On Friday, November 7, 2014 2:53:28 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 11/6/2014 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > LizR wrote: > >> On 7 November 2014 12:32, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:> > >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote: > >> > >> I have not seen your arguments for this, being new to the list, but > >> the expansion of the universe is a universal consequence of general > >> relativity. So it is built into the laws of physics, and has > nothing > >> to do with whether or not there ever was a period of rapid > inflation. > >> > >> > >> Expansion or collapse is a consequence of GR, certainly. However I was > thinking on a > >> larger scale with the EI comment, since EI seems to necessitate the > existence of > >> expanding universes. Not sure that it can be counted as a TOE though, > so it's still in > >> need of ultimate explanation.. > >> > >> The AoT comes from the third law of thermodynamics and has little > to > >> do with the expansion of the universe. Entropy increases in the > same > >> direction as the expansion solely because the universe 'began' in a > >> state of very low entropy. (The Past Hypothesis). > >> > >> I didn't realise there was a 3rd law, but anyway - saying the U began > in a low entropy > >> state begs the question - why did it? The big bang fireball was more or > less in > >> thermodynamic equilibrium as far as I know, and if it had stopped > expanding it would > >> have rapidly reached that stage. My point is to explain the > > > > > > Sorry -- typo. I meant the second law, of course. > > > > I agree that the past hypothesis, while it explains the thermodynamic > AoT, itself stands > > in need of explanation. This is the great unsolved problem of cosmology > -- at least > > according to many cosmologists. The initial big bang might be assumed to > be in > > thermodynaic equilibrium, but that is essentially the same assumption as > the assumption > > of low entropy. The question remains as to why it was in equilibrium. > Generic creation > > events might actuallybe expected to produce extremely lumpy universe > down to the > > smallest scaels. I.e., state with very high entropy. > > What would be the highest possible (and therefore most probable) initial > state? A single > black hole? From an information theoretic viewpoint a universe inflating > up from a Planck > scale patch would seem most likely - doesn't require any information > input. > > Brent >
about that increasing states entropy thing. It doesn't work there, but I don't see how it would not work for entanglement. when two particles entangle the states of the combined system are fewer than the states 0f the particles isolated. the interest of that is it could be a glimpse of a small part of an energy exchange network that uses entanglement to momentarily reduce entropy to obtain workable energy at the right place and point something gets enough to happen. I mean...it looks reasonable to me...anything involving workable energy deserves attention The other thought about entropy is there are several different pairings available. And it makes a large difference which pairing is selected. Like the one above. It was bad pairing to an expanding universe, because it isn't just about increase of states availability of states to each particular point, including scaling up. entropy makes everything at all scales and so on, pan out at the same boundary or within.f Which is the furthest extents for it and if there's not hing else in reality, reality could be about to go invariant absolutely. Which equilibrium absolutely. Which about no energy available to anything to ever happen again -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
