Theory of existance in a nutshell, thoughts?

[Iximi]

Link leads to picture of notebook page with relevant material (magnification may be helpful):
http://i.imgur.com/IhKyk.jpg?1

Thoughts?

 

[DetachedRetina]

pretty interesting. Although at the big crunch entropy would also be 0 right?

I think I get the idea though except I may not fully understand what you mean by 'negative universe.'

Is that our universe but moving backwards in time? or backwards in entropy?

Very cool idea to simply define time as changing only as entropy does. That is a more convenient system for thinking about the universe on such vast time-scales.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Okay I see; according to your definition of timetropy, the big crunch would be the maximum (1.)

I always thought of the big crunch as everything sucking down into a singularity in a reverse process as the big bang, but that would surely defy the laws of thermodynamics as entropy (in the traditional sense) would have to decrease if everything were to collapse into a singularity. Hmmm...

The funny thing is that if our universe is actually expanding then entropy will increase indefinitely and there will be no maximum value. I think your theory requires that there be some 'end of timetropy' in the positive universe which would be the 'beginning of timetropy' in the negative universe.

If our universe expands indefinitely timetropy goes 0 to infinity and it becomes impossible to normalize the sum value of timetropy as existing somewhere between 0(min) and 1(max)

Cool ideas though. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them?

 

[Iximi]

"Big crunch" is the term I used for familiarity's sake by the by. The "big bang" and "big crunch" are the same event; only the perspective differs.

If entropy is increasing, it would appear as if everything came from a state of maximum energy (big bang). If entropy is decreasing, it would appear as if everything came from a state of minimum energy (big crunch).

Crunch is a misleading term in this context, rather "the point at which no more change is possible" is more accurate. The idea is that the 'positive' and 'negative' universes intersect at their point of singularity, where one is approaching minimum and one is approaching maximum. A figure 8-like diagram might be a better representation *takes mental note*.

To a "conciseness" in this vacuum, this point would be unreachable and unpassable by simply existing and waiting it out. After all, if anything of definition exists besides the fundamental parameters of the vacuum, then the point would still not have come. In addition, if the rate of entropy increases or decreases then time too will increase or decrease accordingly; approaching 1 or 0. Remember, time/entropy is just a measurement of the state of existence in a vacuua. Vacuum-wide singularity events can never be observed from within the vacuum affected.

I'd like to think it may be possible to supplant oneself outside of the vacuum and observe the transition once removed from the equation; a trancendence or merging of the mind with the Aether if you will (actually, this whole idea sprouted from the notion of consciousness and it's relationship to breaking down quantum functions- a force that I equate with the term "Aether".

I hope that clears it up a bit ^_^.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Yeah so you're saying the big bang happens and then eventually the big crunch, (and then repeat process again?)

And you would like to be able to watch it happen.

Is that right?

 

[Iximi]

Being able to watch it is irrelevant really. And no, the positive universe transitions from maximum entropy to minimum entropy after what we call the "big crunch" while the negative one does the opposite.

 

[Eido]

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not criticizing the validity of this idea, but:

I giggled when I saw this.

I had a similar type of theory when I was in high school, and thought I was on to some great revelatory insight. Then I got to college and realized just how little I knew about physics and how the universe actually worked. It was very humbling to realize that all your pet theories were completely ridiculous.

 

[Iximi]

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not criticizing the validity of this idea, but:

I giggled when I saw this.

I had a similar type of theory when I was in high school, and thought I was on to some great revelatory insight. Then I got to college and realized just how little I knew about physics and how the universe actually worked. It was very humbling to realize that all your pet theories were completely ridiculous.

It's interesting that you would say that...

This theory was actually formulated given new information and insights gained through study at my university. Cognitive science, philosophy, quantum physics and string theory primarily. Actually, it is a whole hell of a lot like string theory conceptually if I go into a bit more detail about how Aether's products manifest. I'm still working on the math language to make the theory more clear.

 

[Da Blob]

It really is impossible to talk about such things without accounting for observation and that which observes. For example all measurements are relative. There are those postulate that the primordial mass of the Big Bang was about the size of a a basketball. How this can valid in any way? First of all, there were no basketballs in existence to compare to or anything else. So the determination of size, weight, time etc. and etc. would be impossible to ascertain - even if there was an observer present at the event. So how can such observations be made now? One could easily say that the universe is not expanding, but rather everything in it is shrinking.

Again, the POV and the Observer are essential to any cosmological model

 

[Iximi]

It really is impossible to talk about such things without accounting for observation and that which observes. For example all measurements are relative. There are those postulate that the primordial mass of the Big Bang was about the size of a a basketball. How this can valid in any way? First of all, there were no basketballs in existence to compare to or anything else. So the determination of size, weight, time etc. and etc. would be impossible to ascertain - even if there was an observer present at the event. So how can such observations be made now? One could easily say that the universe is not expanding, but rather everything in it is shrinking.

Again, the POV and the Observer are essential to any cosmological model

Agreed. I am careful to use entropy/time as the only factor when measuring change. Anything that can be measured is merely the product of a collapsed probability function.

 

[nexion]

Two things I would like to say from my own knowledge/ideas:

1. 'time" is a phenomenon which occurs as a result of a change in matter, or, as you have said, a difference in entropy. My conceptualization of time, however, leads me to believe that time and change is not objectively present, but is merely something witnessed within the mind of man (eternalism). At any rate, when there is no change in the matter (entropy), time stops.

2. I personally subscribe to the idea that our universe will end in heat death, not a big crunch. Heat death is 0 entropy; all matter (or energy) is contained within the expanse of space in such a way that matter (energy) stops changing and stops fluctuating. I'm not sure if this what you mean by "Big Crunch" or not since Big Crunch is already a concept in cosmology, yet at the same time you define as "the point at which no more change is possible," which seems more representative of heat death and not the traditional view of the big crunch.

You have much more knowledge in the areas of physics and cosmology than I do, so would you mind telling me how likely you think heat death will take place vs the big crunch and/or big bounce?

 

[Iximi]

Yes, by "big crunch" I do mean maximum entropy. However at the point of maximum entropy the "negative" aspect of our universe would have reached minimum entropy. I only used that term because it represents the 'end' point. Both of those points really represent the same singularity however, the difference is an observer's perspective of the event.

 

[DetachedRetina]

The main argument I could see for a big crunch (and I mean big crunch in the conventional way it's talked about) as opposed to heat death is that we may well still be in the middle of the big bang.

For example the big bang is talked about like an event that happened at the beginning of time, a big explosion that spread everything out. We have observed that our universe is expanding, is this due to some other force than that force of spreading, that explosion that began at the big bang?

People seem to think that the observation that the universe is currently expanding runs contrary to the idea of a universe that expands and then eventually collapses.

May well be that the universe will simply expand indefinitely until heat death, but there doesn't seem to be any more evidence for that route than a big crunch.

Now @Iximi If you define big crunch as being the point when the positive universe achieves maximum entropy (i.e. everything is spread evenly and any change in position or energy of anything would add order to the system) how is that different from a heat death type scenario and what is the point of the negative universe? Your negative universe seems to me to be just looking at the positive universe backwards. What observations are the existence of the negative universe supposed to explain, and what observations are this theory as a whole supposed to explain?

Why phrase it in terms of positive and negative universes and entropy/time?

It is hard to disprove a theory such as this, but sometimes it is also hard to distinguish it from existing theories, simply defined using a new set of words.

I would recommend laying out some formulas and predictions if you wish to take this theory further. What advantages does your theory offer over others, and does it offer any correct predictions?

I have a lot of fun coming up with pet theories too, I also recommend going over to the physics forum and looking at other peoples' theories. The people there are generally pretty open minded to new ideas too, and can help you further develop your theories.