The Universe: Eternal or no?

[Kalam]

Do you even read what you post?

Nice attempt to divert attention away from the discussion at hand. You know very well that the isolated system referred to in my last post contains all other isolated systems.

So, why do you erroneously believe that the universe does not experience net increases in entropy?

Because the Entropy of the universe CAN equal zero.

"In concise form, the second law, as formulated mathematically in 1862 by German physicist Rudolf Clausius, states that in a cyclical heat-driven process which is in any way possible the following relation will always hold:

where dQ is an element of the heat given up by a body to any reservoir of heat during its own changes, heat which it may absorb from a reservoir being here reckoned as negative, and T is the absolute temperature of the body at the moment of giving up this heat. [1] The quantity "dQ/T" is called entropy."

You're arguing that the entropy of the universe therefore always equals zero. This is incorrect.

 

[edthecynic]

Nice attempt to divert attention away from the discussion at hand. You know very well that the isolated system referred to in my last post contains all other isolated systems.

So, why do you erroneously believe that the universe does not experience net increases in entropy?

Because the Entropy of the universe CAN equal zero.

"In concise form, the second law, as formulated mathematically in 1862 by German physicist Rudolf Clausius, states that in a cyclical heat-driven process which is in any way possible the following relation will always hold:

where dQ is an element of the heat given up by a body to any reservoir of heat during its own changes, heat which it may absorb from a reservoir being here reckoned as negative, and T is the absolute temperature of the body at the moment of giving up this heat. [1] The quantity "dQ/T" is called entropy."

You're arguing that the entropy of the universe therefore always equals zero. This is incorrect.

The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.

The role of expansion for the entropy of the universe
Ulrych, Emil; Voracek, Pavel
Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 186, no. 1, Dec. 1991, p. 157, 158.

It is proposed, under the assumption of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, that the cosmological expansion/contraction on its own has an entropy balancing effectively the changing entropy of the cosmic fluid in such a way that at every epoch the total entropy of the universe remains constant. It is argued that, thermodynamically, the universe, as a whole, behaves like a self-gravitating formation of an adiabatic gas, quite regardless of the processes occurring in the cosmic fluid.

 

[Gurdari]

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

Well, you can't destroy or create matter, so eternal the universe must be (in some form or another).

Just wonder why the universe has THAT particular amount of matter in it... if we actually discover just what that number/equation is, is that a 'God' number? Whatever God may be?

 

[Kalam]

The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.

The role of expansion for the entropy of the universe
Ulrych, Emil; Voracek, Pavel
Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 186, no. 1, Dec. 1991, p. 157, 158.

It is proposed, under the assumption of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, that the cosmological expansion/contraction on its own has an entropy balancing effectively the changing entropy of the cosmic fluid in such a way that at every epoch the total entropy of the universe remains constant. It is argued that, thermodynamically, the universe, as a whole, behaves like a self-gravitating formation of an adiabatic gas, quite regardless of the processes occurring in the cosmic fluid.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that we live in a closed universe that will end in a "big crunch," correct? Your theory is at odds with scientific observations, which all seem to indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than being slowed as your theory assumes it must be. I'm afraid that this hypothesis is based on more assumptions than the idea of an expanding, cooling universe approaching thermodynamic equilibrium and "heat death."

 

[edthecynic]

The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.

The role of expansion for the entropy of the universe
Ulrych, Emil; Voracek, Pavel
Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 186, no. 1, Dec. 1991, p. 157, 158.

It is proposed, under the assumption of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, that the cosmological expansion/contraction on its own has an entropy balancing effectively the changing entropy of the cosmic fluid in such a way that at every epoch the total entropy of the universe remains constant. It is argued that, thermodynamically, the universe, as a whole, behaves like a self-gravitating formation of an adiabatic gas, quite regardless of the processes occurring in the cosmic fluid.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that we live in a closed universe that will end in a "big crunch," correct? Your theory is at odds with scientific observations, which all seem to indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than being slowed as your theory assumes it must be. I'm afraid that this hypothesis is based on more assumptions than the idea of an expanding, cooling universe approaching thermodynamic equilibrium and "heat death."

Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption.
And if you understood anything about the Big Crunch, you would know that the universe would be expected to accelerate in the vortex of the Black Hole of the Big Crunch. If you watch water getting sucked down a drain, anything caught in the vortex leading to the drain ACCELERATES the closer it gets to the drain.

 

[Kalam]

Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption.

The belief that the universe's expansion will be slowed and reversed by gravity is basically the central belief of the big crunch hypothesis.

And if you understood anything about the Big Crunch, you would know that the universe would be expected to accelerate in the vortex of the Black Hole of the Big Crunch. If you watch water getting sucked down a drain, anything caught in the vortex leading to the drain ACCELERATES the closer it gets to the drain.

The universe is accelerating in its expansion. No contraction or acceleration towards any black hole or "drain" is occurring, and none will ever conceivably occur. Recent observations confirming the universe's accelerating expansion have effectively shown your hypothesis to be junk science.

 

[edthecynic]

Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption.

The belief that the universe's expansion will be slowed and reversed by gravity is basically the central belief of the big crunch hypothesis.

And if you understood anything about the Big Crunch, you would know that the universe would be expected to accelerate in the vortex of the Black Hole of the Big Crunch. If you watch water getting sucked down a drain, anything caught in the vortex leading to the drain ACCELERATES the closer it gets to the drain.

The universe is accelerating in its expansion. No contraction or acceleration towards any black hole or "drain" is occurring, and none will ever conceivably occur. Recent observations confirming the universe's accelerating expansion have effectively shown your hypothesis to be junk science.

Gravity is the engine of the universe. None of your claims have been settled yet, in fact, we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. Matter can't accelerate on its own, that violates the First Law, a gravitational field must provide the acceleration.
Your problem is you are thinking linearly. When you look out in space, you are not looking straight out, but looking around in an arc.

You should think of the universe as a spiraling cosmic VORTEX. I'm sure you've seen in gymnastics there is a floor exercise where they hold a stick with a long ribbon connected at the end. With a flick of the wrist the ribbon takes the shape of an expanding spiral vortex beginning at the singularity of the point where it connects to the stick.
The difference between the ribbon and the universe is the ribbon would be a STRING in the 11 dimension hyperspace of multilayer String/M Theory, that as each expanding loop spirals out away from the singularity, it eventually starts to fold out around itself. Eventually it expands no more and each loop starts to get smaller and starts accelerating into a contracting vortex. We see it getting farther away from us and accelerating at the same time and falsely assume it is still expanding because it is still getting farther away from us. Viewed from a perspective above the equator, the universe looks like Feynman's sphere and viewed from the poles, an expanding or contracting cone shaped vortex like the warped space of Hawking. The Big Crunch is still a valid theory.

 

[Chris]

"For us believing physicists, time has the value of mere illusion, however tenacious."

Albert Einstein

 

[Kalam]

Nowhere did I say the universe should be slowing all the time, that is YOUR Straw Man assumption.

The belief that the universe's expansion will be slowed and reversed by gravity is basically the central belief of the big crunch hypothesis.

And if you understood anything about the Big Crunch, you would know that the universe would be expected to accelerate in the vortex of the Black Hole of the Big Crunch. If you watch water getting sucked down a drain, anything caught in the vortex leading to the drain ACCELERATES the closer it gets to the drain.

The universe is accelerating in its expansion. No contraction or acceleration towards any black hole or "drain" is occurring, and none will ever conceivably occur. Recent observations confirming the universe's accelerating expansion have effectively shown your hypothesis to be junk science.

Gravity is the engine of the universe. None of your claims have been settled yet, in fact, we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. Matter can't accelerate on its own, that violates the First Law, a gravitational field must provide the acceleration.
Your problem is you are thinking linearly. When you look out in space, you are not looking straight out, but looking around in an arc.

You should think of the universe as a spiraling cosmic VORTEX. I'm sure you've seen in gymnastics there is a floor exercise where they hold a stick with a long ribbon connected at the end. With a flick of the wrist the ribbon takes the shape of an expanding spiral vortex beginning at the singularity of the point where it connects to the stick.
The difference between the ribbon and the universe is the ribbon would be a STRING in the 11 dimension hyperspace of multilayer String/M Theory, that as each expanding loop spirals out away from the singularity, it eventually starts to fold out around itself. Eventually it expands no more and each loop starts to get smaller and starts accelerating into a contracting vortex. We see it getting farther away from us and accelerating at the same time and falsely assume it is still expanding because it is still getting farther away from us. Viewed from a perspective above the equator, the universe looks like Feynman's sphere and viewed from the poles, an expanding or contracting cone shaped vortex like the warped space of Hawking. The Big Crunch is still a valid theory.

...why should I believe that the universe is a vortex when all evidence suggests that it has euclidean curvature? Why not go with the evidence and assume that it's flat and expanding at a continuously accelerating rate?

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

 

[edthecynic]

The belief that the universe's expansion will be slowed and reversed by gravity is basically the central belief of the big crunch hypothesis.


The universe is accelerating in its expansion. No contraction or acceleration towards any black hole or "drain" is occurring, and none will ever conceivably occur. Recent observations confirming the universe's accelerating expansion have effectively shown your hypothesis to be junk science.

Gravity is the engine of the universe. None of your claims have been settled yet, in fact, we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. Matter can't accelerate on its own, that violates the First Law, a gravitational field must provide the acceleration.
Your problem is you are thinking linearly. When you look out in space, you are not looking straight out, but looking around in an arc.

You should think of the universe as a spiraling cosmic VORTEX. I'm sure you've seen in gymnastics there is a floor exercise where they hold a stick with a long ribbon connected at the end. With a flick of the wrist the ribbon takes the shape of an expanding spiral vortex beginning at the singularity of the point where it connects to the stick.
The difference between the ribbon and the universe is the ribbon would be a STRING in the 11 dimension hyperspace of multilayer String/M Theory, that as each expanding loop spirals out away from the singularity, it eventually starts to fold out around itself. Eventually it expands no more and each loop starts to get smaller and starts accelerating into a contracting vortex. We see it getting farther away from us and accelerating at the same time and falsely assume it is still expanding because it is still getting farther away from us. Viewed from a perspective above the equator, the universe looks like Feynman's sphere and viewed from the poles, an expanding or contracting cone shaped vortex like the warped space of Hawking. The Big Crunch is still a valid theory.

...why should I believe that the universe is a vortex when all evidence suggests that it has euclidean curvature? Why not go with the evidence and assume that it's flat and expanding at a continuously accelerating rate?

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.

NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.

Clumping Up only happens in a Whirlpool (Vortex).

The Cosmos must, therefore, resemble a Whirlpool, and is probably shaped a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos too has a Black Hole at the center.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Good GRIEF.

 

[Kalam]

The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.

NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.

Clumping Up only happens in a Whirlpool (Vortex).

The Cosmos must, therefore, resemble a Whirlpool, and is probably shaped a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos too has a Black Hole at the center.

Dude. C'mon.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.​

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

 

[edthecynic]

The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.

NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.

Clumping Up only happens in a Whirlpool (Vortex).

The Cosmos must, therefore, resemble a Whirlpool, and is probably shaped a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos too has a Black Hole at the center.

Dude. C'mon.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.​

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

OK, if you click on your own link and then click on the highlighted words in the section you copied and pasted and there is a time illustration shown below. To understand my model of the universe you merely have to imagine that that illustration is rotating as it expands. A Cosmic Vortex.

If you look on the right side you will see it is starting to flair out. Picture it continuing to flair out as it expands, it will over time start to fold out over itself. Eventually it will expand no more and its diameter will start to narrow as everything in the universe is drawn into a supermassive Black Hole at the back end of the point where the time chart begins on the left tracing out a shape the same the expansion only compressing this time so the vortex narrows rather than expands. So my model just continues from where yours leaves off..

 

[Kalam]

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

OK, if you click on your own link and then click on the highlighted words in the section you copied and pasted and there is a time illustration shown below. To understand my model of the universe you merely have to imagine that that illustration is rotating as it expands. A Cosmic Vortex.

The universe is rotating? Rotating compared to what?

If you look on the right side you will see it is starting to flair out. Picture it continuing to flair out as it expands, it will over time start to fold out over itself.

That contradicts the idea of a universe with euclidean geometry. There is no logical basis for the assumption that the universe will experience a massive spacetime fuck-up and "double back" on itself, so to speak, rather than continuing on the course of expansion it's always followed.

Eventually it will expand no more and its diameter will start to narrow as everything in the universe is drawn into a supermassive Black Hole at the back end of the point where the time chart begins on the left tracing out a shape the same the expansion only compressing this time so the vortex narrows rather than expands. So my model just continues from where yours leaves off..

Yours makes baseless speculations where no speculation is needed. The universe expanded from a singularity or some sort of similarly compressed, infinitesimal state. The expansion is accelerating and will presumably continue on its current course until the universe reaches maximum entropy and experiences a "heat death." The best theory makes the fewest assumptions.

 

[edthecynic]

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

OK, if you click on your own link and then click on the highlighted words in the section you copied and pasted and there is a time illustration shown below. To understand my model of the universe you merely have to imagine that that illustration is rotating as it expands. A Cosmic Vortex.

The universe is rotating? Rotating compared to what?

The Universe is known to have an Axis, discovered in 1997 by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston. 'Axis' means a 'line around which something rotates and the Cosmos is rotating around the Black Hole at the center of the universe.

NASA's COBE satellite proved conclusively, in 1998, that the Early Cosmos was born in the 'hot soup' of a perfectly smooth and evenly distributed giant cloud of hydrogen, with no signs of any Big Bang or Clumping Up (Star-birth etc.) anywhere. The Cosmos has since Clumped Up.

Clumping Up only happens in a Whirlpool (Vortex).

The Cosmos must, therefore, resemble a Whirlpool, and is probably shaped a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos too has a Black Hole at the center.

If you look on the right side you will see it is starting to flair out. Picture it continuing to flair out as it expands, it will over time start to fold out over itself.

That contradicts the idea of a universe with euclidean geometry. There is no logical basis for the assumption that the universe will experience a massive spacetime fuck-up and "double back" on itself, so to speak, rather than continuing on the course of expansion it's always followed.

Eventually it will expand no more and its diameter will start to narrow as everything in the universe is drawn into a supermassive Black Hole at the back end of the point where the time chart begins on the left tracing out a shape the same the expansion only compressing this time so the vortex narrows rather than expands. So my model just continues from where yours leaves off..

Yours makes baseless speculations where no speculation is needed. The universe expanded from a singularity or some sort of similarly compressed, infinitesimal state. The expansion is accelerating and will presumably continue on its current course until the universe reaches maximum entropy and experiences a "heat death." The best theory makes the fewest assumptions.

Fewest assumptions but most presumptions! LOL

You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down. A violation of the First Law. Only the influence of an outside force, like the gravity of a supermassive black hole, can accelerate the distant universe.
A heat death violates the Third Law.

The best theory is the one whose assumptions and presumptions don't violate proven laws.

 

[Kalam]

You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.

That isn't my assumption.

The Cosmological Constant
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A violation of the First Law. Only the influence of an outside force,

...like a positive cosmological constant/dark energy...

A heat death violates the Third Law.

False.

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.

That isn't my assumption.

The Cosmological Constant
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A violation of the First Law. Only the influence of an outside force,

...like a positive cosmological constant/dark energy...

From your own link:

How physically plausible is the cosmological constant?

The physical interpretation of the cosmological constant as vacuum energy density is supported by the existence of the "zero point" energy predicted by quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, particle and antiparticle pairs are consistently being created out of the vacuum. Even though these particles exist for only a short amount of time before annihilating each other they do give the vacuum a non-zero potential energy. This concept of the vacuum energy has been experimentally confirmed through the Casimir effect, where two uncharged conducting plates attract each other due to quantum fluctuations. In general relativity, all forms of energy should gravitate, including the energy of the vacuum, hence the cosmological constant.

The problem with associating the cosmological constant with quantum mechanical vacuum energy appears when we make even a simple estimate of what this implies for its value. The following estimate is taken from Carroll et al. 1992. A relativistic field can be thought of as a collection of simple harmonic oscillators, each with a zero-point energy:

For a scalar field of mass m, the vacuum energy is the sum of all the simple harmonic oscillator zero-point energies:

Where (

) for the scalar field. This sum may be evaluated by putting the system in a box of volume L3, and letting L go to infinity. The periodic boundary conditions of the box require that the wavelengths be for integer values of n. There are then discrete values of k in the interval from k to k+dk, and the sum becomes an integral:

To evaluate the integral we must impose a cutoff at a maximum wavevector . We then have:

As we let go to infinity then the vacuum energy density diverges. This is due to contributions from modes with very high k. This divergence is not too worrisome, however, because we know that no low energy theory is expected to be true at high energies, where new physics must be included. We can therefore estimate the value of at the energy scale which surely requires some new theory to describe it. The Planck energy (at 1019 GeV) is thought to be the energy where conventional physical theories break down, and a new theory of quantum gravity is required. If we impose this energy as the cutoff, we obtain:

ergs / cm3 or

Such a high value for the cosmological constant is surely absurd. One might argue that we have chosen too high a value for , but in order to satisfy the observational constrains we would have to use a cutoff energy of ~10^-2 eV, which is surely unrealistic.

Such high theoretical calculations of

are a real limit to the plausibility of a non-zero cosmological constant. The above was only an example for a single field, and it is possible that the the contributions of all the different fields associated with the particles of the standard model conspire to produce a cosmological constant that is small. This argument, however, leads to the belief that the cosmological constant is exactly zero, for how could the fields conspire to cancel out all but 1 part in 10^120?

 

[garyd]

Nope science does not say the Universe is eternal in fact scinece states that the Universe cannot be eternal. Ever hear of the Big Bang which essentially maintains that our current universe has not always existed. IN fact since our univese is expanding it cannot be eternal in the accepted sense of the term.

That being the case any being call it God or whatever that may have created this universe must then logiclally exist outside of the context of this universe and therefore ultimately be unobservable by anything within this universe unless he/she/it chooses to reveal his/her/it's presence to some one within this universe's context.

 

[Kalam]

Such high theoretical calculations of

are a real limit to the plausibility of a non-zero cosmological constant. The above was only an example for a single field, and it is possible that the the contributions of all the different fields associated with the particles of the standard model conspire to produce a cosmological constant that is small. This argument, however, leads to the belief that the cosmological constant is exactly zero, for how could the fields conspire to cancel out all but 1 part in 10^120?

Do you think I'm retarded?

The conclusion you chose to omit:

Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology.​

 

[edthecynic]

You are assuming the universe can gain speed on its own after slowing down.

That isn't my assumption.

The Cosmological Constant
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A violation of the First Law. Only the influence of an outside force,

...like a positive cosmological constant/dark energy...

A heat death violates the Third Law.

False.

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Such high theoretical calculations of

are a real limit to the plausibility of a non-zero cosmological constant. The above was only an example for a single field, and it is possible that the the contributions of all the different fields associated with the particles of the standard model conspire to produce a cosmological constant that is small. This argument, however, leads to the belief that the cosmological constant is exactly zero, for how could the fields conspire to cancel out all but 1 part in 10^120?

Do you think I'm retarded?

The conclusion you chose to omit:

Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology.​

No, I think you are dishonest.

Physically plausible BUT with a value of ZERO, not the POSITIVE value you need.