Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Alan McDougall on 17/11/2008 17:15:23
-
Hi,
1 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
This "horizon problem" is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. "Inflation", for example.
-
Quantum theory suggests that in some way the universe is simultaneously very large AND very small. The real answer could be some sort of scale independant theory involving both real and imaginary dimensions. This could also solve a lot of quantum paradoxes. It could also open a range of possibilities way beyond some of the wildest science fiction but I expect that quantum censorship and information theory limitations will return us to reality. In some way microwave engineers are already familiar with the problem. The phase velocity of waves in a waveguide is in general faster than the velocity of light and approaches infinity as the waveguide nears its cut off frequency however it is never possible to transmit any information using pphase velocity just as it is not possible to transmit information faster than light by using entangled photons.
-
I think you'll find that the universe is thought be to at least 93 billion light-years across, even though it's only ~14 billion years old, because of it's expansion.
The issue with evening out the hot and cold spots only really occurs if it is assumed that the universe had hot and cold spots until some time after the BB and that entropy did not exist until that point. You can only really apply temperature to matter, but as soon as it started forming, and while the universe was still very small, I would expect entropy to start having an effect - that is, as soon as you had matter thermal differences would start equalising.
-
Lee,
I think you'll find that the universe is thought be to at least 93 billion light-years across, even though it's only ~14 billion years old, because of it's expansion.
That would make the problem more difficult would it not?.
Entropy is a huge complex unresolved subject on its own, maybe you could start a thread about it. I think I have put in my quota
Who knows the universe might extent outward into infinity
Alan
-
The universe being even bigger than you thought wouldn't make much of a difference if it was already smooth when it was small.
-
the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere.
I thought COBE measurements showed some years ago that there are minor temperature fluctuations in the CMB. Have I misunderstood?
-
I don't think you've misunderstood - there are fluctuations in the CMBR but they're much smaller than some people think they should be.
-
The questions people ask me all the time, if the universe is everything and it is expanding, then into what is it expanding?.
The reply by astrophysicists is "into nothing"!. This is most unsatisfactory and they go away more confused than before.
There is a postulation , that outside of the spacetime fabric of the universe is absolute nothing, a vacuum in the absolute that is infinite in every direction and the universe is encapsulated in an energy like expanding bubble into this primordial, primevil absolute dark nothingness. To me that does not seem to be a such silly idea, in a way it makes sense
Although I admit it is not good physics
Alan
-
Here is another interesting view of the universe and its edge, if it has an edge
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
If we assume that the Cosmic Background Radiation has a more or less globular bubble form, forming the boundary of our own material universe inside the multiverse, than Andrei Lindes computer simulation of the multiverse has depicted too much universes. See:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FC%3A%5CDocuments+and+Settings%5CGrant%5CMy+Documents%5CMy+Pictures%5Cmulti+univrse.jpg&hash=048483c8b6694e8f9660f0a0cd786042)
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
If our universe is more or less globular or pear/egg shaped the we should speak of a raspberry or blackberry multiverse, see:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2007/03/backreaction-lee-smolins-trouble-with.html
http://bp2.blogger.com/_ArDoWzECXSo/RvLKsAmCAII/AAAAAAAAARQ/i9nsuQnCvDw/s1600-h/CMB+WMAP+5x+multiverse_0002.jpg
-
As we are indulging ourselves with a bit of speculation about the actual shape of the universe can I now add my own personal opinions.
My guess is that the universe is most likely to be toroidal with the hole in the toroid very large indeed ie like a hosepipe connected end to end we can only see a tiny part of the circumference of the hosepipe so on the whole it looks flat.
The reason for this is that we are inside a black hole that is rotating in three dimensions a bit like a smoke ring.
The reason why the physical laws are conducive to complexity and life is due to the fact that, like life itself the physical laws, have evolved as the universe cooled down to enable complexity partly because complex recycling processes are favoured as the temperature falls and the uncertainty in behaviour decreases. and partly because we were "seeded" by a black hole forming in a complex universe similar to our own.
Black holes in our universe are one way gateways to other universes that are forming in similar ways to our own and have a similar "size" to our own. This is because the process is essentially scale invariant outside of our universe is an indefinite number of other universes (its turtles all the way down!) So the overall total universe is a constant foam structure of nested black holes extending indefinitely in all dimensions
Getting down to basics space and time consists of a number of complex (probably hypercomplex) dimensions so when a black hole coolapses the space dimensions collapse into time and the time dimensions expand to become space.
All this I think is fully compatible with current scientific thinking relativity cosmology and string theory etc but I am not sure that it can ever be proved.
Looking at the classical relatavistic collapse of a black hole inside its event horizon will I believe reveal hints to this and how we might prove it.
-
Soul Surfer
The reason for this is that we are inside a black hole that is rotating in three dimensions a bit like a smoke ring.
The reason why the physical laws are conducive to complexity and life is due to the fact that, like life itself the physical laws, have evolved as the universe cooled down to enable complexity partly because complex recycling processes are favoured as the temperature falls and the uncertainty in behaviour decreases. and partly because we were "seeded" by a black hole forming in a complex universe similar to our own.
Black holes in our universe are one way gateways to other universes that are forming in similar ways to our own and have a similar "size" to our own. This is because the process is essentially scale invariant outside of our universe is an indefinite number of other universes (its turtles all the way down!) So the overall total universe is a constant foam structure of nested black holes extending indefinitely in all dimensions
This is very interesting SS I have also thought that our universe might be a colossal black spewing out and forming our universe.
Black holes might also form less complex univeres, hostile to life, some only existing for a pico second nd less and others eternal and infinite but dark barren an cold. The fundamental constants and even the mathemathics might differ, I once suggested that in another universe "pi" could be exatly "3" and not 3...........?
And this made me think, could our universe be the opposite in that it is the result of a "White Hole"
I would also like to divert a little and ask how does entropy work in a black hole. How hot is a black hole and can it "reverse entropy" and draw energy into itself from the cold of our universe
Alan
-
Alan A black hole is a black hole and nothing comes out of it other than hawking radiation that is its nature it's what goes on in the "infinite space" that is inside it that is critical and we can never ever see that in the same way we can never ever see outside our own universe in fact we can probably only see a tiny part of that! It is not possible to answer the middle of your questions because you are not thinking in the right way. What you are describing is a far to simple and "mystical" approach. You need to get right down in there with the physics and maths. I suggest that you read Roger Penrose's book "The road to reality" try to understand it, and think again.
As far as entropy is concerned I am suggesting that it is the interchange between space and time dimensions effectively turning the universe inside out as it collapses through the event horizon that allows entropy to continue increasing without limit and creates this scale invariance.
-
Soul Surfer
As far as entropy is concerned I am suggesting that it is the interchange between space and time dimensions effectively turning the universe inside out as it collapses through the event horizon that allows entropy to continue increasing without limit and creates this scale invariance
.
This does not make sense to me, does your postulation suggest a sort of infinitely high state of entropy. If yes where is the infinite energy coming from the drive this infinite machine?
What you are describing is a far to simple and "mystical" approach. You need to get right down in there with the physics and maths. I suggest that you read Roger Penrose's book "The road to reality" try to understand it, and think again
By describing what I describe by being "far to simple" I find myself in the company of huge intellects like Albert Einstein , he said we should always look at reality through the eyes and questions of a child and try to build on that. his his using of his imagination by "imagining he was riding on a beam of light,is just what I you and I are doing in this thread.
I can smother the forum with mathematical proofs and suggestions, but there are others on the forum that do not have your level of mathematical insight and they will quickly loose interest and go elsewhere
I have read Roger Pensores books and many others by scientist of equal stature and some disagree with him, he does not have the only take on reality , who knows maybe mine might be more accurate he nevertheless is a remarkable person
Alan
Also no one has been into a black hole and come back to let us what is on the other side. In that I am getting right down to physics and maths and I have never suggested any mystical component on this debate
-
OK here's a bit more of the background thinking without equations
IF you have read "The road to reality" (which I very much doubt by many of the things you say because it is essentially a mathematics textbook and few questionable theories are presented) you should understand a bit about complex and hypercomplex numbers. These are vital in understanding the cyclic energy changes in Maxwells equations that describe electromagnetic wave propagation.
Matter also has wavelike properties that can be described in terms of complex numbers and this forms an important part of the mathematics of Quantum theory
The string theorists visualise a universe with many more dimensions than we see these are seen as being wrapped up very small dimensions (again described using complex numbers) Complex numbers are one of the best ways of getting rid of nasty infinities in equations when numbers in the denominators of fractions go to zero.
Many theorists describe the universe in terms of information theory. one of the important properties of information theory is a measure called time-bandwidth product. You should also be familiar with Fourier transforms in this context.
This shows that as one thing collapses towards zero another thing is forced to expand.
Now the problem with black holes is that in our world we see things collapsing to become very small but the energy is getting more and more concentrated and this effectively forces some of the dimensions that have effectively been collapsed to expand and become new space and time dimensions and the process continues.
As for energy one of the weird facts about quantum theory it suggests that if you look at the very small the energy available in the vacuum is almost infinite.
-
Soul Surfer,
I did not say that I had read the book by Penrose, I might have, but I have read many articles by this informed physicist
Getting back to entropy, what is the entropic state of a proton?
Alan
-
Soul Surfer,
Respectfully
Many theorists describe the universe in terms of information theory. one of the important properties of information theory is a measure called time-bandwidth product. You should also be familiar with Fourier transforms in this context.
This shows that as one thing collapses towards zero another thing is forced to expand
To try and define your argument, are you suggesting that for lack of a better word "Existence' recycles and cycles its self, sort of dying and given new existences perhaps as you stated in new more complex/less universes. Sort of seeded by a black hole giving life to another universe in an everlasting continual process of life and death of universes into the infinite macro down into the infinitesimal quart realms
Like a seed (black hole) giving existence to a new tree (universe). The next tree (universe) seeded by (black hole) from this a new more complex or slightly changed tree is created and so on recycling energy forever into eternity "Tree =universe, Seed =black hole"
Or do you think the universe is a Steady State infinite eternal Universe Fred Hoyle ? I am asking this so that we can debate from the same platform?
Alan
-
Yes BOTH of those Ideas are about right as broad descriptions
It is not the steady state universe as proposed by Fed Hoyle this is because at the time he proposed it. we did not have the knowledge or insight to propose what I am proposing. It is however logically and philosophically the same thing. It is just that our universe is an evolving tiny part of a continually evolving multiverse that is always substantially the same without beginning or end or scale.
Note that, like the tardis, a black hole is bigger on the inside than the outside because by its nature you can never see its walls.
Your question on entropy is not sensible. Entropy is a property of a large number of interacting elements not a property of a single particle somewhere in space. (even though a proton is a slightly composite object consisting of three bound quarks)
-
Soul Surfer
Your question on entropy is not sensible. Entropy is a property of a large number of interacting elements not a property of a single particle somewhere in space. (even though a proton is a slightly composite object consisting of three bound quarks
Oh!! yes it is sensible and the energy entropic state of the atom was just what the "Los Alamos Manhattan" scientists had to resolve to create the first fission nuclear bomb
Look it up if you like
But I now know something about your theory and you could be correct
Alan
-
Soul Surfer,
Reading your posts again leads me to ask you, do you think that size or scale has no real meaning in the grand order of reality. Thus you have universes going down smaller and smaller even near infinitely and the same on an upward scale universe into a greater superuniverse etc.
Thus when we state the unimaginable size of our own universe we are speaking subjectively and relatively
Our universe thus might just be a quantum speck in an unimaginably larger universe and this larger universe only a speck in a much larger universe.
Thus relativity holds true in scale, time and dimensions
Like Russian dolls
Alan
-
If we assume that the Cosmic Background Radiation has a more or less globular bubble form, forming the boundary of our own material universe inside the multiverse
The CMBR is not the boundary of our universe. It marks the epoch of the Last Scattering when radiation & matter de-coupled; coincident with the formation of hydrogen atoms. Prior to that point the universe was a plasma that was too dense for photons to move through. The Last Scattering occurred 300,000 years after the Big Bang; so the universe is considerably larger than the CMBR limit.
Points on the CMBR that are more than 2o apart were not in causal contact prior to the Last Scattering. This means that any fluctuations seen on that scale must have been present in the primordial plasma prior to the Last Scattering.
(I know this has jumped back a way in the thread but I thought it worth mentioning even at this late juncture)
-
DocB,
CMBR is pervades the universe, sort of fog filling all space time
Am I correct?
Alan
-
It reaches us from all directions.
I was replying to the assertion that it marks the edge of our universe.
-
The cosmic microwave background defines the edge of the optically visible universe because before then the universe was opaque. So that distance tells us nothing about the actual physical size of the universe its just as far as we gan see. Nutrinos and gravitiational waves could in theory panetrate considerably further if we could detect and identify a background ratiation component in these signals. however it would be very difficult to detect and prove.
-
Oh!! yes it is sensible and the energy entropic state of the atom was just what the "Los Alamos Manhattan" scientists had to resolve to create the first fission nuclear bomb
Look it up if you like
Could you please give me the reference where you learned this. Please note your original question referred to a single proton not a uranium atom which is quite a complex structure with quite a lot of potential internal states. An isolated proton does not have this complexity.
Tho talk about the entropy of an isolated system of particles it is necessary to know the number of particles the amount of space they occupy potential ststes they may occupy within that space and the reasons why (iter atomic forces etc) they may occupy one configuration rather than another.
-
The cosmic microwave background defines the edge of the optically visible universe because before then the universe was opaque. So that distance tells us nothing about the actual physical size of the universe its just as far as we gan see. Nutrinos and gravitiational waves could in theory panetrate considerably further if we could detect and identify a background ratiation component in these signals. however it would be very difficult to detect and prove.
Quite so; but the assertion I was replying to was that the CMBR marks the edge of "our material universe", which it does not.
-
Soul Surfer
Below is an excerpt the journal I read, it is long and complex, for me anyway
Alan
IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS: CONDENSED MATTER
J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 342201 (7pp) doi:10.1088/0953-8984/19/34/342201
FAST TRACK COMMUNICATION
The origin of persistent spin dynamics and residual
entropy in the stuffed spin ice Ho2.3Ti1.7O7−δ
HD Zhou1, CRWiebe1,2, Y J Jo1, L Balicas1, Y Qiu3,4, J R D Copley3,
G Ehlers5, P Fouquet6 and J S Gardner3,7
1 National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
FL 32306-4005, USA
2 Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-3016, USA
3 NIST Center for Neutron Research, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-5682, USA
4 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742, USA
5 SNS Project, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6475, USA
6 Institut Laue-Langevin, Boˆıte Postale 156X, F-38042, Grenoble Cedex 9, France
7 Indiana University, 2401Milo B Sampson Lane, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA
E-mail: cwiebe@magnet.fsu.edu and jsg@nist.gov
Received 31 May 2007, in final form 5 July 2007
Published 20 July 2007
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysCM/19/342201
In contrast, the experimental lower limit on the half-life for the proton decay is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1032 years! If the half-life were any shorter, proton decays would have been observed in experiments searching for them, yet they have not been seen. (You might wonder how such a limit can be set. A cube of water 10 meters on each side contains 10 to the power of 33 protons and neutrons
So a proton from "zero entropy" to "maximum entropy" takes an enormous time (the arrow of time) to release all its energy and reach maximum entropy (my comment)
But as far as I know proton decay has never been observed, in the proton decay detectors, but I might be wrong
“ A rest proton should have no residual entropy"
Alan
-
The quote you give makes no mention of entropy of individual particles only that of a complex thermodynamic system. Your following statement does not make proper scientific sense. Please could you briefy state what you understand by the term "entropy" and then I may be able to correct your misunderstandings.
-
Soul Surfer
I am an quite aware what entropy is and what it is not, it is just the flow of energy from a high temperature pressure state to a lower colder less pressurised state.
Entropy is bound to the arrow of time and is an expression of order to disorder, that is why when you look in the mirror you are no longer at the youth you once were but the person your are now. Entropy is all about change and everything must change including the whole universe
That is why you never get younger just older and older until your body returns to the disorder of dust.
You can only keep the entropy of a micro system low by constant reintroduction of energy.I simply can not get my mind around the universe reversing entropy in endless of cycles and recycles.. To me that universe must reach a state of equilibrium, HEAT DEATH of a closed universe, or the COLD DEATH of a universe open infinite and eternal
It is impossible to reverse entropy, sort of sucking energy our of a cold vacuum and making a low high temperature high energetic state a lower entropy than it is
Crudely put you cant heat up a hot room from another cold room. (no airconditioners allowed)
The ruins of ancient buildings are a clear indicator of the arrow of time and the effect of entropy on that structure
A particle is made of mass and all mass is energy, think about a lump of coal as a poor analogy, poor quality coal has a higher entropy potential, than very high quality coal, which has a lower entropic potential and thus more energy can be extracted from it. The same must be true when we look at a single particle and just like the coal it entropic state depends on its exited state.
That is why I said a single REST proton has almost zero entropy, and protons like my coal example will depend from proton to proton, so it is impossible to give the entropic state of a proton unless we have of a tool like the LHC
Perhaps you are correct that I am looking at his too much from a thermodynamics point of view I am certainly no particle physicist I just have a deep interests in the subject and stand open to your correction
Alan
-
You are very muddled with your thinking. Like many people who come to this discussion you have grasped one or two important features from the popular literature and then embroidered it with a lot of emotive and colourful ideas of your own without strippping the real science to its bare bones and understanding it as fully as possible before trying to build things up. Entropy is a particularly difficult concept to grasp clearly and like magnetism is often very poorly understood by people who just dip into science.
The concept of entropy originates in Thermodynamics which is concerned as you say with the way heat energy flows within an isolated system consiting of significant quantities of material. The traditional definition is in a differential form in which only the change in entropy as a result of the flow of heat can be expressed. In general unlike temperature (another well known thermodynamic measure) an absolute value of the entropy of the system cannot be given, only the change that has taken place (there are possibly a few exceptions to this but they are not the principal point of this discussion).
The change in entropy is expressed as the change in heat content divided by the temperature at which the heat content was changed. This is true provided that the process involved is reversible.
This precise process has been generalised to suggest that an ingrease in entropy is in effect an increase in "disorder" in the system. This also has been further extended to mean that an increase in disorder is an increase in the number of possible states for the system which are indistinguishable from each other although in general, no numbers are put on these processes ony qualitative descriptions.
From what I have said it should now become perfectly clear that asking someone to define the entropy of a single proton in an unspecified enclosure or environment does not have any scientific meaning.
-
Soul Surfer
I was tricked into posing this question by a friend of mine
I joined the forum to learn so thank you for being so patient with me,
I will think about your post and return , hopefully clear thinking and unmuddled
Your Quote
From what I have said it should now become perfectly clear that asking someone to define the "entropy of a single proton in an unspecified enclosure or environment does not have any scientific meaning".
My quote
That is why I said a single REST proton has almost zero entropy, and protons like my coal example will depend from proton to proton, so it is "impossible" to give the entropic state of a proton unless we have of a tool like the LHC
Alan
-
Soul Surfer,
My reading and research has shown that single particle entropy is a serious topic in physics and science
I include a few articles (with links) that I have read on the Internet Don't jump on me I make no claim in understanding them , maybe you do and can enlighten me!!
Alan
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13992775
Titre du document / Document title
Single-particle entropy in (1+2)-body random matrix ensembles
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
KOTA V. K. B. ; SAHU R. ;
Résumé / Abstract
Random matrix ensembles defined by a mean-field one-body plus a chaos generating random two-body interaction (called embedded Gaussian orthogonal ensembles of (1 + 2)-body interactions[EGOE(I 1+2)]) predict for the entropy defined by the occupation numbers of single-particle states, in the chaotic domain, an essentially one parameter Gaussian form for their energy dependence. Numerical embedded ensemble calculations are compared with the theory.
In addition, it is shown that the single-particle entropy, thermodynamic entropy defined by the state density and information entropy defined by wave functions in the mean-field basis for EGOE(1 + 2) describe the results known for interacting Fermi systems such as those obtained from nuclear shell model
The thermal motion of single particles represents the largest contribution to level density (or entropy) in atomic nuclei. The concept of single particle entropy is presented and shown to be an approximate extensive (additive) quantity for mid-shell nuclei. A few applications of single particle entropy are demonstrated. ©2006 American Institute of Physics
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-13614.html
Question?
Is there any study of how much entropy exists in a particle? For example, is there any connection between the quantum states of a string and the entropy/information in the string state? If a string state were perfectly symmetrical, then there would be less information in that state than if the string changed value along its length. So it seems that higher excited string states correspond to more information, etc.
Or is there any connection between entropy/information and the probability amplitudes of the alternate paths of the Feynman path integrals? Where does entropy start to enter the quantum picture of things?
Thanks
.
Firstly an individual particle does not have Entropy! Its Entropy value has been transfered from the moment of its (particle) creation.
The Entropy function for a collection of particulates follows along with the Arrow of Time, which is a dimensional 'fixing' around a Blackhole, which tend Particles to be Dimensionally bound into Space-Time Galaxies.
A good approximation for Dimensional Entropy is to see that a 2-Dimensional field surrounding a Particle is part of a different Entropy than the 'inner' Particle itself, the energies associated tend to be 'Opposite' rather than 'Like'.
If you trace a Particle back to its moment of creation then you would not reverse its 'Entropy' value until you have Annihilation, then as to be expected the E=MC2 exchange rate induce's Field> Particle> transformations. A particle approaching a Black Hole for instance, will downgrade itself from a 3-Dimensional Matter Energy, to a 2-Dimensional Field Energy, which can be reflected back out away, outside, and far from the Galaxy where the Blackhole resides.
This Energy holds the Galaxy and its contents into a Spacetime 'Bubble'. Galaxies (3D+T) are emmersed within a 2-Dimensional field(1+1), just as the Bose-Einstein-Condensate acts as one 'big-atom' by its reduced Thermal value within another thermal value by the experimental setup (normal 'hot' atoms cooled to super-condensed states, surrounded by a 'steady' state of the chamber/Lab). The reduction of thermal state imposed upon BEC atomic set-up, throws a shroud around the collection of atoms, and 'Gravity' signals are dimensionally reversed, structure starts to climb out of vessels, Magnetic levitation becomes apparent as the Meisner Effect.
One can state that the process isolates the BEC in another 'Spacetime', a sort of 2-Dimensional matter(arrow-time), suspended within a 3-Dimensional fixed (entropy) Space here on Earth.
The string entropy Value relates to World-Lines, emmbedded into World-sheets, there lay the problems within string theory, their treatment of Dimensional bounds are incompatable with reality, space and spacetimes are quite distinct!..direction and Entropy Arrow of Time Conservation only exists in 3+2 dimensions BOUND TO A SINGLE 1-D Entropy System.
Soul Surfer
This is this persons take, but is it correct?
Alan
-
Soul Surfer,
Do you believe in the big bang, do you believe if it happened it brought the universe, space, time, matter and energy/ or do you believe exploded(for lack of a better word) into a absolute infinite eternal vacuum of absolute nothingness?
Or do you believe there was never a big bang event and our universe is just one expanding speck of infinity other universes huge and tiny all expanding into this infinite black nothingness?
Alan
http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm
Zero-Point Energy
Quantum theory predicts, and experiments verify, that so-called empty space (the vacuum) contains an enormous residual background energy known as zero-point energy or ZPE. This energy derives its name from the fact that at temperatures of absolute zero (- 273o Celsius), elementary particles continue to exhibit energetic behavior. Advances in the theories of zero-point energy, nonlinear thermodynamics, and Connective Physics open up the possibility of cohering this energy for practical purposes -- in effect tapping the zero-point, and thereby accessing a universe-sized source of energy.
Originally, the possible uses of zero-point energy were thought to be of significance only for such esoteric concerns as small perturbations in atomic emission processes. But now, zero-point energy theories suggest new ways to understand inertia and gravity (and thus potentially control these forces!). Such theories may also be able to explain anomalies such as Sonoluminescence, the inhibition of spontaneous emission, and the generation of short-range attractive forces (e.g. the Casimir Effect). More practical applications include “mining” these vacuum fluctuations for practical uses such as spaceflight and such far-out possibilities as “warp-drive” space propulsion systems.
"Oh WRETCHED race of men, to space confined!
What honour can ye pay to him, whose mind
To that which lies beyond hath penetrated?
The symbols he hath formed shall sound his praise,
And lead him on through unimagined ways
To conquests new, in worlds not yet created.
First, ye Determinants! In ordered row
And massive column ranged, before him go,
To form a phalanx for his safe protection.
Ye powers of the nth roots of - 1!
Around his head in ceaseless* cycles run,
As unembodied spirits of direction.
And you, ye undevelopable scrolls!
Above the host wave your emblazoned rolls,
Ruled for the record of his bright inventions.
Ye cubic surfaces! By threes and nines
Draw round his camp your seven-and-twenty lines-
The seal of Solomon in three dimensions.
March on, symbolic host! With step sublime,
Up to the flaming bounds of Space and Time!
There pause, until by Dickenson depicted,
In two dimensions, we the form may trace
Of him whose soul, too large for vulgar space,
In n dimensions flourished unrestricted."
-- James Clerk Maxwell
To the Committee of the Cayley Portrait Fund -- 1887
-
Taking your 05:42 post first
Single particle entropy is logical and probably sensible in the quantum domain for particles containing an excess of energy in their makeup but note it is being used as a tool to understand how that particle will interact with others. Your question referred to an isolated single particle that had no energy. (neglecting the vast energy if the continually interacting quarks that it contains.
I have always been talking about the root concept of entropy in the classical domain up until now. It is important to understand this properly before venturing into the complexities of uncertainty and quantum theory.
It is interesting to note that the individual particle energies of the three quarks confined within a proton are in excess of the "rest" masses of the quarks. Note I put the rest inside inverted commas because it is not possible to observe a single quark at rest.
I am less sure of the second extract. Some aspects of the way it is written suggest that it is one of the many "Pseudo Intellectual Scientific Gobbledegook" articles that appear on so many scientific websites. It can be very difficult sorting out the good stuff from the rubbish that is just intended to make the writer look good and confuse the naive.
I will deal with your second questions in a separate post.
-
I have in general no dispute with the interpretations and models of any of the generally accepted scientific theories. My main concern is that most of them are pushing the limits of what can ever be measurable by experiment (for example the LHC)or modelled by theory (for example the vast number of alternative string theories) I therefore feel from my experience that the time has come to look at the problems of basic physics and cosmology in a new way. There are several other good workers in this field notably Roger Pernrose from the mathematics end and Lee Smolin from the cosmological end who I consider are well worth reading, but in general my ideas are my own and not dependant on other people. I just look to other workers to help illuminate my thinking.
Let me state first that I am a retired professional scientist and innovator with a good record of success in this field for commercial purposes, who took early retirement with the intention of pursuing my studies further.
Having to innovate to solve problems in many different areas has taught me that when an area is becoming "clogged up with expertise" the best way is to stand back from the growing point think broadly and across disciplines and try to set off in a new direction.
Now let me get back to giving a brief exposition of the roots of my thinking.
You can read more of my writings in the "Evolutionary Cosmology" topic in the New theories area of this forum and I will post this there as well later.
Ever since I was a child back in the 50s reading scientific texts (I grew up during the big bang/ continuous creation argument) I have always believed that the universe would turn out to be bits of screwed up energy and/or space time such that both of the basic concepts of the big bang (observation) and continuous creation (logical thinking) were true.
My opinion is that Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest theoreticians at the time, was very unjustifiably maligned for proposing a disprovable cosmological theory based on the theoretical principle that at the greatest possible scale of space and time the universe cannot change, only the local conditions (our observable universe) can change. Sadly like a determined biblical creationist he chose to have his static universe visible and defended it to the end. (a common human failing in many areas!)
More recently I have felt that the broad concepts of evolution and emergence would also have a big part to play in cosmology. other workers are looking at the possibility that the physical laws may change in extremis and there is a general acceptance that at the absolute extremes of energy all interactions become of a similar magnitude
The zero point energy is an important part and is now generally accepted as having some sort of reality implying that underlying the cold quiet of space there is a vast and almost infinite pool of energy. a My thinking has a partial explanation how this might be.
(the poem, if it is correctly attributed is very interesting I have never come across it before)
Quantum mechanical uncertainty is well accepted and is also a vital part of evolutionary cosmology. This states that momentum and position are linked so that the more accurate the position the less accurate the momentum, similarly energy and time are also linked so the more accurately you know the timing of anything the less accurate is the energy. This means that at very high energies and in very small spaces all the physical laws become blurred and less accurately observed statistically. This is a bit like the way that the enegy of an individual molecule in a gas is variable because of its interactions with other molecules but has a statistical value. It is a process that allows the physical laws to settle out as the temperature falls from extreme heights.
Basic cosmological theory suggests universes should form evolve and die in various ways. Many theoreticialns visualise the unchanging universe (sometimes referred to as the bulk)It is also logical to say that all possibilities of any type are universes. So new universes should form from existing universes in a complex multiverse. Our vast visible universe is just a tiny part of ONE of them.
Are there any occasions when our own universe might be creating new universes? One clear possibility is the formation of black holes which are virtually totally detached from our universe leaving only a paowerful and eventually slowly decaying gravitiational field.
Now most writers dismiss what goes on inside black holes as a collapse to a mystical point singularity requiring some form of unknown quantum gravity and promptly forget about them. This is clearly not true. Firstly, all black holes must initially be rotating probably at rates very close to the maximum possible the conservation of angular momentum and the relative smallness of black holes ensures that.
It is also agreed that the initial conditions just inside the event horizon are not significantly different from those outside of a large quiescent black hole and one could enter a very large black hole by crossing the event horizon almost without noticing. Now let us consider what might happen INSIDE a classical black hole as it collapses by using simple classical and simple quantum maechanical physical analysis without resorting to quantum gravity.
Firstly a black hole is loke a tardis, bigger on the inside than outside because if you send light out in any direction it gets bent back and comes back to the collapsing structure. Let us initially assume that this structure is spherical. As it collapses it heats up, ie the particles get more and more energy and as they collide with each other more and more particles can be created from this energy and none of this energy can escape so the energy density can rise very quickly. The rotatinal energy will also be shared out among the particles so that eventially the shape will migrate from being a sphere to being a rotating torus which will continue to collapse and heat up more. Residual angular momentum in the two remaining directions will then show itself so the collapse will continue to become a gravitationally bound toroidal membrane of finite size but negligable thickness particles can still interact to create more particles but eventually the energy will be shared out evenly so that all the particles are moving in the same direction at almost the same speed (very very close to the velocity of light) ie although they are very "hot" because they are orbiting in the membrane with a very high energy they are cool with respect to each other because they are all moving coherently with respect to each other.
At some point gravitomagnetic frame dragging forces would become important and that might change the shape a bit from the simple torus(this is the bit I do not yet understand fully). My general understanding is that the surface would form one of several possible Calabi Yau (QV google)surfaces but popular detailed references here are not well explained and the maths is horrendous.
What then would "the universe" look like to a particle in its orbit as they cool down with respect to each other. Firstly because of the extreme speed and gravity, conventional time has virtually stopped. Secondly also because of the high energy the particles are extremely contracted in their direction of motion. Remember that as the paricles are essentially in orbit they do not "feel" the forces that hod them in orbit. It is my sugestion that this "cooling down" process could look very well look like the big bang to the individual particles creating what is in effect an expanding flat universe.
This idea may well prove to be wrong just like Fred Hoyle's idea of continuous creation but it has a lot if similarities to how the string theorests describe the universe.
-
Soul Surfer,
Thank you for you comprehensive interesting response. While I am not a professional scientist I have a life long interest in any scientific topic I can get my mind into.
Like you I grew up during the Fred Hoyle Big Bang Steady State controversy, and i know Fred Coined the term Big Bang. He was a physicist of equal structure to any other and worked out how the sun produced continuous energy from nuclear fusion
I am a retired Engineer very much your age. I read Fred Hoyle science fiction by the way
Allow me to absorb your posts and hopefully return with sensible unmuddled replies
Take Care
Alan
-
Soul Surfer,
As you are somewhat of an original thinker with your own ideas about the universe exists in the "greater all" maybe the below excerpt from a larger article might be of interest to you
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein8.htm
Information thus gets trapped into the increasingly complex energy/matter structures, evolving from the various elementary particle creation events. Obviously, over vast periods of time, such considerations lead us back to the cosmic scale, where astronomical objects are involved in huge energy discharge effects, resulting in the plasma dissociations which are originating these infinite velocity SQ entities. This is the starting point, in the ceaseless process of the creation (and destruction) of matter, as resulting from the thus-carried Information fields.
In our SubQuantum cosmogony, there is no need for any starting "Big-Bang" event, as the requisite Infinite velocity transferences of Information, occur beyond Time. The embarrassing paradoxes of "pre-Big-Bang" states, together with the need for some sort of "creation instant", all vanish without traces, as seen from this perspective. In our model, physical Creation is a ceaseless process, implemented by the SubQuantum by infinite velocity, bi-directional, interactive loops of Information flows.
This is reflected by the experimentally observed irregular and complex fluctuations in the strengths and directions of actual field structures, as well as by variations of the gravitational "constant" (which, at accurate measurements, turned out to be but an "average" value). Such irregularities, together with the periodicities observed in the dynamics of field structures, and the (poorly reported) variations in the speed of light, as found in the Michaelson-Morely experiments (up to fluctuation values of the order 3000 m/s!), find an elegant explanatory model in the vast streams of infinitesimals of cosmic origin - the matter creation/destruction loop, as explained above
What do you think about this article by?
Dr Adrian Klein and Dr. R.N. Boyd, PhD
-
Reading through your reference and the extract above At first glance it all looks like a load of pseudoscientific garbage to me. I might give it a second look but I have seen so much stuff like this on the web it saddens me.
Proper scientific writing is clear, simple and easy to understand even if the underlying ideas are difficult to work with.
-
Soul Surfer
Reading through your reference and the extract above At first glance it all looks like a load of pseudoscientific garbage to me. I might give it a second look but I have seen so much stuff like this on the web it saddens me
.
But your idea of an infinite eternal ceaseless evolving universe not a little similar?
I agree this was sent to me unsolicited but this article was written by PhD
Dr Adrian Klein and Dr. R.N. Boyd, PhD?
-
No and it is very easy to give an impression you are clever by sticking a few letters after your name. If I wanted to do that i can legitimatlely put
Bsc Hons Physics FRAS MIET MinstP LRPS after my name!
Has that done me any good!! LOL
When after completing my degree I decided to go to work in industry I turned down the invitation from my university to stay on to do a PhD because I did not want to spend two or three years learning everything there is to know about nothing and preferred to get some real work experience in those years.(they were a bit pissed off about that) PhD's were considered over qualified in many industrial R&D labs at that time. Much later in my career they hardly ever recruited anyone without a PhD! I was then often given the title Doctor but enjoyed explaining that the only way I had been doctored wis in the manner of a tomcat!!
PS have you looked at the home page of the website you quoted it looks like some pseudoreligious/scientific sect. Definitely well into the looky fringe
-
Bsc Hons Physics FRAS MIET MinstP LRPS after my name!
Ooooh - a Licentiate! [:o]
-
That's nothing. I've got ASBO after mine [^] (British participants at this forum will understand that)
-
The nearest I've ever got to having letters after my name is when a bit of Web's Wonder fell out of a Kebab I was eating and landed on an application form I was completing.
-
The questions people ask me all the time, if the universe is everything and it is expanding, then into what is it expanding?.
The reply by astrophysicists is "into nothing"!. This is most unsatisfactory and they go away more confused than before.
There is a postulation , that outside of the spacetime fabric of the universe is absolute nothing, a vacuum in the absolute that is infinite in every direction and the universe is encapsulated in an energy like expanding bubble into this primordial, primevil absolute dark nothingness. To me that does not seem to be a such silly idea, in a way it makes sense
Although I admit it is not good physics
Alan
In what way is it not 'good physics'?
If you mean that it will be very hard to find experimental evidence I suppose you are right:)
But as a proposal it makes sense.
It's all about what we believe, we build upon that with experiments and slowly we create a foundation.
Which makes me come to the other side of the 'coin'.
I believe that one also could create a mathematical foundation, a little like string theory.
And from that foundation find experiments to try, just like string theory:)
That's the beauty (as well as danger) of mathematics to me.
That you can create something inside of your mind in where all will 'conform' to some common nominators.
And if you created the right postulates to start with, even give you something that is testable.
Although the 'experimental' foundation was missing as you started.
It all goes back to my belief that all possible universes exists 'somewhere:)'.
And that they all can be 'modeled' by math.
But not necessarily describing ours, when doing so.
This forum has a lovely blend of people like me and guys & gals that have math and physics/astronomy as a profession.
I kind of immensely enjoy that.
A good new year to you all.
-
Soul Surfer
Reading through your reference and the extract above At first glance it all looks like a load of pseudoscientific garbage to me. I might give it a second look but I have seen so much stuff like this on the web it saddens me
.
But your idea of an infinite eternal ceaseless evolving universe not a little similar?
I agree this was sent to me unsolicited but this article was written by PhD
Dr Adrian Klein and Dr. R.N. Boyd, PhD?
Can i add, Dr. R.N. Boyd is a bit of a psuedoscientist when concerning his works.
-
And reading over the article, i would agree with a great deal of it, but it seems Dr Boyd has once again let his imagination run a fool of his lack of mathematical evidence.
-
For instance, Dr Boyd at the end says, wait for the next artical, ''consciousness does not need a brain.''
Do you know what his theory is? I read his paper ages ago, and he suggests that the human mind is not bound by the matter its brain is constructed of, but is instead portrayed as a holographic system, where the vacuum has a memory, so we are part of that memory.
This is an absurd idea, because he ignores all material effects of how consciousness operates.
-
I also got some names thrown after me.
But I couldn't hear what they was.
I was running to fast, at the time?
-
Okay, so here is my completely unqualified take on this subject:
Size is like a dimension in of itself. Universes exist stacked inside of each other, each one smaller than the one it is inside of, MUCH smaller.
Look at the model of how nearly everything in the universe assembles itself:
Central object, orbiting objects, other objects nearby of similar structure.
Let’s start with the smallest object we have been able to observe: the atom. Its basic building blocks are a nucleus and its orbiting electrons. I know that is way over simplifying it, but this same structure can be seen in nearly any system we can observe, it just gets to be a larger and larger or smaller and smaller system till we cannot observe it.
My take on it is that if we could see what makes up the parts of an atom, we would find similar structured systems. If we could peer into the individual parts of those systems, we would still find yet more similarly structured systems. Likewise, as we look at larger systems, we find that everything follows the same pattern. Planets around a sun. sun around a galaxy… Could it be that the galaxy is just one of many systems that are part of an even larger system that is so large that we cannot see it? It would be like being scaled down to the size of a human on an electron compared to the Earth. From your vantage point, you would be able to see your nucleus and other electrons. If you look hard enough, you can make out other atoms , but their distance from each other would be vast. If you were in the center of a drop of water, you would not be able to see the edges of the drop. To you the drop of water would be your entire universe and would seem infinite. You would not even be able to see the kitchen mop heading your way, but because of your scale, you might likely never see the effects of the mop as it destroys your universe because it would be thousands of generations, it not millions for the mop to make it across the kitchen to where you are.
So inversely, the same could be true. Our universe could be just another building block of some immensely larger universe that we cannot observe because it is too large.
We are droplets of a melted ice cube dropped in some kitchen too large to fathom, the mop is coming.
-
A very popular idea Databit. I would be wealthy if I had a pound for the number of people I have heard expressing this concept as a personal idea in the last fifty years! I even found it attractive in my youth but a moment's thought shows that things are very different on these scales in our universe.
The important concept presented above is one of total scale invariance. That is our universe is SIMULTANEOUSLY very large and very small. (quantum theory shows this in entanglement) What we see as a vast space is a result of our perception of space and time. This could have more potential than the wildest sci fi but I very much doubt that you CAN break the rules of causality so I am not suggesting leaping across space and time ourselves!
A black hole with a mass equal to that of our sun is about one mile across. The size of a black hole goes up linearly with the mass. A typical stellar mass black hole of around 6 to 10 solar masses would be about 10 miles across and one of a few billion solar masses like that in the largest galaxies would be about as big as our solar system.
It is already known that inside the event horizon space and time essentially change places. Time in our universe and the dimensions in quantum theory has imaginary dimensions. During the collapse space collapses to become tiny and the dimensions become imaginary and time expands to become real. In doing this a great deal of new matter is created. This is not contrary to the conservation of energy because it all comes from the conservation of angular momentum as the collapse takes place because gravitational collapse can release almost unlimited amounts of energy. This extra mass is hidden from outside of the black hole because of the inverse gravitational fields close to the hole. Look up the properties of Kerr black holes.
All this also fits with the reciprocal dimensions in string theory. I really want to discuss this concept with an open minded group of experts because it is all modelable and handlable with current theory and requires no new or unconventional ideas it is just a corner of science that no one has seriously examined as far as I can tell. They all just give up analysing as soon as the event horizon forms and say the rest is just mathematics and quantum gravity (which we do not understand yet).
To me this seems a bit like saying that our universe is uninteresting because it all ends in the heat death when the everything expands into nothingness. It ISNT the end of the process that is interesting it's what happens on the way!
-
My brother sent me an email after I posted this and he accused be of wrapping up the end of MIB, but I can remember the first time I thought about it on a camping trip back in the 80's. I am not making a claim to be the first to think of it, just how I percieve it.
Thanks for the great input!