BenRayfield
Regardless of its energy, there is always a chance that any particle will next be a very large distance away from its current position. These chances are approximately spread on a bell curve in each dimension, so the chance of next being very far away is exponentially small as distance increases linearly, but it must happen given enough time.

Therefore, every closed system must eventually return to exactly its original state, closing the loop. The same is true of every state of the system.

Every closed loop in time has constant entropy.

Every closed system has constant entropy.

The definition of "universe" is "everything that exists". If something else existed outside the universe, it would, by definition, be part of the universe. Therefore, by definition, the universe is a closed system.

Therefore the universe has constant entropy.
Mekigal
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 12 2012, 04:15 PM)
Regardless of its energy, there is always a chance that any particle will next be a very large distance away from its current position. These chances are approximately spread on a bell curve in each dimension, so the chance of next being very far away is exponentially small as distance increases linearly, but it must happen given enough time.

Therefore, every closed system must eventually return to exactly its original state, closing the loop. The same is true of every state of the system.

Every closed loop in time has constant entropy.

Every closed system has constant entropy.

The definition of "universe" is "everything that exists". If something else existed outside the universe, it would, by definition, be part of the universe. Therefore, by definition, the universe is a closed system.

Therefore the universe has constant entropy.

If it is expanding would it be closed ? Maybe like a balloon with adding air . What if it pops like pimple ? I think it is more like a sneeze my self , or possible a fart
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 12 2012, 04:15 PM)
Regardless of its energy, there is always a chance that any particle will next be a very large distance away from its current position. These chances are approximately spread on a bell curve in each dimension, so the chance of next being very far away is exponentially small as distance increases linearly, but it must happen given enough time.

Therefore, every closed system must eventually return to exactly its original state, closing the loop. The same is true of every state of the system.

Every closed loop in time has constant entropy.

Every closed system has constant entropy.

The definition of "universe" is "everything that exists". If something else existed outside the universe, it would, by definition, be part of the universe. Therefore, by definition, the universe is a closed system.

Therefore the universe has constant entropy.

Wow another brilliant comment from you.

BenRayfield
QUOTE
If it is expanding would it be closed ?

Assumptions are unscientific. You made an assumption that the part of the universe we've observed so far is the whole universe.

An ant on a balloon may think the universe is expanding because the balloon is expanding. Don't assume the same just because you can see farther. Many times in history the Human species started thinking the universe is much bigger than previously thought, and we have no reason to think it will stop at the billions of lightyears instead of trillions or more.

Universe means "everything that exists", not "everything we've seen so far".
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 12 2012, 09:22 PM)

Assumptions are unscientific. You made an assumption that the part of the universe we've observed so far is the whole universe.

An ant on a balloon may think the universe is expanding because the balloon is expanding. Don't assume the same just because you can see farther. Many times in history the Human species started thinking the universe is much bigger than previously thought, and we have no reason to think it will stop at the billions of lightyears instead of trillions or more.

Universe means "everything that exists", not "everything we've seen so far".

Learn some physics. We don't need your dumb analogy we need you to quit starting stupid threads with dumb proclamations. We already have enough dumb threads going nowhere. You should do some research.
BenRayfield
As I said in the other thread, science is not a democracy, so find a flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas. So far you have offered nothing at all against my ideas and made a fool of yourself by insulting me instead.
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 12 2012, 09:59 PM)
As I said in the other thread, science is not a democracy, so find a flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas. So far you have offered nothing at all against my ideas and made a fool of yourself by insulting me instead.

You're the one who acts like it's a democracy. You think your opinion matters. It only matters if you can support your ideas with evidence. You start out 'round filing' 'yourself' based on your consummate ignorance of the scientific literature. You probably don't understand what that means. Why would I respond to your illiterate idea? What you said was ignorant and guess what? Learn some physics.
AlexG
QUOTE
Every closed system has constant entropy.

It does once entropy has reached maximum.

You may argure that quantum fluctuations will cause momentary local reductions in entropy, but entropy will always maximize again.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Every closed system has constant entropy.

It does once entropy has reached maximum.

You may argure that quantum fluctuations will cause momentary local reductions in entropy, but entropy will always maximize again.

Therefore the universe has constant entropy.

Therefore the universe WILL have constant entropy, when entropy is maximized.
krash661
is entropy basically wasted energy? and also,

what does everyone think about the earth expanding thought?
brucep
QUOTE (AlexG+May 12 2012, 10:40 PM)

It does once entropy has reached maximum.

You may argure that quantum fluctuations will cause momentary local reductions in entropy, but entropy will always maximize again.

Therefore the universe WILL have constant entropy, when entropy is maximized.

That's only a classical approximation. This is a quantum universe so there will always be quantum fluctuations and anisotropy as the universe expands. Entropy will always increase because the classical maximum entropy can never be actually realized. The CMBR is instructive. The temperature anisotropy, due to quantum fluctuations, is one parameter being measured during the great CMBR cosmological experiments. The anisotropy created by quantum fluctuations is extended over large areas as inflation is in progress. Theoretical predictions for how this 'rolled out' is testing inflation models. Guth's model is 'right on' with predictions matching the empirical data and the prediction this universe is spatially flat.
BenRayfield
brucep
QUOTE
You're the one who acts like it's a democracy. You think your opinion matters. It only matters if you can support your ideas with evidence.

Exactly, and you offered no evidence for your opinion that I should learn physics.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You're the one who acts like it's a democracy. You think your opinion matters. It only matters if you can support your ideas with evidence.

Exactly, and you offered no evidence for your opinion that I should learn physics.

You start out 'round filing' 'yourself' based on your consummate ignorance of the scientific literature. You probably don't understand what that means.

It appears you mean I wrote it in words instead of equations. You objected to my use of analogy to explain why something was an assumption and not relevant. It appears you're objecting to my use of holistic thinking instead of sticking to pure reductionism, but both are needed together to maximize accuracy.

I have a theory that most physics scientists know how to process eachother's equations much better than they know what the equations mean, similar to the Chinese Room Thought Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

When I write about hawking radiation, for example, I'm describing what I visualize in my mind, which I have tuned from many angles of understanding many different ideas of physics, more about what it is in general than the details of exactly how its curved, and from those general ideas I can reach deeper into what physics really is than those who get stuck on the details. Equations should come after you know what you're talking about, and the ability to process equations or chinese symbols through a complex system does not imply understanding of the result. We should understand it first. That's what these threads which you object to are for.

But since people think these ways on this forum, I will try to find some new equations before posting much more.

AlexG
QUOTE
It does once entropy has reached maximum.

You may argure that quantum fluctuations will cause momentary local reductions in entropy, but entropy will always maximize again.

...

Therefore the universe WILL have constant entropy, when entropy is maximized.

We are mostly agreeing. I'm arguing that entropy is always at maximum (and minimum). Because of the existence of time loops, which I define as any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state, I'm using the definition of entropy as applying to the whole time loop at once instead of any specific moment of time inside it. It is a trivial fact of any time loop that any quantity must return to its original amount since it loops back around to that.

Could these time loops (any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state) be related to the loops and closed manifolds in M-Theory?

krash661
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE It does once entropy has reached maximum.You may argure that quantum fluctuations will cause momentary local reductions in entropy, but entropy will always maximize again....Therefore the universe WILL have constant entropy, when entropy is maximized.

We are mostly agreeing. I'm arguing that entropy is always at maximum (and minimum). Because of the existence of time loops, which I define as any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state, I'm using the definition of entropy as applying to the whole time loop at once instead of any specific moment of time inside it. It is a trivial fact of any time loop that any quantity must return to its original amount since it loops back around to that.

Could these time loops (any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state) be related to the loops and closed manifolds in M-Theory?

krash661 is entropy basically wasted energy?

Yes. Its when energy spreads out evenly so there is less difference in energy between adjacent or connected things to cause changes.

QUOTE
what does everyone think about the earth expanding thought?

Never heard of it. Why do you say that?

brucep
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE what does everyone think about the earth expanding thought?

Never heard of it. Why do you say that?

brucep That's only a classical approximation. This is a quantum universe so there will always be quantum fluctuations and anisotropy as the universe expands. Entropy will always increase because the classical maximum entropy can never be actually realized.

That's true from the perspective of time, but from the perspective of time loops (which I explained above in this post as "any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state"), which is a semantic I'm forced to use by the existence of time loops, what always appears as locally increasing entropy can overall be no change in entropy on average. This is similar to some sound files people have created which have many tones at once and low tones fade in, each tone increases, and fades out, so it sounds dizzy and always increasing in tone while average tone is constant.

QUOTE
Guth's model is 'right on' with predictions matching the empirical data and the prediction this universe is spatially flat.

What about the "curled up dimensions" of M-Theory? If we view parts of the laws-of-physics as space instead of something separate, its not even approximately flat. Separating things into categories and researching them separately only leads to more confusion.
AlexG
QUOTE
Exactly, and you offered no evidence for your opinion that I should learn physics

Wouldn't that be self evident, if you're going to post about physics?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Exactly, and you offered no evidence for your opinion that I should learn physics

Wouldn't that be self evident, if you're going to post about physics?

If we view parts of the laws-of-physics as space instead of something separate, its not even approximately flat.

And you've just shown you don't have a clue about what the word flat means in the cosmological sense.

I know it's easier to post about something when you know nothing about it, but you should at least try to keep up the illusion of a science education.
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 13 2012, 04:47 AM)
brucep

Exactly, and you offered no evidence for your opinion that I should learn physics.

It appears you mean I wrote it in words instead of equations. You objected to my use of analogy to explain why something was an assumption and not relevant. It appears you're objecting to my use of holistic thinking instead of sticking to pure reductionism, but both are needed together to maximize accuracy.

I have a theory that most physics scientists know how to process eachother's equations much better than they know what the equations mean, similar to the Chinese Room Thought Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

When I write about hawking radiation, for example, I'm describing what I visualize in my mind, which I have tuned from many angles of understanding many different ideas of physics, more about what it is in general than the details of exactly how its curved, and from those general ideas I can reach deeper into what physics really is than those who get stuck on the details. Equations should come after you know what you're talking about, and the ability to process equations or chinese symbols through a complex system does not imply understanding of the result. We should understand it first. That's what these threads which you object to are for.

But since people think these ways on this forum, I will try to find some new equations before posting much more.

AlexG

We are mostly agreeing. I'm arguing that entropy is always at maximum (and minimum). Because of the existence of time loops, which I define as any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state, I'm using the definition of entropy as applying to the whole time loop at once instead of any specific moment of time inside it. It is a trivial fact of any time loop that any quantity must return to its original amount since it loops back around to that.

Could these time loops (any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state) be related to the loops and closed manifolds in M-Theory?

krash661

Yes. Its when energy spreads out evenly so there is less difference in energy between adjacent or connected things to cause changes.

Never heard of it. Why do you say that?

brucep

That's true from the perspective of time, but from the perspective of time loops (which I explained above in this post as "any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state"), which is a semantic I'm forced to use by the existence of time loops, what always appears as locally increasing entropy can overall be no change in entropy on average. This is similar to some sound files people have created which have many tones at once and low tones fade in, each tone increases, and fades out, so it sounds dizzy and always increasing in tone while average tone is constant.

What about the "curled up dimensions" of M-Theory? If we view parts of the laws-of-physics as space instead of something separate, its not even approximately flat. Separating things into categories and researching them separately only leads to more confusion.

Those who are familiar with physics know you're physics illiterate. You should figure out why on your own. Preferably from an accredited source. I objected to the irrelevant analogy. Since I'm very familiar with strong field physics I objected to your stupid claim that the surface of the event horizon is maximum density.

You said: "FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole."

I said: Fact: You're a pontificating ignoramus.
Mazulu
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 13 2012, 04:47 AM)
Because of the existence of time loops, which I define as any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state, I'm using the definition of entropy as applying to the whole time loop at once instead of any specific moment of time inside it. It is a trivial fact of any time loop that any quantity must return to its original amount since it loops back around to that.

Could these time loops (any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state) be related to the loops and closed manifolds in M-Theory?

krash661

Yes. Its when energy spreads out evenly so there is less difference in energy between adjacent or connected things to cause changes.

Never heard of it. Why do you say that?

brucep

That's true from the perspective of time, but from the perspective of time loops (which I explained above in this post as "any path through states of the universe which starts and ends at the same state"), which is a semantic I'm forced to use by the existence of time loops, what always appears as locally increasing entropy can overall be no change in entropy on average. This is similar to some sound files people have created which have many tones at once and low tones fade in, each tone increases, and fades out, so it sounds dizzy and always increasing in tone while average tone is constant.

What about the "curled up dimensions" of M-Theory? If we view parts of the laws-of-physics as space instead of something separate, its not even approximately flat. Separating things into categories and researching them separately only leads to more confusion.

I would comment on time loops that I don't think they're possible. I don't believe that any attempt at time travel is possible. It would mean that you could set up an experiment in which you create a time worm hole, and you shoot yourself at an earlier point in time. When you do that, then you don't exist to be able to shoot yourself. It creates a paradox.

By the way, don't listen to alexg, he's an uneducated idiot..
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 13 2012, 04:32 AM)
By the way, don't listen to alexg, he's an uneducated idiot..

Ed Wood
Is entropy an argument for the universe not being a closed system?

Just being silly I suppose.
krash661
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 12 2012, 08:47 PM)

krash661

Yes. Its when energy spreads out evenly so there is less difference in energy between adjacent or connected things to cause changes.

Never heard of it. Why do you say that?

There are 3 forms of the expanding earth hypothesis.

Earth's mass has remained constant, and thus the gravitational pull at the surface has decreased over time;
Earth's mass has grown with the volume in such a way that the surface gravity has remained constant;
Earth's gravity at its surface has increased over time, in line with its hypothesized growing mass and volume;

Many of the remaining expanding Earth adherents have been inspired by the ideas of the late Australian geologist S. Warren Carey, who suggested expansion in the 1950s and 60s – prior to the development of the theory of Plate tectonics.

krash661
AS for all the arguing and name calling / put downs....
scenario 1

There is a group of 12 people.all standing in a circle facing inwards at each other.They all have 2 guns in their hands,also facing inwards at each other.They fire the guns.
what's the outcome of this scenario?

scenario 2
The same group of people.This time they are all standing in the circle with their backs towards each other facing outwards.They all have 2 guns in their hands,also facing outwards away from each other.They fire the guns.
what's the outcome of this scenario?

Which scenario accomplishes the most??
AlexG
In scenario 1, some idiots have been eliminated.
BenRayfield
brucep I responded to that in http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39400 where I said it.

Mazulu
QUOTE
I would comment on time loops that I don't think they're possible.

You don't think looped feynman paths can be integrated? That's only part of a time loop because I'm talking about the whole universe instead of only this part we can measure, but its close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I would comment on time loops that I don't think they're possible.

You don't think looped feynman paths can be integrated? That's only part of a time loop because I'm talking about the whole universe instead of only this part we can measure, but its close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of quantum theory which generalizes the action principle of classical mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude.

The basic idea of the path integral formulation can be traced back to Norbert Wiener, who introduced the Wiener integral for solving problems in diffusion and Brownian motion.[1] This idea was extended to the use of the Lagrangian in quantum mechanics by P. A. M. Dirac in his 1933 paper.[2] The complete method was developed in 1948 by Richard Feynman. Some preliminaries were worked out earlier, in the course of his doctoral thesis work with John Archibald Wheeler. The original motivation stemmed from the desire to obtain a quantum-mechanical formulation for the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory using a Lagrangian (rather than a Hamiltonian) as a starting point.

This formulation has proved crucial to the subsequent development of theoretical physics, because it is manifestly symmetric between time and space.

Since its "symmetric between time and space", and since space can have loops, time can also have loops.

QUOTE
I don't believe that any attempt at time travel is possible. It would mean that you could set up an experiment in which you create a time worm hole, and you shoot yourself at an earlier point in time. When you do that, then you don't exist to be able to shoot yourself. It creates a paradox.

If you went back in time, it wouldn't be the same state of the universe because you would be there, so technically its not going back in time but instead a normal transition to a different state of the universe. But if the history books say you were there and you go back in time to keep that consistent, there is no contradiction.

krash661
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I don't believe that any attempt at time travel is possible. It would mean that you could set up an experiment in which you create a time worm hole, and you shoot yourself at an earlier point in time. When you do that, then you don't exist to be able to shoot yourself. It creates a paradox.

If you went back in time, it wouldn't be the same state of the universe because you would be there, so technically its not going back in time but instead a normal transition to a different state of the universe. But if the history books say you were there and you go back in time to keep that consistent, there is no contradiction.

krash661 There are 3 forms of the expanding earth hypothesis.

Earth's mass has remained constant, and thus the gravitational pull at the surface has decreased over time;
Earth's mass has grown with the volume in such a way that the surface gravity has remained constant;
Earth's gravity at its surface has increased over time, in line with its hypothesized growing mass and volume;

Many of the remaining expanding Earth adherents have been inspired by the ideas of the late Australian geologist S. Warren Carey, who suggested expansion in the 1950s and 60s – prior to the development of the theory of Plate tectonics.

Are those "expanding earth" theories related to the so far unexplained acceleration of galaxies away from us (red-shifted light)? If so, maybe the space between stars is getting bigger or Earth and the stars are getting smaller.
krash661
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 13 2012, 04:28 PM)
brucep I responded to that in http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39400 where I said it.

Mazulu

You don't think looped feynman paths can be integrated? That's only part of a time loop because I'm talking about the whole universe instead of only this part we can measure, but its close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

Since its "symmetric between time and space", and since space can have loops, time can also have loops.

If you went back in time, it wouldn't be the same state of the universe because you would be there, so technically its not going back in time but instead a normal transition to a different state of the universe. But if the history books say you were there and you go back in time to keep that consistent, there is no contradiction.

krash661

Are those "expanding earth" theories related to the so far unexplained acceleration of galaxies away from us (red-shifted light)? If so, maybe the space between stars is getting bigger or Earth and the stars are getting smaller.

space expanding is a interesting thought
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.