Jump to content

Physist postulates that universe has no beginning


Recommended Posts

Or ending. What do you think this means for time travel, as he speculates that time goes forwards, stalls, goes back, then forward???

Turok's speculation is to explain this thermodynamic theory in terms of m-theory. The thermodynamic cosmology that he suggests goes back to the late 1940's. I might be wrong but I think that Richard Feynman first suggested that the thermodynamic arrow of time can switch - and that it just happens to be running in the direction that it is right now. He suggested it because on the microscopic scale of subatomic particles entropy can reverse itself locally - things can randomly get more organized locally for very brief periods of time if the scale is small enough.For example take a closed box and fill one half with nitrogen gas and the other half with oxygen gas. Put a divider in the box to keep the gases seperate. Then pull the divider out. If you look into the box an instant later and see the two gasses completely seperated you'd probably correctly guess that someone just pulled the divider out because that arrangement of gasses is extremely unlikely to have been a random event.


Next, let the gasses thoroughly mix for several days. If you look into the box very closely, at the subatomic scale, you could easily find a couple hundred nitrogen atoms bunched up in one corner of your closed box. Overall the gas is thoroughly mixed but locally there might be lumps of nitrogen or oxygen - and you probably wouldn't be surprised to find that.


After the gas is thoroughly mixed it might take a trillion years but if you waited long enough you would eventually see all of the nitrogen in the box on one side and all of the oxygen on the other. The gas has returned to its original highly organized state...and that state indicates that the entropic and thermodynamic arrows of time had reversed.


The gas, of course, is only going to remain in that highly organized state for a brief period of time and probably won't return to that state for another trillion years. But what I just described is an oscillating system that has periods where the entropic arrow of time appears to run forward for a several days (the gas is mixing), is immobile for a trillion years (the gas is thoroughly mixed - thermal equilibrium) and then reverses (the gas seperates) for a breif period of time.


Strong entropic theory: We see the arrow going that way because we're here to witness it.


Weak entropic theory: We're here to see it because only when its running in the direction that it is is life possible.


What's sometimes overlooked is that when the universe on a whole gets to the point that our gas did - thoroughly mixed for a trillion years - life isn't possible. The state of the universe is so bland that there are no energy wells. There's no place where there's more energy "here" than "next door" so that you can move the energy from one place to another and do work. It's total thermal equilibrium for a trillion years followed by a brief period of time when life (nuclear, chemical, photonic or any other energetic reaction) is possible. Every place in the universe is exactly the same.


Pray for lumps in the gravy. ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The geometry of a universe is very much like the grammitical structure of a sentence. Just as a sentance has no structure and no exhistance apart from the relationships between the words, space has no exhistance apart from the relationships that hold between things in the universe. If you change a sentence by taking some words out, or changing their order, its grammatical structure changes. Similarly, the geometry of space changes when things in the universe change their relationships to one another. By this thinking, it is absurd to speak of a universe with nothing in it. (Much like a universe with nothing in it. After all, there would be no relationships to define where that one thing is.) The view of space as something that exhist independent of any relationships is called the "absolute view" I think. Was it not Newton's view? I think it has been definitively repudiated by the experiments that have verified Einstein's theory of general reativity. This I feel, has radical implications, which take a lot of thinking to get used to. There are unfourtunatly not a few good profesional physicist who still think about the world as if space and time had an absolute meaning.


So to assume this is a basis.....


Okay, your in a bar, drinking away the night. You have got a decent buzz and that gal that came in a hour ago is finally looking aproachable because you have enough liquid backbone in ya. So you get up and walk across the bar towards her. As your walking over, the geometry of the room does not seem to change. As you slide up along side of her, the space within the bar still seem to uphold the rules of euclidean geometry, much as it did before I started to move. Were euclidean geometry no a good approximation to what we see around us, Newton would not have had a chance. But the apparent eclidean geometry of space turns out to be as much of an illusion as perkiness of the broads chest as you notice the telltale signs of a push up bra and you get the picture she's just running from some bum of a guy who just walked into the joint.....


Ok maybe that's not a good explanation...how about euclidean geometry becomes as bs as the aparent flatness of the earth. The earth seems only flat when you can see the horizon. When we can see far enough, much like reading the gals face when her ex walks in we can easily see that the earth is round. And you can see the straps of a push up bra, push through her tshirt, when the ex grabs her by the arm and tugs the shirt to make it tighter.


But remember the bar? Well is seems to satisfy the rules of euclidean geometry only because the departure from those rules are very small. But if you made precise measurments you would find the angles of triangles in your room do not sum up excactly 180 degrees.


Now I know right now your wondering "what the heck does this have to do with with the big bang/big crush theory" simple...


If you apply the idea euclidean geometry to any part of the universe, then it can't comeback onto its own gravity. Remember that one jewish guy, with the wild hair, well if we use his basis for the speed of light, you know the whole what's in front becomes blue shifted, and what's after is red shifted.... well... on a clear night, grab a telescope and look up. As many of the galaxies that are blue shifted... there are twice as much that are red shifted. If you apply the models as to where our little milky way is settled in the universe.... we have been expanding in all sorts of directions. No blow out with an eventual return. We are swiming around back and forth by the eventual gravitational pull on all mass.


Translation. Don't settle to play captain save a ho at the bar, just relax... let the ex talk to her, because she will give in. And why do you wanna settle for some gal that's just make you end up on springer?





Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...