[Zer0]

This Thread is my Favourite section on TNS.
For a very Simple reason, it's here that i find folks who are Able to Think ' Out of the Box ' .


Fundamental Forces.
Entropy.
Time.
Exist " Inside " our Observable Universe.

But if there is an " Outside "...
Is it a compulsion or mandatory for all those Things to be Present in the same Form exhibiting the same Nature as within?


Definitions Matter Alot!
Perhaps We should come up with New terms or verbiage to describe Space/Time before the Big Bang.


ps - the Egg was a symbolic representation of the universe, our universe, the one within which We exist.
No egg meaning no hen & no coop.

Retro-Causality negating Quantum Sciences, is not Observed within our Box.
But can We be certain of it's non-existentiality out of da box?

In my limited understanding, i do not know anything physical, which has
' No Motion ' or " Motionless " .
Perhaps one of you could help me out with an example.

pps - Only Dreamerz know this...
In Stables of the Mind..
Unicorns Exist.
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

yY
You have to respect entropy because it is during entropy that everything happens . That is based on many assumptions, for example:


1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe
 
2)  big bangs occur here and there, now and then, and are common events across the greater universe

3) In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe

4) expansion, meaning the observed separation of objects/matter in space, not only displays the "separation momentum" applied to matter as a result of the force of a local "big bang" event, but also displays the effect of energy density equalization that naturally takes place whenever energy density differentials exist in adjacent spaces.


... 207300,207739,

[Halc]

it is during entropy that everything happens

What does the phrase 'during entropy' even mean?
That's like saying 'during momentum', like they describe a period of time.

The entropy of Earth has more or less been constant over the last billion years, and an awful lot of interesting stuff has happened during that period, so I'm not so sure if the interesting stuff happens when entropy is changing, but you also didn't say 'when entropy was changing'.

1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe

Earth say ...
Again, entropy isn't a process that takes place. It's a value that can be measured, that can change.
 

In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe

High enough localized mass density (very little mass is required) that the matter would all exist within its own Schwarzschild radius, meaning it is a big collapse with no outward 'explosion' so to speak. It would result in an instant black hole with a event horizon radius far greater than the radius of our observable universe.

Just saying. That's what necessarily happens if you bang new matter into a small region of existing space. One can be in denial of gravity of course, but then why does it hurt when I fall down?

[Zer0]

I associate Time with Change.
& Entropy with the Flow of Energy.

But i do Wonder, what was the nature of Time, before the BB?

A Time without Atoms or Light or Matter or Entropy...
Should i even refer to it as " Time " ?


A Space before " Space " is easier in comparison to think of.

But just bcoz the " Egg " inside which i reside, has a yolk & white...
Should i assume or conclude that the ' Hen ' is made of yolk..
& the ' Coop ' is filled with white.


ps - Imagination needs no Wings nor Sky for Flight.
But remains Confined in the Skullcage, such is it's Plight.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Alright, if you are here for a layman's response, I can accommodate you .
Of course, it comes from my personal perspective and has little to do with established thinking ...
I believe time had no beginning. I'm not suggesting that time is an illusion, but instead, time has always been passing, and everything that has happened, or is happening, or will happen, takes place somewhere in the infinite and eternal time continuum. That continuum has just one direction, and that is forward in time. But also, the time continuum is characterized by a concept called "places". Places can move relative to each other, and that relative motion would most likely have an affect on the measurement of time in any given place, relative to the measurement of the passing of time in other places.


208338,

[Halc]

I'm not suggesting that time is an illusion

I actually never understood those arguing that time is an illusion. I mean, a physical clock measures it, and a physical device cannot measure something that doesn't exist. So to suggest that time isn't real has to also include the clock not being real, and then you not being real. That's a less popular stance, valid, probably just a refusal to apply the term 'real' to anything.

instead, time has always been passing, and everything that has happened, or is happening, or will happen, takes place somewhere in the infinite and eternal time continuum. That continuum has just one direction, and that is forward in time.

That's an intuitive philosophical stance known as presentism. Most people are presentists, especially those unfamiliar with the term, but it does contradict Einstein's theories, contradicting the most basic premises.  If you deny that all local inertial frames are equally valid, and you deny the constant speed of light, you end up with a totally different theory that came along about a century after Einstein's papers. In this theory, the universe is 3D, not 4D. It is contained by eternal passing time just like you say. There is no big bang, only a (single) big bounce. There are no black holes,. Those things are artifacts only of Einstein's theory.
Look up I. Schmelzer if you're interested, but the theory is more complicated than general relativity, so it isn't an easy read. But it supports the presentism that so many people seem to want.

But also, the time continuum is characterized by a concept called "places".

I think that would be the space continuum, not the time continuum.

[Zer0]

Just a small OffTopic enquiry...

Suppose, just Imagine wildly, Suppose...

The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' .

& the rate of Collapse keeps increasing or Accelerating.

Well, Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...

What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?

ps - easy to imagine Matter coalescence, but wat da hell bout d
 " Space Continuum " ?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... Suppose...The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' & the rate ... keeps ... Accelerating.
Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...
What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?
...

Stepping outside of my favorite personal model of the universe, the Infinite Spongy Universe Model, and addressing your "what ifs" ... we then might have the issue that what we are talking about is an observation from some point within a selected portion of what you designate as the Observable Universe. When talking about what is observable from any particular position in space, I would expect the perspective to change (as the point from which the observation is made moves), and the view from elsewhere in the vastness might be expected to be completely different.

But not in my so called ISU Model.  Given all of the possible points from which to make such an observation, there would be an infinite number of possible perspectives, and who knows if there might be a corresponding number of different observers occupying those various distant patches of space. However, a contraction is a local event within the infinite universe, and the infinite universe as a whole isn't subject to expansion, contraction, or collapse; only patches within it can be said to contract and expand, and those circumstances occur at the whim of the most recent nearby Big Crunch or Big Bang event, I speculate.


211808,

[Halc]

Given all of the possible points from which to make such an observation

In an infinite universe, there are of course infinite locations from which an observable universe can be defined. But they come in clumps, which in our case is our local group of galaxies.  Any light that can reach any point in our local group of galaxies can also reach any other part of the group, hence it acts as a sort of single center of one observable universe.  This is not true of any observer not in the group. Light might reach that observer and nothing in our group, or reach our group and not that observer, not even after infinite time.
So again, yes, there are infinite points of observation when talking about an observable universe, but the different 'points' of observation are pretty far apart.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
So again, yes, there are infinite points of observation when talking about an observable universe, but the different 'points' of observation are pretty far apart.

I get your point and see it's truth. One of the words I have used here is "contiguous", and in thinking about how far apart the various points of observation can be, they are connected in a space-time continuum. To move around in the "continuum", the line described by our path is a plot of contiguous points, complicated by the relative motion of all objects, and destined to be eventually forgotten as to never have existed. That may seem to be a characterization of gloom, but on the other hand, it can be an assurance that our worst will be forgotten. My hope is that our best will win the struggle to be remembered for at least a brief local instant.


212499

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I talk about multiple big bangs occurring here and there, now and then, across an infinite and eternal universe. My view is that the infinities of space, time, and energy have always been the case, forever. Since I posit that there was no beginning, time has always been passing, everywhere across that infinite expanse.

As part of that picture, I often discuss the "sameness doctrine" which says, on a grand scale, the universe is essentially the same no matter where you are in it; not in the precise local view which differs from point to point, but in the grand perspective, where every point enjoys the status of being the center of an infinite expanse.

Another aspect of the sameness is that the view is constantly changing from every perspective, at every point. across the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.


213142,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
Another aspect of the "sameness" is that the view is constantly changing from every perspective, at every point. across the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.

The sad fact is that we are capable of imagining so much, and it turns out that much of what we can imagine is flat out fantasy. Maybe that is why we can each voice our particular perspective on a subject, but no one has the final word :shrug:


214887,215156,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

Those qualities of the universe fit nicely in line with a hypothetical "infinite spongy universe (so called) model". Since the "spongy" aspect simply means that any given mass has no fixed position and continually moves, relative to its surroundings.

That motion is guided and constrained by the ever changing local gravitational fields, so there might seem to be a built in randomness.

But does the universe have any option as to the upcoming gravitational forces governing the local movement of any given object? I don't think that the laws of motion have much use for the concept of randomness.


215772,

[Halc]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

Depends on your definitions of time and eternal. If you picture time as something that flows, and eternal as 'unbounded in both directions', then most theories that support such flowing time do not suggest a start or end to it.

But does the universe have any option as to the upcoming gravitational forces governing the local movement of any given object? I don't think that the laws of motion have much use for the concept of randomness.

No idea what this asks. Option??  The gravitational field is determined by the arrangement of stress-energy in spacetime, at least per relativity, but relativity doesn't support flowing time so easily. Anyway, regardless of model, there's no randomness to it. Look to QM for fundamental randomness.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I don't post online as often as I used to, but I still surf the net and follow science topics to keep my mind active. I'm not sure when "old age" occurs, but I'm sure 80, which I will turn yet this year, qualifies,



223555,

[Halc]

I'm not sure when "old age" occurs

It occurs at about 10 years older than whatever your current age is.
As a 10 year old, the 20 year olds looked ancient to me.

[Zer0]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...
Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.

If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.


ps - ....nity is that which has No beginning, and that which has No end is Infi....!
0

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...

Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.

That would be a tremendous determination if it were true, but with billions of years (actually an infinity ahead) and infinite possible outcomes to play out, the real answers to such imponderables are indeterminate.

If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.

Why does it seem to me that infinity had "no beginning and will have no end"?


228563,

[Zer0]

The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )

Interesting you should go in that direction ...

The "immortality" could be of life itself. How about the premise that life has always existed; has an infinite past as well as an infinite future. Individual mortality, obviously not. Immortal chain of life ... why not.


228821,