the TQIM posits.

And just as the Moon sets, er, decoheres in the west, so too must all threads decohere in like manner. Good night good Moon, wherever you are/were.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Haha, coat-trailling, eh?

Nah, I'm not going down the notorious rabbit hole of arguing about the Copenhagen interpretation, when the sun is shining. Moi, je vais faire du jardinage.

Don't argue about it, just join the club and chuck it.

 

[ChristineM]

An interesting post, I am not majorly interested in money . As long as I and my siblings survive, are happy with life, comfy , what more is needed?
You want proof? Lets us have a nuclear war, those that survive, if any, will know that space was not destroyed , just people and dwellings.
Then you can see that space is God. Alternative you can view you-tube videos of nuclear blasts that can't hurt God. They can only hurt us and the earth.
I spread the word of the real God , free and in good faith. My rewards are peace on Earth if everyone was to accept the truth.

And what has this to do with god magic?

In the realm of space a nuclear war is not even firing peas.

And still no objective reality or evidence, you present opinion to which you are welcome. However, if you put forward your opinion as objective evidence and truth you really need to back that up with objective evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

My son, who is 15, asked me exactly this at lunchtime today! He was thinking time might eventually run backwards towards a "big crunch" and I found myself starting to argue it couldn't because of entropy increase. But then I thought of our discussion about the arrow of time and was less sure. Maybe in a universe moving back towards a big crunch systems would spontaneously order themselves.

But in fact, at the point of heat death, would all change cease, rendering time redundant? One could argue that since the universe would not be at absolute zero, thermal motion would continue and thus change would still be going on.

My view is that at the point of heat death, individual photons would be too far from each other and traveling at such speed that from one photon no other would ever be visible. Energy would be local phenomenon having zero effect on anything.

This is from a discussion i had with a particle physicist, pretty sure he was dumming it down so it made sense.

We didn't discuss time but i would think time would be relevant to individual photons