Self Winding Universe?
-
Just a thought, still in process of being processed, but I was considering the possibility that the universe cannot "run down" - i.e., be completely consumed by entropy. Here's the basic thought: one could divide the universe into two types of regions: the 'void' and regions of content randomly dispersed throughout the void. Now, let's consider all of the regions of content. If all of them (i.e., all of existence) reached a final state of chaos then the whole of it would no longer have random content between the void - and thus their very existence in a state of total chaos is a contradiction. It would be incumbent upon existence to essentially become less chaotic in arbitrary local regions in order for the whole of existence to remain truly chaotic: it must not have the content of all places 'with stuff' be the same and thus, in a form of homogeneity. Now I'm not set on fully believing in this, yet, but it would essentially require that the universe's tendency towards chaos requires it to create local order (rewind) in order to become chaotic (contradiction, again?). A possible mechanism to undo chaos may be a reversal of local time, but that's somewhat shooting form the hip based on a conjecture and hand waving.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I believe I read somewhere that the void is not really empty but full of virtual particles that continually bubble up then disappear. Would that alter your views on entropy?
73
Let's suppose what you read is true. In one respect, it would give me an entire additional line of thought to apply to the musing. In another respect, it answers the question: if spontaneous events can occur in the void between things, creating existence where there was none - then the universe would seem to be, indeed, self winding as new existences come and go. Did your reading also consider that if something could appear in the middle of nothing, and then disappear, then why not similar disappearance of somethings in the non-void (is there anyplace that is not just a spec in its own local void?).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Let's suppose what you read is true. In one respect, it would give me an entire additional line of thought to apply to the musing. In another respect, it answers the question: if spontaneous events can occur in the void between things, creating existence where there was none - then the universe would seem to be, indeed, self winding as new existences come and go. Did your reading also consider that if something could appear in the middle of nothing, and then disappear, then why not similar disappearance of somethings in the non-void (is there anyplace that is not just a spec in its own local void?).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Virtual particles etc are in the realm of quantum physics, which no one as yet seems to fully understand! I recommend the book "What is real" by Adam Becker as some sort of a guide to that world. I do not pretend to understand such things but I think someday, just as relativity altered our view of Newtonian physics, our view of what the universe is all about will change as well.
73
-
Just a thought, still in process of being processed, but I was considering the possibility that the universe cannot "run down" - i.e., be completely consumed by entropy. Here's the basic thought: one could divide the universe into two types of regions: the 'void' and regions of content randomly dispersed throughout the void. Now, let's consider all of the regions of content. If all of them (i.e., all of existence) reached a final state of chaos then the whole of it would no longer have random content between the void - and thus their very existence in a state of total chaos is a contradiction. It would be incumbent upon existence to essentially become less chaotic in arbitrary local regions in order for the whole of existence to remain truly chaotic: it must not have the content of all places 'with stuff' be the same and thus, in a form of homogeneity. Now I'm not set on fully believing in this, yet, but it would essentially require that the universe's tendency towards chaos requires it to create local order (rewind) in order to become chaotic (contradiction, again?). A possible mechanism to undo chaos may be a reversal of local time, but that's somewhat shooting form the hip based on a conjecture and hand waving.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Who cares? :zzz: Your atoms and my atoms will all have been recycled too may times to count.
Fight entropy with enthalpy.
-
Virtual particles etc are in the realm of quantum physics, which no one as yet seems to fully understand! I recommend the book "What is real" by Adam Becker as some sort of a guide to that world. I do not pretend to understand such things but I think someday, just as relativity altered our view of Newtonian physics, our view of what the universe is all about will change as well.
73
So I looked up the guy and his book (in the Google universe). What is Real? | Not Even Wrong[^] - This popped up near the top of the list. It seems to me that it is, in rather simple terms, a disagreement as to the basis set to be correctly used to describe the universe. (there is an author's reply down the page). What is real - not obviously a part of what I used when starting this. Whatever is real, it does tend towards disorder as the result of any action that can be considered spontaneous. Spontaneous meaning, in this context, what will happen to something's state if it were to change to a "more relaxed and natural state" - for example - you'd be more stable if you fell down flat than if you were to remain standing. I'm thus considering what happens when everything everywhere has fallen. Is that state, itself, a contradiction? Be a bit more a philosopher.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I always wanted to go on Mastermind and do the Monty Python thing: Magnus: Your specialist subject? Me: The Bleeding Obvious. It's easy to give credence what people say in magazines and blogs, but it's usually better to spend a few moments working it out for yourself.
-
Who cares? :zzz: Your atoms and my atoms will all have been recycled too may times to count.
Fight entropy with enthalpy.
-
I always wondered what those guys wearing robes and carrying signs did when they went home at night. At least one of them posts his theories online. "The End is (Not?) Near!"
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Well, the end of the world is one thing; but the universe ends at Milton Keynes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I always wanted to go on Mastermind and do the Monty Python thing: Magnus: Your specialist subject? Me: The Bleeding Obvious. It's easy to give credence what people say in magazines and blogs, but it's usually better to spend a few moments working it out for yourself.
True. But do not assume all have the same capability to work it out for themselves. In leiu of that and with a desire to play the intellectual game, the path of least resistance is to accept what seems right, or worse, what appeals emotionally. Many minds of mush out there.
-
So I looked up the guy and his book (in the Google universe). What is Real? | Not Even Wrong[^] - This popped up near the top of the list. It seems to me that it is, in rather simple terms, a disagreement as to the basis set to be correctly used to describe the universe. (there is an author's reply down the page). What is real - not obviously a part of what I used when starting this. Whatever is real, it does tend towards disorder as the result of any action that can be considered spontaneous. Spontaneous meaning, in this context, what will happen to something's state if it were to change to a "more relaxed and natural state" - for example - you'd be more stable if you fell down flat than if you were to remain standing. I'm thus considering what happens when everything everywhere has fallen. Is that state, itself, a contradiction? Be a bit more a philosopher.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
"When everything everywhere has fallen" may be a contradiction. Fallen implies it fell somewhere, to some gravitational attractor, like a star. When a star loses energy, gravity may completely take over, resulting in a massive explosion, which may eject matter and start anew, or a black hole. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, speculate as we may about the true nature of this universe (or multiverses or whatever) we do not (and may never) know what is real.
73
-
Just a thought, still in process of being processed, but I was considering the possibility that the universe cannot "run down" - i.e., be completely consumed by entropy. Here's the basic thought: one could divide the universe into two types of regions: the 'void' and regions of content randomly dispersed throughout the void. Now, let's consider all of the regions of content. If all of them (i.e., all of existence) reached a final state of chaos then the whole of it would no longer have random content between the void - and thus their very existence in a state of total chaos is a contradiction. It would be incumbent upon existence to essentially become less chaotic in arbitrary local regions in order for the whole of existence to remain truly chaotic: it must not have the content of all places 'with stuff' be the same and thus, in a form of homogeneity. Now I'm not set on fully believing in this, yet, but it would essentially require that the universe's tendency towards chaos requires it to create local order (rewind) in order to become chaotic (contradiction, again?). A possible mechanism to undo chaos may be a reversal of local time, but that's somewhat shooting form the hip based on a conjecture and hand waving.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
The problem with your argument is that on a large scale thermodynamics moves energy from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Voids are low concentrations of energy whereas stars have high concentrations of energy around them. This means that the energy produced by stars, and thus galaxies and galaxy clusters will eventually move into the Voids. The gravitational energy will of course continue to pull stars into an ever tighter matter as the weak and strong nuclear forces decay, so the probability of the universe ever being completely homogenous at the quantum level is zero.
-
Just a thought, still in process of being processed, but I was considering the possibility that the universe cannot "run down" - i.e., be completely consumed by entropy. Here's the basic thought: one could divide the universe into two types of regions: the 'void' and regions of content randomly dispersed throughout the void. Now, let's consider all of the regions of content. If all of them (i.e., all of existence) reached a final state of chaos then the whole of it would no longer have random content between the void - and thus their very existence in a state of total chaos is a contradiction. It would be incumbent upon existence to essentially become less chaotic in arbitrary local regions in order for the whole of existence to remain truly chaotic: it must not have the content of all places 'with stuff' be the same and thus, in a form of homogeneity. Now I'm not set on fully believing in this, yet, but it would essentially require that the universe's tendency towards chaos requires it to create local order (rewind) in order to become chaotic (contradiction, again?). A possible mechanism to undo chaos may be a reversal of local time, but that's somewhat shooting form the hip based on a conjecture and hand waving.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
The formation of planets and rise of intelligent life seems to me to be a violation of entropy.
-
The formation of planets and rise of intelligent life seems to me to be a violation of entropy.
Any thing can happen in a truly chaotic path - local order is, in fact, required for a truly chaotic system.* Hence - planets, life, &etc. * at least along the way to wherever it's headed.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
The problem with your argument is that on a large scale thermodynamics moves energy from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Voids are low concentrations of energy whereas stars have high concentrations of energy around them. This means that the energy produced by stars, and thus galaxies and galaxy clusters will eventually move into the Voids. The gravitational energy will of course continue to pull stars into an ever tighter matter as the weak and strong nuclear forces decay, so the probability of the universe ever being completely homogenous at the quantum level is zero.
obermd wrote:
The problem with your argument is that on a large scale thermodynamics moves energy from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.
Thermodynamics tends to move things from higher energy states to lower energy states. Concentration (of stuff), although a factor, is not the only consideration - and may not even be one. The Gibbs Free Energy, which is basically the traffic controller for thermodynamic (which way does something go) includes both thermal and entropy components. They can pull together or in opposing directions for a given event. Expand your view to the surroundings and the entropy has increased and that is a dispersive phenomenon. Gravity is magic! but, I'd conjecture that energy is emitted when two object coalesce do to gravitational forces. Isn't there something to that effect when an object crosses the event horizon of a black hole? Also, don't black holes emit Hawkings radiation (per an earlier post) and they eventually wither away into total dispersion as energy?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Just a thought, still in process of being processed, but I was considering the possibility that the universe cannot "run down" - i.e., be completely consumed by entropy. Here's the basic thought: one could divide the universe into two types of regions: the 'void' and regions of content randomly dispersed throughout the void. Now, let's consider all of the regions of content. If all of them (i.e., all of existence) reached a final state of chaos then the whole of it would no longer have random content between the void - and thus their very existence in a state of total chaos is a contradiction. It would be incumbent upon existence to essentially become less chaotic in arbitrary local regions in order for the whole of existence to remain truly chaotic: it must not have the content of all places 'with stuff' be the same and thus, in a form of homogeneity. Now I'm not set on fully believing in this, yet, but it would essentially require that the universe's tendency towards chaos requires it to create local order (rewind) in order to become chaotic (contradiction, again?). A possible mechanism to undo chaos may be a reversal of local time, but that's somewhat shooting form the hip based on a conjecture and hand waving.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Sorry, the universe could approach total chaos as a limit. Areas of orgnization could evaporate. Or the expansion of space-time could grow exponentially, causing the universe to pop like a soap bubble, also causing the universe to approach chaos as a limit.
-
That works surprisingly well: you can't tell if the milk is OK or off until you pour it into the tea or coffee...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
If you believe that energy and matter cannot be destroyed (or created), only changed in form then what does entropy do with it all? Does it have a big attic somewhere to put all this stuff? If so, does it get the stuff out again once it is full and that's where the cyclical universe theory comes from? ;P
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Well, like a good author who once wrote: “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” My guess is that somewhere between that, and being put away by "top men.(tm)" :)
-
Doesn't always work. There is a point at which it's almost off but doesn't smell - putting it in tea or coffee will instantly "curdle" it and form "needles" which means the cup has to be poured down the sink and restarted. Schrodinger's Milk!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
That works surprisingly well: you can't tell if the milk is OK or off until you pour it into the tea or coffee...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
A better test would be to pour some of it into the cat, since they'll turn their nose up at it if it's the tiniest bit off.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
A better test would be to pour some of it into the cat, since they'll turn their nose up at it if it's the tiniest bit off.
Software Zen:
delete this;That's not a good test: like most adults cats he's a bit lactose intolerant (they lose the ability to absorb it when their digestive system changes while weaning). And guess who gets to clean up cat puke?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
