What happened before the big bang?:

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought high entropy was the inability to create useful energy, like converting heat at a high temperature to a lower temperature causing something to spin and generate energy that way. I thought low entropy was where there was areas of high temperature near areas with lower temperature. Is that wrong?

I thought high entropy was the inability to create useful energy, like converting heat at a high temperature to a lower temperature causing something to spin and generate energy that way.

Yes, this is correct.

I thought low entropy was where there was areas of high temperature near areas with lower temperature. Is that wrong?

The key thing about entropy for the purposes of this discussion is that it is a non-decreasing function of time, and an isolated system has an upper bound to it's entropy given by S = k ln(no. states) where no. states is the number of accessible internal states at a given energy. Applied to the universe this means the starting state has to be highly ordered so that thermodynamic processes can take place later. If the universe is an isolated system then a cyclic cosmology has a heat death problem. However, it's not clear that this applies to the universe as a whole. Penrose's idea is to dump the excess entropy into supermassive black-holes.

Originally posted by DeepThought

I thought high entropy was the inability to create useful energy, like converting heat at a high temperature to a lower temperature causing something to spin and generate energy that way.

Yes, this is correct.
[quote]I thought low entropy was where there was areas of high temperature near areas with lower temperature. Is that wrong?[/quo ...[text shortened]... erse as a whole. Penrose's idea is to dump the excess entropy into supermassive black-holes.

Perhaps Penrose has been reading too much science fiction.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps Penrose has been reading too much science fiction.

The Instructor

And perhaps, just perhaps don't you know, that MAYBE you have a closed mind. Just a guess.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And perhaps, just perhaps don't you know, that MAYBE you have a closed mind. Just a guess.

RJ doesn't have a closed mind, but it's simply like a black hole - it absorbs everything, but can never make, or release, any sensical things out of it. Maybe it's so small now, as an single point, that it needs to borrow a bit of internal energy to cause it to implode, and then we will see a phenomenol expulsion at great speed, and maybe RJ will then see the true 'light' 😉

Even a singular point has some internal space left, in order to borrow its own energy and cause a re-spin to explode itself... maybe... 😉

-m.

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
RJ doesn't have a closed mind, but it's simply like a black hole - it absorbs everything, but can never make, or release, any sensical things out of it. Maybe it's so small now, as an single point, that it needs to borrow a bit of internal energy to cause it to implode, and then we will see a phenomenol expulsion at great speed, and maybe RJ will then see th ...[text shortened]... to borrow its own energy and cause a re-spin to explode itself... maybe... 😉

-m.

-m.

OMG. That would mean............ an RJ UNIVERSE🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps Penrose has been reading too much science fiction.

The Instructor

I'd explain the physics, but somehow I think it would be wasted.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'd explain the physics, but somehow I think it would be wasted.

This last statement in the article proves that it does not explain the physics:

Among its challenges, cyclic cosmology still needs to explain the vast shift of scale between aeons, as well as why it requires all particles to lose their mass at some point in the future.

The Instructor 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
This last statement in the article proves that it does not explain the physics:

[b]Among its challenges, cyclic cosmology still needs to explain the vast shift of scale between aeons, as well as why it requires all particles to lose their mass at some point in the future.

The Instructor 😏[/b]

This last statement in the article proves that it does not explain the physics

which physics? It explains much of the physics but is an incomplete theory of everything. That doesn't mean to say that the theory couldn't eventually evolve into one that is a complete theory of everything.

Their theory may be right or wrong, but you don't come anywhere near having the intellect the mental capacity to independently come up with a valid alternative theory or even merely understand the basic physics of their theory so you are certainly in no position to criticize their theory.

Originally posted by humy

This last statement in the article proves that it does not explain the physics

which physics? It explains much of the physics but is an incomplete theory of everything. That doesn't mean to say that the theory couldn't eventually evolve into one that is a complete theory of everything.

Their theory may be right or wrong, but yo basic physics of their theory so you are certainly in no position to criticize their theory.

This argument has already been countered on a previous post of mine. I repeat:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. This means that there are always more things that are true than you can prove and any system of belief, reasoning, and logic requires faith in something unproven.

Therefore, if you consider the universe as being within the circle, then it depends on something different that must be assumed, but can not be proved, that is outside the circle. So what is outside the circle containing the entire universe can be inferred by knowing what has been enclosed within the circle. What is outside the circle must be different from what is enclosed within the circle.

Therefore, there can be no mathematical formula that can explain everything, because there will always be something that can't be included in the formula that must be assumed, but can not be proven.

This proves that there is a limitation to science if only naturalitic rules can be considered.


The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
This argument has already been countered on a previous post of mine. I repeat:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. This means that there are always more things that are true than you can prove and an ...[text shortened]... re is a limitation to science if only naturalitic rules can be considered.


The Instructor

There is evidence now suggesting the universe was banged into by at least one other universe early in it's birth, the evidence is right there in the cosmic background radiation. So you cannot say it cannot be proved. 'THE' universe may well be something infinitely larger than our little 50 odd billion light year wide box of our universe, just one of many, being born continuously and 'dying' continuously also. So the circle can in fact be bigger than what we consider 'our' universe.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is evidence now suggesting the universe was banged into by at least one other universe early in it's birth, the evidence is right there in the cosmic background radiation. So you cannot say it cannot be proved. 'THE' universe may well be something infinitely larger than our little 50 odd billion light year wide box of our universe, just one of many, b ...[text shortened]... tinuously also. So the circle can in fact be bigger than what we consider 'our' universe.

I refuse to think that big.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I refuse to think that big.

The Instructor

Of course you can't think that big when your mind is under the mind control of many other humans. You cannot think for yourself. What you think you are thinking is only the programming inherent in your so-called religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course you can't think that big when your mind is under the mind control of many other humans. You cannot think for yourself. What you think you are thinking is only the programming inherent in your so-called religion.

That sounds like a religious view. It would have seemed more scientific if you had said it was programmed in my DNA and then you could proceed to prove it by a scientific method of your choice.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That sounds like a religious view. It would have seemed more scientific if you had said it was programmed in my DNA and then you could proceed to prove it by a scientific method of your choice.

The Instructor

You mean like this post in another thread here in science?:

And maybe then the fullness of the gentiles will be complete and the Jews will say, "Blesses is He that comes in the name of the Lord."

HalleluYah !!!

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean like this post in another thread here in science?:

And maybe then the fullness of the gentiles will be complete and the Jews will say, "Blesses is He that comes in the name of the Lord."

HalleluYah !!!

The Instructor

What do you expect from a religious nutter?

The Instructor