If the universe appeared out of the vacuum due to vacuum fluctuations, is not entropy reduced? And if entropy is reduced, does this not require an external source of energy?
Very likely not,
The ensuing entropy balance sheet would irrevocably split into different universes and 2 separate balance sheets - there is no physical law that says that entropy accounts between separate universes must remain connected and/or consistent in any way
This has been discussed at some length by a number of people BTW, Roger Penrose et al.
since we do not know quantum gravity it is dangerous to answer such questions. Do you mean universe creation in the context of a certain quantum gravity model? Mtheory? quantum cosmology ala hawking/haliwell which is a toy model?
It the Universe is considered to be a manifestation of physical laws, then the creation of the universe corresponds to the creation of these physical laws. Since the created laws themselves may not encompass all that is involved in their creation, the creative process itself may appear to be a violation from within the realm the laws describe.
The entire universe appearing from vacuum fluctuations is statistically 'unlikely' viewed in terms of how they appear to operate now, however, they are now operating in the presence of the universe. It is possible that, for example, that the presence of 'universe' has a dampening effect upon the fluctuations, so that there is an ongoing transferrance of entropy.
Yes Universe require external source of Energy. But the nature, function and properties of such "Energy" is a still a big question.
speaking in a philosophical way has very low value. science is to propose a mathematical model propose connection between a mathematical quantity and a measurement and make predictions assuming this conenction. A self consistent physical theory(mathematical model + connection with measurements) cannot incorporate vioaltion of physical law otherwise the model is incorrect. The word creation has no acceptable scientifc meaning because presupposes that something else outside the universe creates it, which is wrong simply because if this is so then the researcher must include in the cosmologival model the creator and the creation of the creator etc. The answer for the question regarding entropy and vacuum fluctuations cannot be answered without knowing the full theory of everything
Yes. The author and advocates of the Big Bang hypothesis claim that no physical laws work at the Big Bang zero moment. This statement is the cause of one but by no means unique principal objections against this hypothesis.
Dear All,
On the impossibility of Big Bang as the Universe onset and on the necessity of the notion of infinity and eternity of the Universe.
For the explosion to happen, some substance, which could explode and could imply the energy/mass that evolved as a result of this explosion, should preliminary originate. But, in order that such a substance could originate, a process that led to concentration of this mass/energy should formerly occur. Thus, two processes should occur, one had led to the mass/energy concentration, and the other had led to the mass/energy evolution. However, the mass/energy concentration process couldn’t occur without external forces. This means that an external space, from which these forces acted, had existed and because the forces cannot be initiated by nothing, this space should be filled and it should be filled by nothing but energy/mass. In other words, the external space should exist and no conditions for its limitation exist; thus, we return to the notion of the infinite space. In addition, there is no ground to say that it could appear and, therefore, we should take that it is eternal. We see that, even if Big Bang were possible, we should take that the space is eternal and infinite. Thus, we see that the notion of Big Bang is a crazy notion.
I use, may be, too undisguised expressions, because I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, constancy of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe, stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease, which have led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease.
The calculations of the stellar speeds and masses on the basis of Eddington’s fiction are grounded as well as the calculations of the time of Moscow-Beijing run by using the seven-league boots from Wilhelm Hauff’s story of Little Muck.
It is necessary to take F. Engels’s notion (Fr, Engels, Natural dialectics, Papers, the last page of the Introduction) of the Universe eternity and infinity and to reject the notion of fusion reactions within stars as the cause of their occurrence and transformations. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of their discovery to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of chemical-element formation, and because of many other causes.
Evidently, just radiochemical decays represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions and the notion of stars as the knots in the energy/mass space of a low concentration is the unique alternative to today notions of stars. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is based just on these notions.
I think that, in a few years, all today fantasies on the construction and history of the Universe will look like an anachronism and will stimulate condescending smiles of young people addressed to their old professors.
Dear Derek,
When discussing Origins, scientists have no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics, and Origin should be absolute, i.e., the question about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all. Otherwise, this is not Origin. Therefore and taking into account Einstein’s statement about the equality of the notions of energy and mass, we should take that the unique World state capable of fulfilling these conditions is the eternal and infinite space filled with the low-concentration energy/mass. This our conclusion satisfies completely to Friedrich Engels’s concept (Natural dialectics, Papers, the last page of the Introduction).
When considering the transformations of the eternal and infinite energy/mass space, we should take into account the inadequacy of the notions of matter and of mass that is the consequence of the just-mentioned Einstein’s statement and the energy/mass conservation law and should supplement this notion with the notion of the infinite (!) rotational moment because energy is impossible without motion, three-dimensional energy being impossible without rotational motion.
Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone, and because each vacuum zone is dangerous.
The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, and its ignoring is senseless. I call you to read our works of 2013 about the PFO-CFO Hypothesis and the paper of 2011 in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics. In 2013, we somewhat developed the hypothesis, however, these improvements did not decrease, in our opinion, the importance of the paper of 2011.
Regards.
The cosmic quantum (the hypothesized single-quantum super-high-energy particle from which our universe may have evolved--see superluminalquantum.org/cosmicquantum ) has a temperature of exactly T=0 kelvin and an entropy of exactly S=0 Joules/kelvin. Does the cosmic quantum violate the Third Law of thermodynamics, which states “It is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealized, to reduce any system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of operations”?
There are three possibilities for the cosmic quantum in relation to the Third Law:
1) The cosmic quantum‘s exactly T=0 Kelvin temperature and S=0 entropy might have been produced by cooling a higher temperature (T>0 kelviin) quantum system by an infinite number of operations to T=0 kelvin without violating the Third Law. But an infinite number of operations would require an infinite amount of time, so this possibility seems very unlikely.
2) The Third Law does not apply to the cosmic quantum. But the Third Law is so fundamental and well-established in current physics that this possibility should be considered only as a last resort, particularly since the cosmic quantum is a physical particle subject to physical laws.
3) The cosmic quantum emerged from a non-physical or meta-cosmological space with T=0 and S=0 when our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago, without violating the Third Law, which is a physical law and would not apply in a non-physical space.
The third possibility seems to be the mostly reasonable one. The cosmic quantum could not have evolved in physical space from a higher temperature system in a finite number of operations, according to the Third Law. The process would require an infinite number of operations and therefore an infinite amount of time. There is the more conservative alternative, which would maintain the validity of the Third Law for the cosmic quantum. It is that the cosmic quantum with T=0 and S=0 emerged into physical existence from a non-physical dimension, or rather a meta-cosmological dimension. The properties of a meta-cosmological space or cosmic quantum field that could produce a cosmic quantum in physical space need to be explored. If this third possibility is rejected, then the second possibility, that the Third Law of thermodynamics does not apply to the formation of the cosmic quantum, would have to be accepted.
The problem many may have with that is, if there was really nothing before the Universe came into existence, then it stands to reason that 'nothing' would have just plain continued....
If there was something that allowed for a universe birth to happen through some scenario, such as a quantum fluctuation or other, then what gave rise, when, to that something? Then keep asking that selfsame question recurrently: most possible scenarios answering it - time does not exist, the universe is cyclical, etc., seem unsatisfactory in some way.
Arno - serial down-voters soon become visible to the RG management, and their accounts become barred after a while. Did you notice, last time there was a software and maintenance update, how some user accounts became permanently disabled ?
Universe is made up of nothing but the energy and the observer. If we know the origin of these two, we know everything. The body of the observer is made up of nothing but the energy, but the consciousness of the observer is not the energy. So now we are left with energy and consciousness. If we know the relation between the two and if we know their origin, we know everything. Space and time does not have physical existence so we should not worry about them. Forces are simply rate of change of energy, so we should not worry about them. We know that consciousness simply appears in the universe and then disappears. No one is able to create or destroy consciousness. Same is true for the energy. So the consciousness and energy can never be created or destroyed. We notice that energy is always associated with motion without exception. We also know that consciousness has no motion whatsoever. Human senses and measuring instruments can only detect that which has some motion. They are completely incapable of detecting that which has no motion. Empty space does not have any motion. So I propose that it is filled with the infinite motionless Consciousness without any boundary. Fraction of this infinite consciousness moves by its own power and gives out discrete quanta of consciousness which we call vaccum fluctuations or energy. When this energy evolves to the state of a CELL, the motionless consciousness enters into it to see what it has done. Then rest of the evolution is a familiar story.
When the universe is projected in accelerated expansion, the entropy is reduced. But the formalism discussed in the attached article shows that the process is perfectly reversible and therefore the sum total of the entropy of the process of evolution and involution of the universe is zero. The source of energy is the infinite indivisible motionless blissful consciousness (Spirit) without any boundary. Therefore the search for the fundamental building block of the universe may not yield anything.
Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology
Dear Arno, I am glad you are the only one in disagreement. Rest of the followers have observed my views in silent assent. I wish you had looked at my attached article which gives a very detailed analysis of the MOTION of vacuum quanta. In this article the universe begins with photon like particles which I call Savitons. They only have kinetic energy and no rest mass. Energy of each particle is of the order 10^19 GeV. We are more concerned with Max Planck's quantum hypothesis than with Maxwell's unification of electric and magnetic force. Both these theories describe motion of photon.
Thank you Arno. Photon is associated with the unification of electric and magnetic force. In the same way Saviton in my theory is associated with the unification of gravity, strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. This is the reason Saviton decay and condense (Bose-Einstein condensate theory) into W particles, Z particles, gluons and photons.
Dear Arno, Savitons in my theory also decay into dark matter and dark energy. They make up the structure of the vacuum.
Dear Vikram,
In your Saviton hypothesis, is dark energy made of particles? Please explain briefly.
Yes Richard. Dark energy is made up of extremely subtle particles. You can compare them with the particles of which the mind is made up or the particles of which the thoughts are made up.
Entropy: A concept that is not a physical quantity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics