Jump to content
claudio54

Entropy and expansion of the universe: an Occam's razor

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Applying entropy to the Big Bang model has always sounded controversial to me.

For the Big Bang theory we consider "universe" what is occupied by matter and not an empty container of infinite dimensions in which matter expands. If so, the laws of physics would be violated and we could not use them: the parts of the universe furthest from us, in fact, continue to move away, in acceleration, at higher speeds than the light.

Rather than accepting a "universe metric" that does not follow the laws of physics, I prefer the idea that there are other dimensions in which the universe, without a center, is in fact the surface of a hypersphere, in continuous growth. Here the laws of known physics, with a large mortgage on thermodynamics too, could no longer apply.

Entropy in fact faces unsolved issues too: entropy could not decrease from the early universe, where matter and energy were uniformly distributed, to our one, in which nothing is uniform. Its function then also depends from the expansion of the universe, as for a gas expanding in an adiabatic but irreversible transformation.

So, either we look for a model in which the metric of the universe is not what appears to us (but it’s only the result of our perception of an existing fourth spatial dimension), or we must accept the idea that physics should only be applied to the nearest portion of universe.

If this were the case, outside of this close portion, the laws we know do not apply anymore.

This is really too much and I want to go beyond with a crazy idea:

By accepting the idea of a fourth dimension, as in a sort of differential geometry, one would consider a coordinate transformation for a three-dimensional observer who studies a four-dimensional universe. This transformation would apply to the laws of our physics and then to the whole theory.

 

The way chosen to set the problem is very rudimentary.

For simplicity, we can think to an observer who can move in one dimension along the circumference of a circle: that is the universe he perceives. The real universe is instead in two dimensions represented by an annulus of the previous circle.

Through the whole annulus, the laws of physics apply. For example, objects can move only at a speed lower than light.

Now suppose that a point inside the annulus is perceived by the observer as its projection from the center on the circumference.

 

The velocity v of a distant point, which leaves the circumference approaching the center, would be perceived by the observer as v1 that could be greater than light. Note that this effect would not be perceived for points close to the observer.

Let’s apply now this idea to our universe, which lies on the surface of a hypersphere whose radius is continuously growing. We cannot observe recent galaxies if these are far away, as their rays of light haven’t reached us yet. We can instead observe images of the older ones that, born closer to the center, lay projected onto the surface. Speeds higher than light are possible but here nothing is moving: is the hypersphere growing.

We cannot directly observe the fourth spatial dimension, the radius in our geometry, simply because it does not belong to the universe.

 

In this hypothesis no coordinate transformation is needed, all our physics can be applied to the whole universe. But the whole universe moves, changing over time.  

It would seem, then, we cannot apply laws such as entropy to different stages of growth.

The expansion model, however, has its geometry. This will allow to convert laws and apply them to those different stages.

Edited by claudio54
error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

Rather than accepting a "universe metric" that does not follow the laws of physics

How can the current Big Bang model "not follow the laws of physics" when it is based on the laws of physics?

5 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

I prefer the idea that there are other dimensions in which the universe, without a center, is in fact the surface of a hypersphere, in continuous growth.

What evidence do you have for these "other dimensions"?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

How can the current Big Bang model "not follow the laws of physics" when it is based on the laws of physics?

What evidence do you have for these "other dimensions"?
 

Regarding the metric of the universe, the most distant galaxies are moving away at speeds faster than that of light.
We can only hypothesize the existence of another dimension for the characteristics of the universe: absence of a center, isotropy and expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expansion of the universe isn't a relative phenomenon, but an additive one.
A galaxy will separate from the next at a specific rate, but one that is twice as distant, will separate at double the rate.
It has no constraint to be subluminal.

The Universe is already assumed to have a 4Dimensional topology, whether hypersphere, flat torus, or other, but time is the 4th dimension.
And sure enough, you are right, other than the subjective 'now', a single point, we can't observe time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, claudio54 said:

Regarding the metric of the universe, the most distant galaxies are moving away at speeds faster than that of light.

As predicted by theory (ie. the "laws of nature")

1 hour ago, claudio54 said:

We can only hypothesize the existence of another dimension for the characteristics of the universe: absence of a center, isotropy and expansion.

The way to do that is to come up with a mathematical model and makes some predictions that can be tested against observation. (Which is what the Big Bang model successfully did).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ditto to @Strange and @MigL above.

On a completely related note, how is this an example of Occam's razor?

Edited by joigus
mistyped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, joigus said:

On a completely related note, how is this an example of Occam's razor?

Good question.

A few people seem to use it to justify their common sense ideas: "well if this simple explanation makes sense to me, I can't see why all that complicated science is needed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Good question.

A few people seem to use it to justify their common sense ideas: "well if this simple explanation makes sense to me, I can't see why all that complicated science is needed"

Thank you. Yes, they're all missing the point of the ceteris paribus (all things being equal.) For two theories being equal as to explanatory/post-dictive power and predictive power, you pick the one that's more logically economic. The onus is on the proponent to show that their theory is equally powerful in proving the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

The idea does not pretend to compete as a cosmological model (among other things a reference to gravity is missing). It just want to be a simple, intuitive explanation of why galaxies move away at speeds proportional to their distance (without constraints) and why, I think, we should not calculate entropy for different stages of growth before choosing a cosmological model (we need a prediction of volume).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

It just want to be a simple, intuitive explanation of why galaxies move away at speeds proportional to their distance

It does not seem simple or intuitive. And you have not shown (mathematically) that it matches what we observe.

The idea of the expansion of space is pretty simple and, although surprising,, not really unintuitive. There is no real reason that we should think the universe is static.

I'm not sure how entropy is relevant. Perhaps you could explain (mathematically).

Here is a good article on the entropy of the universe in the Big Bang model: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/15/ask-ethan-what-was-the-entropy-of-the-universe-at-the-big-bang/

Quote

If there were no such things as black holes, the entropy of the Universe would have been almost constant for the past 13.8 billion years! That primal state actually had a considerable amount of entropy; it's just that black holes have so much more, and are so easy to make from a cosmic perspective.

Which is quite surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Strange said:

It does not seem simple or intuitive. And you have not shown (mathematically) that it matches what we observe.

DOC ATTACHED

HYPERSPHERE.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ironic that you mention Occam's Razor.

You have decided on a model with an extra spatial dimension so, even if it could reproduce the same results as the current model, it should be rejected by Occam's Razor because it has an unnecessary extra dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, claudio54 said:
!

Moderator Note

You need to post the information here, not via links and documents. People have to be able to participate without requiring clicking on anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I had written everything offline and when it was time to post the copy and paste did not work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not able to use the forum editor, hope you bring patience. The doc attached is a PDF generated by Microsoft Word 365. In this document the Minkowski interval is obtained from the fourth spatial dimension.  

The question is why an interval on the fourth spatial dimension is invariant? In the growing hypersphere’s hypothesis is this demonstrable? What eventually does it mean?

This is what needs to be answered in order to proceed.

I'm beginning to agree that it's not exactly an Occam’s razor.

Hypersphere2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

I was not able to use the forum editor, hope you bring patience. The doc attached is a PDF generated by Microsoft Word 365. In this document the Minkowski interval is obtained from the fourth spatial dimension.

Is that your extra dimension? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is that your extra dimension?

Ah ah ah ah, 

yes but you have an extra one too for your spirit.

Hi Dimreepr,

yes I am a little crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that many of you have read this post. Here, starting from a trivial discussion on entropy, the topic ran aground on the fourth dimension of space, raising many criticisms.

In this period I completed a speculation which, assuming a fourth dimension for space, provides an innovative cosmological model:

In my opinion, it satisfactorily explains the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe as well as it provides a circular path for cosmic background radiation and other radiation in general. It is also totally consistent with all the concepts expressed by relativity, giving a coherent answer for the most distant galaxies. Finally, it provides a hypothesis for the energy lost by the universe which may have been transferred, as heat by thermal radiation, towards the vacuum of the fourth dimension.

I think the fourth dimension of space is fascinating, if you are intrigued by the topic, these are two short articles I published on https://vixra.org/

The first is an introduction to this geometry and to its use in calculating the Galactic Recession. The second goes into the details of the model and provides an approximation for the "Galaxy Epoch" relying on Einstein's solution for Weak Fields.

·         https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0202

·         https://vixra.org/abs/2008.0015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

In my opinion, it satisfactorily explains the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe as well as it provides a circular path for cosmic background radiation and other radiation in general. It is also totally consistent with all the concepts expressed by relativity, giving a coherent answer for the most distant galaxies. 

Word salad.

24 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

Finally, it provides a hypothesis for the energy lost by the universe which may have been transferred, as heat by thermal radiation, towards the vacuum of the fourth dimension.

So the energy that cannot be lost, is just a matter of time? If we squeeze it hard enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, claudio54 said:

I published on https://vixra.org/

😄😆 😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀 🤣😀

Takes a deep breath...

 😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀  😄😆🤣😀 

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

In my opinion, it satisfactorily explains the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe as well as it provides a circular path a precise explanation for cosmic background radiation and other radiation in general. It is also totally consistent with all the concepts expressed by relativity, giving a coherent answer for the most distant galaxies.

That is the Big Bang model.

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

Finally, it provides a hypothesis for the energy lost by the universe

What is this "energy lost by the universe" ? What is the evidence for this ?

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

towards the vacuum of the fourth dimension

Time is a vacuum? That's a new one.

2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

I think the fourth dimension of space is fascinating

What is the "fourth dimension of space"?

What is evidence is there for the "fourth dimension of space"?

 

"Vixra" 🙄

Aren't you even slightly embarrassed by posting all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, claudio54 said:

I have seen that many of you have read this post. Here, starting from a trivial discussion on entropy, the topic ran aground on the fourth dimension of space, raising many criticisms.

In this period I completed a speculation which, assuming a fourth dimension for space, provides an innovative cosmological model:

In my opinion, it satisfactorily explains the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe as well as it provides a circular path for cosmic background radiation and other radiation in general. It is also totally consistent with all the concepts expressed by relativity, giving a coherent answer for the most distant galaxies. Finally, it provides a hypothesis for the energy lost by the universe which may have been transferred, as heat by thermal radiation, towards the vacuum of the fourth dimension.

I think the fourth dimension of space is fascinating, if you are intrigued by the topic, these are two short articles I published on https://vixra.org/

The first is an introduction to this geometry and to its use in calculating the Galactic Recession. The second goes into the details of the model and provides an approximation for the "Galaxy Epoch" relying on Einstein's solution for Weak Fields.

·         https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0202

·         https://vixra.org/abs/2008.0015

 

!

Moderator Note

You need to post the information here, not via links and documents. People have to be able to participate without requiring clicking on anything.

This requirement has not changed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Aren't you even slightly embarrassed by posting all this?

42/5000
 
 
 
and you to criticize without having read first?

 

Swantsont,

if there is a problem close the post. I can't rewrite all

Claudio

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, claudio54 said:

and you to criticize without having read first?

You are not even going to attempt to answer my questions?

No surprises there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.