CAN TIME EXIST WITHOUT ENTROPY?

[shunyadragon]

Do you think those scientists would say there's no chance they're wrong?

I am not sure where you are going with this. I am and will refer further concerning the current view of scientists concerning time and the nature of the beginning of our universe. It is not a case of the 'chance they are wrong.' Yes the views of scientists and cosmologists may change over time, but to expect scientists to change to fit your view, is extremely delusionary.

Of course, the knowledge of science can change over time, but my crystal ball just clouded over.

From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity led modern cosmologists to much the same conclusion. The theory holds that space and time are soft, malleable entities. On the largest scales, space is naturally dynamic, expanding or contracting over time, carrying matter like driftwood on the tide. Astronomers confirmed in the 1920s that our universe is currently expanding: distant galaxies move apart from one another. One consequence, as physicists Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose proved in the 1960s, is that time cannot extend back indefinitely. As you play cosmic history backward in time, the galaxies all come together to a single infinitesimal point, known as a singularity--almost as if they were descending into a black hole. Each galaxy or its precursor is squeezed down to zero size. Quantities such as density, temperature and spacetime curvature become infinite. The singularity is the ultimate cataclysm, beyond which our cosmic ancestry cannot extend.

The unavoidable singularity poses serious problems for cosmologists. In particular, it sits uneasily with the high degree of homogeneity and isotropy that the universe exhibits on large scales. For the cosmos to look broadly the same everywhere, some kind of communication had to pass among distant regions of space, coordinating their properties. But the idea of such communication contradicts the old cosmological paradigm.

To be specific, consider what has happened over the 13.7 billion years since the release of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The distance between galaxies has grown by a factor of about 1,000 (because of the expansion), while the radius of the observable universe has grown by the much larger factor of about 100,000 (because light outpaces the expansion). We see parts of the universe today that we could not have seen 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, this is the first time in cosmic history that light from the most distant galaxies has reached the Milky Way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure where you are going with this.

I had the impression that you thought scientific views about
what preceded the Big Bang were factual rather than speculative.
Not wanting to presume, I asked.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not sure where you are going with this. I am and will refer further concerning the current view of scientists concerning time and the nature of the beginning of our universe. It is not a case of the 'chance they are wrong.' Yes the views of scientists and cosmologists may change over time, but to expect scientists to change to fit your view, is extremely delusionary.

Of course, the knowledge of science can change over time, but my crystal ball just clouded over.

From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity led modern cosmologists to much the same conclusion. The theory holds that space and time are soft, malleable entities. On the largest scales, space is naturally dynamic, expanding or contracting over time, carrying matter like driftwood on the tide. Astronomers confirmed in the 1920s that our universe is currently expanding: distant galaxies move apart from one another. One consequence, as physicists Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose proved in the 1960s, is that time cannot extend back indefinitely. As you play cosmic history backward in time, the galaxies all come together to a single infinitesimal point, known as a singularity--almost as if they were descending into a black hole. Each galaxy or its precursor is squeezed down to zero size. Quantities such as density, temperature and spacetime curvature become infinite. The singularity is the ultimate cataclysm, beyond which our cosmic ancestry cannot extend.

The unavoidable singularity poses serious problems for cosmologists. In particular, it sits uneasily with the high degree of homogeneity and isotropy that the universe exhibits on large scales. For the cosmos to look broadly the same everywhere, some kind of communication had to pass among distant regions of space, coordinating their properties. But the idea of such communication contradicts the old cosmological paradigm.

To be specific, consider what has happened over the 13.7 billion years since the release of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The distance between galaxies has grown by a factor of about 1,000 (because of the expansion), while the radius of the observable universe has grown by the much larger factor of about 100,000 (because light outpaces the expansion). We see parts of the universe today that we could not have seen 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, this is the first time in cosmic history that light from the most distant galaxies has reached the Milky Way.

It should be pointed out that the Hawking-Penrose results only apply in pure General Relativity. it is expected that they fail when quantum effects are brought in.

In particular string theory and quantum loop gravity (the main candidates for quantum gravity) say that the singularity is 'smoothed over' by quantum effects, leading to time going father into the past from that point. In other words, the singularity *is* avoidable, but only through quantum gravity.

The uniformity issue has been addressed by inflationary models which have short periods of extremely rapid expansion. This solves both the horizon problem (distant areas *were* in contact in the past) and the flatness 'problem' (the curvature of space seems to be very close to zero).

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

From the Wikipedia article on the 2nd law....
"The first theory of the conversion of heat into mechanical work is due to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot in 1824. He was the first to realize correctly that the efficiency of this conversion depends on the difference of temperature between an engine and its environment.

Recognizing the significance of James Prescott Joule's work on the conservation of energy, Rudolf Clausius was the first to formulate the second law during 1850, in this form: heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot bodies. While common knowledge now, this was contrary to the caloric theory of heat popular at the time, which considered heat as a fluid. From there he was able to infer the principle of Sadi Carnot and the definition of entropy (1865)."
Did you attend school before 1900?
That would explain its being taught as a "theory".

I stand corrected, dang engineers! I didn't give the particulars of entropy, such as the history or philosophy of science when in school and it shows sometimes! I just know it worked when the numbers were plugged in. I was thinking entropy was taught as theory in the same vein that evolution is a 'theory' but is treated as a law of fact by most of the PC lay people and our secular scientists and leftist professors. Lastly my schooling was not in 1900 but it was over thirty years ago! (How does one correct the age profile page)? ) ; { >

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Milton Platt said: "Actually, could entropy exist without time???"

shunyadragon ; No.

Mr Mr asks In your* opinion can time exist without entropy, or a physical system? Well that is two separate questions so feel free to answer them separately if you want.

* or anyone that wants to reply...

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

...... THIS IS IN REPLY TO POLYMATHS POST # 43....

Not that I do not trust you but do you have an article written for advanced lay persons or source (the less equations etc the better!) to vet those claims about specifically uniformity ie ; "The uniformity issue has been addressed by inflationary models which have short periods of extremely rapid expansion. This solves both the horizon problem (distant areas *were* in contact in the past) and the flatness 'problem' (the curvature of space seems to be very close to zero). ."

Lastly, no offense to those that love, or can I say have faith in ST, it hasn't accomplished much but to give theoretical physicists a place to ply their trade..play really. I had high hopes for it, but in the nearly forty years it has been around there is has made very little if any verifiable predictions or has no experimental evidence to support it. Is it dead? No not quite but its time for ST to put up or shut up. We shouldn't throw it baby with bath water, we should treat ST for what it is, a non predictive, onl just a theory that might have future applications. If ST was a metaphysical claim by religious types it would have died a quite death 39 years ago. Yeah I'm jealous! lol!

; {>

 

[Polymath257]

...... THIS IS IN REPLY TO POLYMATHS POST # 43....

Not that I do not trust you but do you have an article written for advanced lay persons or source (the less equations etc the better!) to vet those claims about specifically uniformity ie ; "The uniformity issue has been addressed by inflationary models which have short periods of extremely rapid expansion. This solves both the horizon problem (distant areas *were* in contact in the past) and the flatness 'problem' (the curvature of space seems to be very close to zero). ."

Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any:

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

it appears that the Higg's boson can even be the same as the inflaton. This has not been verified.

Lastly, no offense to those that love, or can I say have faith in ST, it hasn't accomplished much but to give theoretical physicists a place to ply their trade..play really. I had high hopes for it, but in the nearly forty years it has been around there is has made very little if any verifiable predictions or has no experimental evidence to support it. Is it dead? No not quite but its time for ST to put up or shut up. We shouldn't throw it baby with bath water, we should treat ST for what it is, a non predictive, onl just a theory that might have future applications. If ST was a metaphysical claim by religious types it would have died a quite death 39 years ago. Yeah I'm jealous! lol!

; {>

I mostly agree. The deeper point is that the Hawking and Penrose proofs were based *solely* on General Relativity. They did not include quantum effects and we know that quantum effects will be relevant for gravity at some point. Both ST and LQG have quantum effects smoothing out the singularities of GR. And, it seems that any attempt to include QM requires such smoothing.

One of the big issues is that the energy levels for quantum gravity are so far outside of what we can produce that no matter what we come up with, it will be difficult to test. So we are in a situation where we know quantum effects will be relevant, but we have no way to get to those energies where they are relevant.

 

[Revoltingest]

I stand corrected, dang engineers! I didn't give the particulars of entropy, such as the history or philosophy of science when in school and it shows sometimes! I just know it worked when the numbers were plugged in. I was thinking entropy was taught as theory in the same vein that evolution is a 'theory' but is treated as a law of fact by most of the PC lay people and our secular scientists and leftist professors. Lastly my schooling was not in 1900 but it was over thirty years ago! (How does one correct the age profile page)? ) ; { >

It seems roughly this way....
Evolution is a fact.
The theory is that natural selection explains evolution.

One might say that the statistical mechanical approach to entropy is a theory.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

It seems roughly this way....
Evolution is a fact.
The theory is that natural selection explains evolution.

One might say that the statistical mechanical approach to entropy is a theory.

Well , no, at the risk of making some here and in the secular scientific community blow a fuse I must say for the sake of truth, evolution, technically, is still a theory. There remains non provens' etc so sadly for some its theory. At the risk of derailing my own thread I am done with that, ha ha ~ Thanks for throwing me the bone on the entropy statement. We all allow emotion to overrun our intellect at times.

notes;

Source for my statement "evolution, technically is still a theory". >>>>>>>>> "Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory" References: Kennesaw State University: Scientific Laws and Theories.What Makes a Scientific Idea a Law? | Synonym

 

[Revoltingest]

Well , no, at the risk of making some here and in the secular scientific community blow a fuse I must say for the sake of truth, evolution, technically, is still a theory. There remains non provens' etc so sadly for some its theory. At the risk of derailing my own thread I am done with that, ha ha ~ Thanks for throwing me the bone on the entropy statement. We all allow emotion to overrun our intellect at times.

notes;

Source for my statement "evolution, technically is still a theory". >>>>>>>>> "Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory" References: Kennesaw State University: Scientific Laws and Theories.What Makes a Scientific Idea a Law? | Synonym

View attachment 18852

I see some wiggle room here.
Evolution can be seen in different ways.....
"Evolution" as the change of species over time in the fossil record is an observation without explanation, ie, a fact.
"Evolution" as a process which explains this observation is a theory.
But even the evolution process can be seen as a fact when used as an engineering tool, eg, genetic algorithms.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any:

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

it appears that the Higg's boson can even be the same as the inflaton. This has not been verified.

I would be surprised if the higgs turned out to be another face of inflation, but who knows.

I mostly agree. The deeper point is that the Hawking and Penrose proofs were based *solely* on General Relativity. They did not include quantum effects and we know that quantum effects will be relevant for gravity at some point. Both ST and LQG have quantum effects smoothing out the singularities of GR. And, it seems that any attempt to include QM requires such smoothing.

Yes, maybe when we develop a working theory for Quantum Gravity the truth may emerge. I would rather see multi dimensions or parallel universes describe the problems we have explaining the very early universe and the clumps in time that allowed stars and galaxy's to form. I have an semi educated hunch that the dark energy, dark matter, dragons that have shook the cosmological and general physics world, along with GR will one day replace the need of inflation. It would be nice to see a GR based quantum loop gravity theory emerge without needing inflation which is truly only wishful thinking! I just have a gut (yes an emotional) feeling that all we really require is the 4 dimensions of general relativity other than the 26 dimensions (at last count) of String to describe everything in our universe. GR is just so elegant compared to ST! To wit the most beautiful theory in the universe E=Mc2.

One of the big issues is that the energy levels for quantum gravity are so far outside of what we can produce that no matter what we come up with, it will be difficult to test. So we are in a situation where we know quantum effects will be relevant, but we have no way to get to those energies where they are relevant.

Yes indeed, we may never build a super collider that has the power of the 'singularity' that our universe emerged from! Great post my friend!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I see some wiggle room here.
Evolution can be seen in different ways.....
"Evolution" as the change of species over time in the fossil record is an observation without explanation, ie, a fact.
"Evolution" as a process which explains this observation is a theory.
But even the evolution process can be seen as a fact when used as an engineering tool, eg, genetic algorithms.

Hi Mr Revoltingest ! I really am happy to see you are flexible and unlike some more radical defenders of the secular scientific faith not rabidly protective of Evolution (not saying you are a defender etc). As a Christian who can not separate my faith from my everyday life and world view I feel evolution of the species by natural selection (etc) is fully compatible with most religious views. The items that give me pause to fully accept ET (evolution theory) is time for speciation to occur. Especially considering the mass extinction events. There have been fabrications and evidences to explain rapid evolution such as etc. catastrophism. Because catastrophism usually isolates species thus speeding speciation as survivors adapt or die! In any case you and I can discuss these issues without fear of ruining good productive debate with what I call emotions~ lol ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi Mr Revoltingest ! I really am happy to see you are flexible and unlike some more radical defenders of the secular scientific faith not rabidly protective of Evolution (not saying you are a defender etc). As a Christian who can not separate my faith from my everyday life and world view I feel evolution of the species by natural selection (etc) is fully compatible with most religious views. The items that give me pause to fully accept ET (evolution theory) is time for speciation to occur. Especially considering the mass extinction events. There have been fabrications and evidences to explain rapid evolution such as etc. catastrophism. Because catastrophism usually isolates species thus speeding speciation as survivors adapt or die! In any case you and I can discuss these issues without fear of ruining good productive debate with what I call emotions~ lol ...

View attachment 18855

I don't defend evolution....or gravity, or thermodynamics, or chemistry, etc.
They don't need me at all.
But it does make sense that catastrophes would alter the rate of gene frequency change.

 

[Revoltingest]

A lot depends here on exactly what is meant by the 'second law'. The pure thermodynamic law is well established, but not a fundamental law. Once we get into statistical mechanics, we realize that the 2LOT is a statistical law: it is very, very unlikely that in a macroscopic system heat with flow spontaneously from cold to hot. It isn't technically impossible. And, in systems with small numbers of particles, violations have been observed.

It occurs to me that the 2nd law is a statistical theory applicable only on small scales.
To extend the possibility (even at vanishingly small probability) of zero change
in entropy (ie, 100% reversible process) to the macro runs into trouble with
general relativity. Large lumps of matter interacting experience relativistic effects
which are immune to statistical mechanical non-positive entropy change anomalies.
(Try saying that fast 10 times!). Eg, Orbital decay due to gravitational waves would
supersede quantum level effects.

I'm just spit balling here, since I don't understand one whit of GR (which doesn't use
gears, cams or bearings). What say you,learned one?

 

[Polymath257]

It occurs to me that the 2nd law is a statistical theory applicable only on small scales.
To extend the possibility (even at vanishingly small probability) of zero change
in entropy (ie, 100% reversible process) to the macro runs into trouble with
general relativity. Large lumps of matter interacting experience relativistic effects
which are immune to statistical mechanical non-positive entropy change anomalies.
(Try saying that fast 10 times!). Eg, Orbital decay due to gravitational waves would
supersede quantum level effects.

I'm just spit balling here, since I don't understand one whit of GR (which doesn't use
gears, cams or bearings). What say you,learned one?

Well, it turns out that statistical mechanics can be done in GR, but a fair amount of care is required.

For example, when a volume of gas contracts because of gravity, it heats up (not unexpected), but the total energy level goes *down* because of falling into a potential well. That makes the entropy calculations a bit trickier. And, it turns out that contraction under gravity is often a spontaneous process.

Also, in cosmology, a great deal of the universal expansion is adiabatic (entropy neutral).

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it turns out that statistical mechanics can be done in GR, but a fair amount of care is required.

For example, when a volume of gas contracts because of gravity, it heats up (not unexpected), but the total energy level goes *down* because of falling into a potential well. That makes the entropy calculations a bit trickier. And, it turns out that contraction under gravity is often a spontaneous process.

Also, in cosmology, a great deal of the universal expansion is adiabatic (entropy neutral).

I sense that negative energy throws a wrench into everything.

Wouldn't falling into a well conserve total energy by increasing temperature?
Or are you assuming that it's lost to radiation?
Even if one process (expansion) is adiabatic, this wouldn't prevent irreversible other processes, eh?

 

[Polymath257]

I sense that negative energy throws a wrench into everything.

Yes, it complicates things. Also, there is the fact that most gravitational systems are NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium, or even close to such.

Wouldn't falling into a well conserve total energy by increasing temperature?

Both effects can happen. When you increase temperature, you inevitably increase the amount of energy released through radiation. Also, the matter as a whole can increase in speed (without a temperature increase). The playoff between the various effects in phase space determines how entropy is affected and, thereby, which direction is spontaneous.

Even if one process (expansion) is adiabatic, this wouldn't prevent irreversible other processes, eh?

Not at all. In fact, the decoupling of neutrinos from photons was an irreversible process in the early universe which left neutrinos at a different temperature than photons.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

The question seems to boil down to this: if you can't tell whether time is flowing or not because no change (ie no time-dependent action) is happening, is it correct to conclude that time has stopped?

My money's on, no. Time may exist even in a universe of max entropy and very very very very nearly 0 ºK, time's still around, the energy of the vacuum still feebly crackles (ie its events are apart in time, not all at once) and time didn't stop when the last proton decayed.

But I won't be around to settle my bet, whichever way it goes.

Are you aware of the claim by most theoretical physicists that time stops at the event horizon of a black hole or in the interior of a black hole or any powerful enough gravity well or with enough velocity. We also know that time slows for anything approaching the speed of light. However I too have a problem with that. Because those same scientists go on to say time does indeed appear to stop for anyone observing an astronaut fall into a black hole. He will appear to be suspended just at the event horizon 'forever'. But according to the astronauts in the space ship time will appear to pass normally inside the ship! This tells me time is an illusion. I feel we are on the verge of a discovery that will change the human species forever. Until we discover the true nature of ...well nature itself if we ever do, I will remain to think we are the butt of a cosmic joke that are being kept in the dark for some unknown reason.

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

It seems roughly this way....
Evolution is a fact.
The theory is that natural selection explains evolution.

One might say that the statistical mechanical approach to entropy is a theory.

Revoltingest...by defender of the faith I meant you by 'believing in' evolution defends it over those that don't support it in part or at all. That's because you are choosing evolution over other claims no matter how well the other claims are supported. Your belief lends support to the theory not just by proxy, but in other ways too. That should be obvious.
That said I do think believing the entire theory of evolution requires acts of 'faith'. Also this faith based non-empirically vetted science isn't limited to evolution. The increase of theories that are not well vetted by empirical methods are primarily in the theoretical physics area.

; {>

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest...by defender of the faith I meant you by 'believing in' evolution defends it over those that don't support it in part or at all. That's because you are choosing evolution over other claims no matter how well the other claims are supported. Your belief lends support to the theory not just by proxy, but in other ways too. That should be obvious.
That said I do think believing the entire theory of evolution requires acts of 'faith'. Also this faith based non-empirically vetted science isn't limited to evolution. The increase of theories that are not well vetted by empirical methods are primarily in the theoretical physics area.

; {>

To say "no matter how well the other claims are supported" is in error.
The TOE has tremendous usefulness, ie, it has repeatedly made successfully tested predictions.
No alternative meets this basic scientific standard.

Regarding creationism & ID, they suffer from the problem of not possibly being shown wrong.
Wolfgan Pauli said it best (translated & paraphrased from German).....
It's not right....it's not even wrong.