Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Harmonic_Subset, Aug 27, 2020.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    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.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    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!

     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,697
    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!

     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    The universe itself?
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter#
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    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?
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,880
    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.
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,697
    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!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    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.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,697
    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!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    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?
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    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.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,003
    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 quarkantiquark pair (quark q, antiquark ), 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?
     
  17. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    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.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,014
    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)
     
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    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.
     
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,014
    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?
     
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    The time asymmetry stemming from thermodynamics (statistical mechanics) is associated with the 2nd Law, not 1st Law (conservation of energy or relativistically, energy-momentum).
     
    exchemist likes this.
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,014
    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)?
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2020

Share This Page