Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics

Wheeler's/Tegmark's 'it from bit' 'deep thinking' which you seem to be enamored by is imo misguided. Show me a working computer that is 'pure software'. Things and the rules that govern their behavior necessarily exist together or not at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree, but each NOW follows the previous NOW in an irreversible chronological order.
The BB was a NOW, but that NOW was THEN......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A frame (of reference) being a spacetime coordinate. In a dynamical system an increase in random entropy makes exact spatial reconstruction impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AFAIK, Tegmark treats "things" as "patterns of values", but as a tactile conscious person I recognize the physicalness of things as they relate to my experience.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I take the position there is only ONE NOW

From my point of view it appears you consider changes which happen to stuff within NOW as producing a different NOW (another NOW)

From my point of view only the stuff changes. With non existent time there is just NOW (which has no physicality because it is only CONCEPT)

• hence
• stuff, with a physicality, change
• NOW, concept, no physicality, no change

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The universe itself?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter#

 

I agree with the statement as posited. But imo, it's incomplete.
From my pov with an existent space, time emerges as a series of NOWs along with duration of existence.
Serious question.
What if we look at a star NOW, but the star is no longer THERE because it went NOVA a million years ago THEN? Does the star still exist NOW?

 

Yes, though he does not explain that part in this article.

Re post 49, I'll stay out of meson interactions, I think. I don't know enough physics for that.

 

Duration of existence =

• one arbitrary moment (or NOW) labelled start
• changes occur within now (but not NOW) itself
• at another arbitrary NOW a label is attached called stop
• arbitrary time measurements are assigned between start and stop
• totality of the arbitrary time units is called AGE

For your star example, if the star vanished on 16 January 2020 the DISTANCE between the last photon leaving the star and its arrival at my eye, carrying the information of its existence, measured as light years for convenience, becomes the AGE, at my local NOW, of its demise

Since the speed of light is known a calculations can be made regarding the arbitrary local NOW when it vanished

If that arbitrary local NOW turns out to be 16 January 1895, the arbitrary age of that photon is 125 years and it's distance from us 125 light years

You specified a million years do with your example it existed a million of our years ago, at that arbitrary NOW but ceased to exist, when the information (the last phton for us) reached my eye

All that means is that the question of said star was based on incomplete information due to the finite speed of light and the distance said light was required to travel

If you want to split definitions you perhaps can say the star still exists as long as its light photons are traveling, but that is a stretch

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think you can, can you?

So, you propose the history of a thing consists of a PAST NOW, a PRESENT NOW, and a FUTURE NOW ?

And duration gives a thing a YOUNG AGE, a PRESENT AGE, and OLD AGE?

I don't know how to visualize that as a functional model.

 

No

Not exactly. Phrased like that appears to give NOW as EXISTING in slices

Past NOW and future NOW do not exist. History (the existence) of stuff (in stages)

IS - stuff (as a defined unit) exist
NOW
Changes occur to stuff while stuff exist
A collection of changes becomes
WAS
Enough change and
IS - through WAS - becomes GONE

All stages occur in NOW

IS new stuff
WAS new stuff
GONE stuff

As above through tortured language

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Seems to me that Logic and by extension mathematics, is pure abstract software, the fundamental requirement for any functional program or function.

By functional necessity, true. But universal "constants" are by definition extant without being functionally necessary at any given moment. Can a "universal constant" not be an inherent potential without the need for immediate physical expression?

E = Mc^2 is always present. It is a pure universal constant equation (software), but not all energy converts into matter and not all matter converts into energy. Sometimes the pure software can lie dormant as pure potential, until necessitated by activity?

 

Can't pass most of that. Into Platonic idealism perhaps? Roger Penrose as mathematician is sympathetic to that in 'The Road to Reality'. This is drifting far from thread theme btw.

 

Sorry, there was no intent to go off topic, but considering the OP subject, it seems to lead me into abstract concepts....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But perhaps this may be more related to the OP proposition,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In this Feynman diagram, an electron (e⁻) and a positron (e⁺) annihilate, producing a photon (γ, represented by the blue sine wave) that becomes a quark–antiquark pair (quark q, antiquark q̄), after which the antiquark radiates a gluon (g, represented by the green helix).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram

Does this model shed any light on the question in context of this diagram?

 

No. It's completely consistent with conservation of energy. As discussed already in earlier posts, gravitation is the key ingredient bearing on energy 'balance' during cosmological expansion. And experts disagree. I'd leave it at that.

 

So, this thing physicists call T-symmetry has at least two strong implications; one is the same as Feynman outlines in that lecture--particles interacting forwards or backwards in time are indistinguishable at microscopic scales, the other is that an interaction (or experiment) will have the same result each time, given identical initial conditions, at any scale (or, time looks the same for any interaction, roughly).

But clearly this symmetry is broken, and physicists are still debating why.
for example: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/171/1/012001/pdf (Time reversal violation)

 

As you know I have already linked to time symmetric violation in #49. The sole example to date doesn't impact on conservation of energy hence on the OP topic.
Please start another thread if you wish to pursue T-symmetry violation as a talking point.

 

Isn't thermodynamics t-asymmetric? How does that make T-symmetry a non-talking point given the premise (the OP), that the universe and its creation violates the first law?

 

The time asymmetry stemming from thermodynamics (statistical mechanics) is associated with the 2nd Law, not 1st Law (conservation of energy or relativistically, energy-momentum).

 

Don't tell me that, tell the idiot who started the thread. OK?

Note though, that T-symmetry is why (we observe that) energy is conserved. Or is that why it isn't a talking point (and who decides that one)?

 

Don't confuse with time translation invariance as per Noether's theorem. Running the movie backwards for an expanding cosmos perfectly reverses whatever net energy violation is happening in the forward running version. Hence time reversal symmetry is separate as a principle to time translation invariance.