The Universe as a Gas Can – Part I: Entropy

This is pretty much what cosmology says. The Big Bang started in a state of thermal equilibrium - an even bath of radiation with all the same temperature. Then the radiation cooled to a point where a fair chunk of it condensed out as matter.

In that respect, the universe fell out of equilibrium and so there is an entropic equilibrium to restore. All the matter will want to find ways to turn back into radiation and catch up with the general cosmic flow again if it can. Hence stars, for instance. And black holes can also radiate so will eventually evaporate over sufficient time.

As an aside, consider how heat content and spatial extent are mirror images of each other at the Planck scale of the Big Bang.

The Planck temperature is defined by a wavelength with a frequency of one Planck distance. So it is all about the size of a single energetic vibration that can be packed into a single unit of space. This single wave is so compressed that it represents the hottest or most blueshifted light.

So the lack of room for light to move at the moment of the Big Bang is also what set its heat to the maximum energy scale or temperature that radiation can have.

You can see there is a very direct connection here between the container and its contents.

The Heat Death is then likewise defined by a Universe arriving at a state where any remaining photons are so redshifted that they are a single wavelength stretched the size of the visible universe. The radiation now has a temperature of virtually absolute zero degrees K.

So it is absolutely the case that there is a relation between the available space for radiation and its consequent energy scale.

Reply to apokrisis You little ripper! - as we say in Australia.

** An expression of great joy. **

Quoting apokrisis

So it is absolutely the case that there is a relation between the available space for radiation and its consequent energy scale.

So the upshot is that the reason for the expansion of the universe is about entropy. If we knew the correlate between mass, entropy and space, we could calculate how much space it would take to drain the energy back out of matter.

If that’s correct, then it would seem to follow that the expansion of space would cease once that figure is reached (the Heat Death is reached) - but I know that the cessation of expansion isn't supposed to happen. This can only mean that the full conversion never happens.

Do you know the problem. Is it the wavelength of radiation - can it never become linear and thus disappear back into the initial condition? The exponential curve that never hits zero? Why would it keep expanding do you think? (I don't buy momentum from the Big Bang)

Quoting apokrisis

So the lack of room for light to move at the moment of the Big Bang is also what set its heat to the maximum energy scale or temperature that radiation can have.

It almost sounds like a false start doesn't it. Let me ask you a question. You've seen those drawing of a gravity well with mass sitting plum in the centre? Do you think that if we just created the well, matter might appear?

Quoting MikeL

If that’s correct, then it would seem to follow that the expansion of space would cease once that figure is reached (the Heat Death is reached) - but I know that the cessation of expansion isn't supposed to happen. This can only mean that the full conversion never happens.

This is getting into very tricky to explain areas but we now have evidence of a "dark" energy or positive cosmological constant that is driving the accelerated expansion of the Universe. So that faint extra push in fact ensures a heat death at some future predictable moment in time.

Our corner of the universe is bounded by a still expanding event horizon - what we call the hubble radius that defines the visible universe. So because the universe is expanding spatially, everything towards the edge of our point of view just gets faster and faster until it is effectively going faster than the speed of light. At that point it vanishes from view. It disappears over the horizon of the hubble radius. We can no longer have any interaction with it.

In a universe without an extra dark energy push, a perfectly balanced universe would be coasting to a halt at the end of time. Eventually everything that has been disappearing over the horizon would reappear because the metric expansion would be steadily slowing, running out of steam, and that would give time for even the most distant light to start reaching us again.

But with dark energy, instead the hubble radius/event horizon would still be there. The larger universe would still be super-luminally out of reach for us. However the horizon itself would cease to expand and instead come to a halt at a fixed distance. And that then means the entropy of the visible universe could not physically get any lower. A fixed horizon means as much would entropy would be re-entering as leaving. So the total becomes a final condition.

Think about it as running down an up escalator. At some point, you are running at the same speed as the escalator going the other way and so you just stay in the same place. Despite all the action.

And we can measure where we are in this story using the principle of holographic event horizons.

The existing entropy content of our visible universe is represented by the "container" of an event horizon that has swallowed up 10^122 degrees of freedom. Eventually all the cosmic back ground radiation will add to that, swell the horizon. But only by a surprisingly small amount - a contribution of just 10^88 extra degrees of freedom. That's a round-up error of 34 decimal places.

Even the evaporation of all the super-massive blackholes in our corner of the universe would only add 10^103 degrees of freedom - a clerical adjustment to the 19th decimal place of the total sum.

So we pretty much are at the Heat Death as things stand, even if those super-massive blackholes are going to take about another 10^103 years to fully decay.

Quoting MikeL

Do you know the problem. Is it the wavelength of radiation - can it never become linear and thus disappear back into the initial condition? The exponential curve that never hits zero? Why would it keep expanding do you think? (I don't buy momentum from the Big Bang)

The momentum of the Big Bang explains most of the story. The little extra contribution from "dark energy" has become the new mystery. But it could just be a tamed remnant of inflation or the simple product of quantum uncertainty at the vacuum level. There are certainly plausible theories.

The other bit of the new physics is realising that event horizons radiate. That is why the universe would be able to reach some actual final heat death temperature - as the only thing glowing would be the "container" itself. The cosmic event horizon at its fixed position would emit black-body radiation as a normal quantum process. It is just that the photons would be so absolutely cold or stretched that they would have a wavelength the size of the visible universe itself.

Which is what I pointed out about the symmetry between the Big Bang and its Planck scale heat, and the Heat Death, where once again the energy inside the container matches the size of the container in its frequency.

So some new deep connections have been discovered. Even physicists and cosmologists are still trying to figure out a definite meaning for them.

If you are interested, check out Charlie Lineweaver - of your favourite university, ANU. He wrote a good Sci Am piece and has a ton of great papers on his webpage.

Quoting apokrisis

the energy inside the container matches the size of the container in its frequency.

Frequency. This is an excellent description of space that has turned some mental tumblers. Before the big bang there would have been an absolutely compressed frequency which would put energy out of the spatial plane entirely. That's how it arose from nothing. It would have had a frequency of one meaning it was a line with a point moving vertically up and down it. Thus space is the background for an echo or a reverberation. Energy is creating its own context. I'll let that idea percolate for a bit.

Tonnes of good stuff to digest in your post. :)

Reply to apokrisis We are going from amplitude 1 wavelength 0 to amplitude 0 wavelength 1. The energy of the universe is reorientating itself. That's what the universe is, the reorientation of energy. Matter and emergent systems make more sense now. Matter is not the enemy of energy. It is the holding configuration, rendering it relatively inert for a time, to allow the reconfiguration. Entropy is the master control. The 'anti-entropic' heirachical states merely allow a variably timed redistribution of energy.

Quoting MikeL

It would have had a frequency of one meaning it was a line with a point moving vertically up and down it.

Think also of the fact that a sine wave is formed by the rotation of the unit circle....



So taking the particle viewpoint - the fundamental U1 symmetry that accounts for the nature of radiation - there is a duality here that explains things. The shortest frequency is also the quantum spin - a rotation with Planck scale.

A limitation to spatial extent - a fundamental smallness - is cashed out in the other direction by a matching largeness of the rotational confinement. Spin starts out with its highest possible value. And so the first sine wave echo to resonate in the Planck-scale cavity is as hot as it gets in being also as curved as it gets. (Spacetime curvature equalling energy density in the general relativity view.)

Once you put the bits and pieces together, you begin to see the pattern of relations that compose the Planck scale. All the aspects of the Cosmos that seem broken apart and unrelated are unified, different ways of looking at the same thing, at the Planck scale.

This has become explicit in the way modern physics has evolved. It is the reason why quantum gravity would count as a final gluing together of the Planckian parts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGh_physics

Quoting apokrisis

Spacetime curvature equalling energy density in the general relativity view

Yes, I see the bridge. I'm not there quite yet though. The quantum spin that creates the frequency of the Planck scale temperature, does it still exist or is it conceptual? The rest of the radiation of the universe is the result of the growing expansion of the wheel? As the energy density of the universe weakens the circle grows? Energy density is highest where space is the most curved - macroscopically that would be in gravity fields I guess. So in a way it answers whether bending space would cause mass to appear - Yes - mass as a radiating body. The deeper the curvature the tighter the frequency of radiation.

Thus quantum gravity would glue together the Planckian parts because quantum gravity represents the most extreme bending of space possible and thus able to create Planck temperatures?

Quoting MikeL

The quantum spin that creates the frequency of the Planck scale temperature, does it still exist or is it conceptual? The rest of the radiation of the universe is the result of the growing expansion of the wheel?

This particular part of the story is more my speculative argument. I'm not really aware of any explicit development of it in the literature.

But anyway, the argument would be that spacetime has its two critical symmetries once it is expanded and flat. Rotation and translation are the two inertial forms of motion that are symmetry preserving actions and so not entropic. Any material body can move in a straight line at a constant speed forever. And also rotate in the same spot forever. So even in classical Newtonian mechanics, this duality of translation and rotation is a very deep fact.

And then all the particles of nature are explained as varieties of fundamental spin symmetry. And their spin is complex as a massive particle - one able to be moving slower than the speed of light - could be spinning in three possible directions. A massless particle - which must travel at c - can only spin in two (for the complicated reason you can never accelerate faster than the particle and "reverse its spin" in its forward direction of travel by looking at it from in front.)

So if we start with the Big Bang as a primal fluctuation - just an action and a direction - then it might be both a primal rotation and a primal translation at the same time. (After all, why discriminate by labelling it one kind of action or conserved symmetry rather than the other?) But the translation - a free action involving moving in some straight line - is as small as it ever could be in this first moment. While the rotation is as big as it ever could be already. A full turn is possible in the tightest space.

Then as the Universe expands and cools, you have a swing the other way. Now any remaining translational action can travel as far as its pleases. But all rotational action - in terms if intrinsic quantum spin - is left behind, located in an increasingly shrunken fashion. Translation's gain is rotation's loss.

Radiation - as particles travelling through a void - of course combines translation and rotation. A photon is a wave with a rotating phase. The spin carves a helix along a path. The spin stays constant in size - the quantum spin of a particle just has a number (0, 1/2, 1, 1.5, 2). But the path is being stretched by the expansion of space, and so the helix or wave form is redshifted and loses effective energy.

You can imagine the difference if spin could change its rate. If the spin rate increased to match the stretching effect, then the helix would write the same corkscrew on the universe. It would be like shrinking the rolling circle that creates the sine wave to tighten up the frequency it is losing.

(And if spin could slow, it would be like the rolling circle getting bigger, so delivering the red-shift in a non-expanding universe - the kind of complementary effect you were going for with contracting spatial co-ordinates. Again, the sign that a view is fundamentally right is that it can be inverted and still give you the same essential story. This formal duality principle is the big thing that sparked string theory's second revolution and is why AdS/CFT correspondence in holographic theory is such a big result. So seeking duality is definitely the approved way to think.)

So to sum up, any primal action at all requires also the dimensional container to give it shape. So quantum action and spatiotemporal structure must go hand in hand from the get-go. And the Planck scale encodes that dichotomy in incorporating both the h that scales quantum action and the G that scales gravity (and so defines what counts as a flat container).

Then a second primal dichotomy is the one between rotation and translation as actions that are both conserved due to spacetime symmetries. Both are possible, and thus both are happening, from the get-go of the first Big Bang fluctuation. But rotation starts with the volume turned up to 10 and then gets "lost in space". And translation starts with no room to express itself, but eventually comes to be the dominant mode of action. Particles which then carry both kind of actions (as little rotatable and translatable packets of excitation) carve out helical paths that looked increasing stretched and red-shifted as spatial extent grows while rotational possibility remains rooted right where it started.

Bear in mind that quantum spin is a lot more complicated than I've just described it. I've just stuck to the story of photons as the simplest possible case.

Just to make sure I've got your idea right.

Quoting apokrisis

And then all the particles of nature are explained as varieties of fundamental spin symmetry. And their spin is complex as a massive particle - one able to be moving slower than the speed of light - could be spinning in three possible directions. A massless particle - which must travel at c - can only spin in two (for the complicated reason you can never accelerate faster than the particle and "reverse its spin" in its forward direction of travel by looking at it from in front.)

So these are higher order spins. We have the spin of the object about its own central axis, the spin of the object about its translational axis (the helix), a third spin could be the rotation of the helix through space and so on (like a chromosome wrapping around histones). It's funny to find higher order systems in something as simple as spin. The other spin, viewing it as you go past the object would seem like a perceptual change though, not an actual one.

So the pre-Big Bang, 'maximum' spin conformations and speeds and very tight hard reversible translations (creating the reverse spin conformations except in the innate spin). Like an out of control washing machine thrashing furiously.

These actions are timeless, anti-entropic, however, later as space expands the higher order spin conformations become stretched translationally. Translation itself undergoes space expansion. If there was no translational expansion of rotation then the relative effect on the wavelength would be compressive. Radiation would be blue shifted to the Planck temperature. Translation of rotation at a rate faster than the expansive rate of the universe would red shift it. Which does seem to be happening.

But what of the innate spin - it wouldn't undergo translational expansion. It would remain constant. So, it is this spin that is a universal constant while the fact that translation matches (or does it) space expansion renders it also a constant.

Is that it?

Reply to apokrisis The reversible nature of translation and rotation (except for innate spin) at the time before the big bang would have seemed like a switch blinking on and off, into and out of existence. As the translations grew larger the time between the blinks grew longer and the blink itself became more sustained. Finally the translation became so large it broke a restorative constraint, becoming non-reversible and dragging rotation out with it.

What does it even mean to talk about the world and the way it existed before human experience, language, and concepts? This scientific view of the world just assumes there was an already laid out, independent world, which we just by happenstance have a view upon, almost like an external observer from another reality 'looking in'.

We can only talk about this supposed pre-human physical world, using language taught and passed on through people's, cultures, practices, and histories - all entirely human. Is there some sort of independently existing past out there in some void beyond this 'lifeworld' we inhabit, to which our words fly out and refer to?

I feel as if this scientific, materialist view of the world is tantamount to religious delusion. People talk about the big bang the same they talk about God's "let there be light" - it's a creation story. Yes, this scientific approach toward the past has explanatory and predictive value, but that does not mean the unobservables used within the approach actually exist out there.

Quoting antinatalautist

but that does not mean the unobservables used within the approach actually exist out there.

You are confused about the philosophy of science. As a method, it is explicit that it simply forms theories of the thing in itself.

Having laid that epistemic foundation, it can then get on with developing theories that have maximal objectivity - ideas that are measurably the most viewpoint invariant.

Reply to MikeL Any blinking at all would require the dimensionality that would make it a thing. So the blinking would itself be the first symmetry breaking - a raw first emergence of an action with a direction. Then after that would come the second distinction of actions that conserve rotational symmetry and actions that conserve translational symmetry.

At the Planck scale, rotation and translation would look the same - just a blink, a pulse of action or energy, as you put it. But as soon as space started to grow in scale, there would be these two energy conserving directions in which things could spill.

Spin then gives shape to the particles which are the located excitations. The standard model describes the fundamental gauge symmetries that allow particles to exist. Then translation allows those localised excitations to propagate and disperse.

So one direction of motion produces particles. The other lets them spread and fragment to create an en-mattered void that is running down an entropic gradient.

Quoting apokrisis

Having laid that epistemic foundation, it can then get on with developing theories that have maximal objectivity - ideas that are measurably the most viewpoint invariant.

But that's not what people mean when they talk about scientific objectivity, including within this thread. When people talk about the Big Bang, they talk about it as if it was an event that really happened, out there in some independently existing past, billions of years before the existence of humans (and the concept "billions of years").

Reply to antinatalautist Huh? People only began to talk about the Big Bang when the evidence began to build for it. They had to start making the best sense of the observed facts.

Even if you want to pretend to be a strict idealist here, there would still be the same need to account for the structure of our experience. We can't just wish all those red-shifted galaxies to instead be blue-shifted.

So sure, it is important to understand scientific knowledge is socially constructed. But that doesn't mean it's just some fantasy story with no basis in reality. It means that there is in fact a right way to socially construct knowledge if the goal is "objectivity". And that way is ... science.

Reply to apokrisis

I spent the better part of two days working with rotation and translation ideas to little avail. In the end I think it is the question you are trying to solve with it that I don't quite understand. Why it is conserved in space?- is that it? My conclusion was - that it is only conserved in idealic circumstances. I don't see how it is conserved otherwise. For example we know that a material body will accelerate (or decelerate) as well as alter course in a gravitational field, thereafter adopting higher or lower translational velocities (slingshotting) and we know space is curved, and if it passes the even horizon of black hole nothing gets out. In linear non-gravitational space I think the conservation rule holds. Do you disagree?

For now though, I was thinking about this on my jog:

And if there is the third option of expansion - as there really must be just because it is both what we can see, and what is most probable given the Universe has been around long enough for us to be even wondering - then this expansion must be most remarkably fine-tuned. The expansion - or indeed now, the acceleration - is adjusted to be exactly the amount needed to make the Universe almost perfectly flat and future eternal.

The details are worth going into as this is a cosmic scale whodunnit. It shows how poor our metaphysical intuitions can be. It shows why proper science is actually needed. :)

The actual physics has long moved on. The question now is why is it faintly accelerating by some precisely correct amount to make up for the 70 per cent of "missing mass". There is plenty of speculation about possible answers, but right now it is simply a really big and interesting gap in our scientific knowledge.

And have come up with this:

The idea that the universe is expanding beyond that accounted for by entropy obviously suggests another unaccounted for energy - the dark energy you talked about. I had an idea, and I've been researching as I write this and so far my hunches are panning out as I go along (ironically I find it quite frustrating). Maybe I am just treading a well worn path here.

At the beginning of the universe it was not just temperature that dropped, but also pressure (just came across negative pressure). When we have a rapid drop in pressure things bubble (I can't think of a more scientific term). What if spacetime bubbled (we know its curved). A bubble would be an area of less dense space, which would want to collapse back out, thus providing a push. Punctuating the area around the bubbles would be higher density areas where matter formed (gravity) - like the parts giving shape to the inside of an egg carton. So while matter wants to go from a dense to a less dense energy form, dark energy wants to go from less dense to more dense.

If we consider more dense space as having curvature - gravity, then less dense space would have an inverse curvature - an anti-gravity effect. Thus matter can arise in gravity - curvature (as I've suggested before) - OK, I've just found out that dark matter has a force that repels gravity.
These large bubbles would explain why there is more dark energy than matter energy, why the energy value of the universe continues beyond the container of entropy, and why dark energy has such a low density. As it collapses we would expect velocity of collapse to increase, consistent with the expanding velocity of the universe. It also explains why the expanding universe does not enlarge matter.

I found a reference to quantum foam relating it to space density which also kind of fits in. I have just found this good reference here which actually fits the bill too. Actually, like I thought, it might be a well worn path I'm describing, more speculation, but I'll pass it on to you anyway.

Aside:
As you know, I like to work on visualizing these types of problems but most of the time they've been solved- I think I'm on the right track here, but I don't think it's ground breaking. You're more up to date than me with the state of science, can you suggest an unsolved physics puzzle?

Quoting MikeL

Why it is conserved in space?- is that it?

The proper answer is very technical - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Quoting MikeL

In linear non-gravitational space I think the conservation rule holds.

Yes. And then energy is not necessarily conserved under GR as the reference frame is free to flex. That is, GR doesn't provide you with a fixed geometry that could make local symmetry a hardwired thing.

Quoting MikeL

When we have a rapid drop in pressure things bubble

You mean if they contain dissolved gas. So a quite specific phenomenon, called cavitation, that has no real connection.

Quoting MikeL

A bubble would be an area of less dense space, which would want to collapse back out, thus providing a push. Punctuating the area around the bubbles would be higher density areas where matter formed (gravity) - like the parts giving shape to the inside of an egg carton.

Unfortunately for that theory of yours, the Universe looks fantastically even in its expansion. That is what the CMB maps are about. So the dark energy must be evenly spread. Your approach says everything would instead be remarkably patchy. That would be obvious too see.

Reply to apokrisis I typed in space bubble theory and got this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
Although I don't see why a bubble would have to contain gas. It would not be hollow, just relative low density areas of space all collapsing to provide a uniform outward push (at least in a 2d reference frame).

Like this:

Reply to apokrisis You might also find this interesting. It talks about creating cavitation as a function of wavelength and (of course) frequency. It also talks about conservation of energy as it relates to cavitation size, although it does not address the density of the medium - or any changes therein. It also talks of power, which we would substitute for energy.

We know that when space began everything was tripping over itself to get out (high density) and as it broke free it became less dense.

And just now, typing expansion of bubbles (to see if I could simulate the push) gave me this.

Quoting MikeL

And just now, typing expansion of bubbles (to see if I could simulate the push) gave me this.

Hah. I wasn't going to mention that to avoid complicating things. But you realise that is a way to do without dark energy at all? So a patchy distribution of regular matter would leave under-dense regions that could expand faster.

Reply to apokrisis Yeah, the conclusion left me scratching my head.

Reply to apokrisis Actually, now that I re-read it, it seems to fall in line with what I said at the beginning - that mass would form in the gaps, don't you think? I don't see why both theories can't be right. The large low density space areas are dark energy. And looking at the pictures they're showing of the network of galaxies, it seems to match right up.

Reply to apokrisis

This image of the galaxies is the missing ratio?

Reply to MikeL Again, dark energy would be inherent in space - the quantum vacuum - itself. That is why it could create a basic tension or negative pressure that accelerates expansion. But it would also have to be everywhere evenly. Space couldn't be full of cosmic scale holes, could it?

But if you love bubbles, they appear in a variety of cosmological scenarios, like reheating - https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0839

As a mechanism, it is not outlandish.

Reply to apokrisis It is inherent in space. The negative pressure is due to the shape, which is an antrgravitational shape. So imagine them as energy balls in space that you can only go over. It keeps pushing things around them like a forcefield. And I think it could create an accelerating expansion because the tangent on the collapsing bubble would move from vertical to the horizontal plane as it collapses, causing greater horizontal speed. Expansion would be uniform because all the sides are touching. Mass remains unaffected because it is in the ditches and doesn't expand (remember we talked about if you could create matter by bending space). The universe photo is the egg carton. I'll check out the link tomorrow. This is good fun.

Reply to apokrisis I just realised I may have not explained it adequately. It is inherent because the bubbles are 'in' space - it is the curvature of space. An outward rather than inward curvature. The negative pressure is because it is collapsing while the universe is expanding.

Reply to apokrisis If it is true, do you see the beauty of it? Mass is governed by entropy which wishes to bring gravity (ultimately) up to flat space by dissolving the energy out of matter. Dark energy also wants to flatten itself out in order to become flat space but in the reverse. Gravity flattens out of its well, dark energy flattens its mole hill. A process of ironing the kinks out.

Quoting MikeL

Dark energy also wants to flatten itself out in order to become flat space but in the reverse. Gravity flattens out of its well, dark energy flattens its mole hill.

But gravity wants to curve spacetime into a tight ball - a singularity. And dark energy is the opposite in wanting to curve spacetime hyperbolically - a constant bending away from itself. So we have a positive and negative curvature deal that balances out and leaves a flat Euclidean spacetime.

It is more complicated than that. But it is crucial that gravitating mass produces positive curvature (like a sphere surface) while dark energy is about negative curvature (like the surface of a saddle).

Reply to apokrisis
Quoting apokrisis

But gravity wants to curve spacetime into a tight ball - a singularity. And dark energy is the opposite in wanting to curve spacetime hyperbolically - a constant bending away from itself.

At first glance it appears as if they have swapped places. If you took your analogy of the sphere and the saddle, that is just the same as the energy ball/egg of dark energy and the matter shape of the egg carton respectively. Because they are coming out in exactly the opposite places like this it suggests it is a problem of imagining or assigning the wrong an inverse property the attribute (so instead of using gravity you use antigravity for example). The basic shapes are correct though.

That gravity wants to curve space time into a tight ball is just saying it wants to increase the density of space around it. All force lines feed in (that is why it can also be visualised as a well). Dark Energy is exactly the opposite and wants to curve spacetime the other way - low density with the field lines moving out of it (a bubble). There is no conflict here I can see between what you say and what I say that cannot be solved by realising that we can describe an object in terms of its background or intrinsic volume (opposite but the same).

Entropy of course doesn't want space to curve into a tighter ball. It wants to free the energy locked in high density space and give energy that to low density space so that all space becomes nice and even. We know entropy bleeds energy out of matter. We know the curvature of space in terms of gravity is produced by mass. If mass is bleeding energy its gravitational field lowers. The gravity well rises toward the surface (the ball becomes less tight) because of the net effect of entropy.

Entropy would also be acting on dark energy, not to release energy but gain energy in terms of space density, which would be something we could look at and think about.

I am glad you said they balance each other, because I have been wanting them to form that relationship. They don't match each other spatially but in terms of net energy- note I say net energy. This is important to create a neat energy sine wave. ). Gravity is very tight, high density energy but of short duration (a deep narrow trough), while dark energy would be expanded low density energy over a much longer duration (a shallow wide bowl). But gravity and dark energy can share the same total energy value.

As the entropy does it's work the sine way flattens. When it has flatlined, it is game over and the flip of the wave from frequency 1 wavelength 0 to frequency 0 wavelength 1 is complete (but I don't think it ever will because I don't think this is a property a radiating sine wave can adopt - the eternal redshift we talked of earlier).

Is there something about it that still bothers you? It seems like a nice little energy symmetry.

Reply to apokrisis I've looked at the density parameters and cosmological constant. I see your saddle shape and the conclusion of the heat death. I don't see how we should feel constrained to that view though. The model I'm suggesting differs in two regards:
1. It does not assume a uniform density - but rather two types (Dark Energy itself postulates this) - does that make it a Quintessence? Not sure.
2. It does not assume the density is eternal, but rather moving toward a net equilibrium through the mechanism of entropy, which would suggest an ultimate (perhaps unrealistic or ultimately ideal) flat geometric space.

*I would note that I am not entirely sure how geometry is defined in cosmology, and I realise the term energy is in danger of conflation between being a geometric property and a value (like how much fuel is in the gas tank) and even with entropy.

I read that the Standard Model when used to predict vacuum energy comes up with a value 120 order of magnitude too large, so I see that the door is open to ideas here. (I am working on a dark energy one that might fit in, but one step at a time).

How are you travelling with the idea?

Reply to MikeL You haven’t given a good reason for why two directions of action or entropic dissipation would be separated in a way that produces clumpiness.

The mainstream physics story is that gravity only switched on to become a contracting force after the Higgs symmetry was broken. The universe had grown enough to cool enough and so gravitating mass could condense out and start to make the distribution of matter clumpy, or bubbly.

This is why primordial quantum fluctuations in the original distribution of the Big Bang radiation are so important. There had to be a seed inhomgeneity already present in the matter distribution which the switching on of gravity would then amplify to create a fractal distribution of stars and galaxies.

So a well worked out story to account for the bubbly distribution of matter in space already exists. Theory matches observation. An army of well funded scientists have researched this.

Now you are wanting to invent an explanation for something that is not observed - a bubbly distribution of space itself.

You might argue spacetime is bubbly because it has event horizons due to its expansion and lightspeed limits on material interactions. The Cosmos has a fractal lightcone structure.

So yes, on the one hand, bubbly structure - fractal distributions - are the very hallmark of entropy-maximising processes. It is why you run up against bubbly features when talking about cosmological mechanisms.

But there is no need to invent bubbly explanations unless there are bubbly observations in need of explanation.

Dark energy is an example of a cosmic feature which looks to exist evenly everywhere for the vacuum - the basic spatial fabric of the universe.

And yes, the alternative view that dark energy is just an observational illusion - the result of the distribution of matter being more fractally distributed than the standard inflationary Big Bang model - is quite plausible. It depends on whether the calculations those guys need to do pan out and give us some detectable prediction that matches what we can see.

So matter distribution is already said to be bubbly - due to the amplification of primordial fluctuations. Now the question is whether dark energy is a further expansion mechanism when it comes to the smoothness of matter’s spatial backdrop.

Dark energy has no reason to be clumpy, either theoretically or observationally. So as speculation, that hypothesis has poor motivation.

Quoting MikeL

It is my contention that when matter was created, the energy value of the universe, as detected by the container that held it, fell (the energy of matter could not be read).

I was following you up to this point, but this is where I lose you. So, this container can detect the energy value of the universe? How's that? And what are you suggesting by that bit in brackets at the end? "The energy value of the universe fell" is somehow equivalent with "The energy of matter could not be read"? Or that the latter somehow implies the former? Or something else?

Reply to apokrisis There is an assumption that gravity arises as a result of matter. But gravity is the very curvature of space itself. For now, as a heuristic (or just to humor me), imagine it the other way around. I have to leave for work now, and I don't want to rush, but I will suggest am application of this type of thinking may allow for an explanation of dark matter.

Reply to Sapientia There is no meaning to having an energy value fall unless it is relative to something.

Quoting MikeL

There is no meaning to having an energy value fall unless it is relative to something.

Yes, I understand that. It fell relative to its original value. Can you please explain how that answers my questions?

Reply to MikeL Gravity is spatiotemporal curvature according to one way of modelling reality - general relativity. And it is a force in another - quantum physics (with its gravitons).

So you have to be careful not to mistake the ontological commitments that science might make in modelling with some kind of final exhaustive truth about the "thing in itself". That is, you can't say gravity is not a force because it is curvature. Both of those alternatives are themselves just models.

Also don't forget that dark matter has nothing whatsoever to do with dark energy.

This container can detect the energy value of the universe [i]because[/I]... (?)

What I meant when I said such-and-such was... (?) And this is the case [i]because[/I]... (?)

Reply to Sapientia The basic idea of general relativity, as famously expressed by John Wheeler, is: "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."

So the shape of the spacetime "container" is determined by the distribution of its material contents. That shape then determines the gravitational acceleration that distributed masses will feel - mass will just run inertially along the curves of that space.

I believe that is the basic thought MikeL is trying to express. Though in using his own colourful language, it is not so clear how well he understands what a physicist would be meaning.

And yes, there is a mysterious issue of how could matter and spacetime "talk to each other" in this fashion. How does each "detect" the difference that each causes in the other?

This is where the metaphysics comes into it. The physics has a model that works. But the mechanism sounds a little spooky and supernatural when you start to focus on the "how" of such a two-way mutual, or dichotomous, interaction.

It is just the same as when Newton formulated his own theory of gravity and was forced just to conclude that there is "action at a distance". He knew that talk of an immaterial interaction - a connection supported by nothing - sounded metaphysically crazy. But the maths worked beautifully (over the then available scales of observation).

Later science had better instruments. General relativity came along to show that "spacetime curvature" could do away with the need for spooky instantaneous connections with nothing inbetween to explain them.

But now there is a new spooky connection between mass density and spacetime curvature to be explained. So onwards to quantum gravity theory. :)

Quoting apokrisis

The basic idea of general relativity, as famously expressed by John Wheeler, is: "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."

So the shape of the spacetime "container" is determined by the distribution of its material contents. That shape then determines the gravitational acceleration that distributed masses will feel - mass will just run inertially along the curves of that space.

Yes.






(And yes, he does go on to explain that it isn't just space that curves, but time too).

Quoting apokrisis

I believe that is the basic thought MikeL is trying to express. Though in using his own colourful language, it is not so clear how well he understands what a physicist would be meaning.

I don't know whether it's his thinking or his language or both, but whatever it is, it has been problematic. You're doing a much better job of explaining things, and it is much obliged.

The thing is, though, as much as I am interested to learn about physics, I didn't just come here for that. I came here - after being urged to do so by Mike himself - to check out Mike's big idea, or contention, which he seemed so eager to share and discuss. Yet, at the first hurdle I encounter in my attempt to understand his opening post, after seeking clarification from him, disappointingly, I am met with an unhelpful single-sentence reply.

I will also note that, thus far, besides aprokisis and a member who only submitted a few general comments relating to scientific anti-realism, I am the only other person to have replied.

It would be nice if Mike could explain himself properly in response to my queries, in his own words, without relying on an interpreter to act as a sort of intermediary.

Reply to apokrisis I am no physicist.

The Universe as a Gas Can – Part II: Dark Matter

In QM, gravity is considered a force, the graviton being the force carrier. In GR, gravity is represented as a geometric curvature of spacetime created by mass.

When we have (spacetime) expansion and we have (spacetime) curvature, it is hard not to imagine waves. With the exception of matter, everything else in the universe seems comprised of waves. Gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and recently observed emanating from neutron stars.

“Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that are generated in certain gravitational interactions and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light.
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of its volume. As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves.” [ quote ]

Higgs, Temperature & Curvature

The Higgs Mechanism speculates that mass arose with the cooling of the universe. When energy fell below a certain very high critical temperature it caused a symmetry breaking.

“The simplest description of the mechanism adds a quantum field (the Higgs field) that permeates all space, to the Standard Model. Below some extremely high temperature, the field causes spontaneous symmetry breaking [between the electroweak interactions (electromagnetism and weak interaction- which at high temperature appear symmetrical in all respects)].
The breaking of symmetry triggers the Higgs mechanism, causing the bosons it interacts with to have mass.” [ quote1 ] (In Supersymmetry, which attempts to unite QM with GR the bosons are force carriers with no mass, fermions are the constituents of matter because they have mass)

The first important thing to note here is that the Higgs Mechanism talks in terms of fields – the Higgs field which is added to the Standard Model (of fundamental forces) to explain the formation of mass. It also talks of temperature invoking the creation of mass (claiming a symmetry break of electroweak forces). I want to look at temperature as it relates to curvature of space.

If the Universe continues to expand, science predicts a heat death (where there is no difference in temperature across space). The heat death has been described as occurring due to entropy. “When all the energy the in the cosmos is uniformly spread out, there is no more heat or free energy to fuel processes that consume energy, such as life.” [ quote2 ]


The equal distribution of energy in the universe would correspond to one with no curvature (no region denser than another).

“If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.” [ quote3 ]

Thus, curvature and temperature can be related in this sense. A flattening of space equates with a reduction in temperature because of the even distribution of energy across it. The Higgs Mechanism suggests that a decrease in temperature (the spacing of energy) caused matter to materialise via this mechanism. We might thus re-write this assumption as: a change in the curvature of spacetime caused matter to materialise via this mechanism.

An inward curvature of space represents gravity. Thus, we could say that gravity caused matter to materialise… via this mechanism. Note, this is suggesting gravity is the cause of matter, not that matter is the cause of gravity. It is a distinction I wish to stress (and my assertion).

Gravity Waves and The Big Bang

“In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass.” [ quote4 ]

I believe there is a problem with looking at gravity in terms of mass. The problem is it becomes very pointilised. A sun has a gravity of X-value, and sits in its well, bending space around it enough to trap the orbits of the planets which all sit in their own gravity wells trapping their moons etc. Each one of the positions is a point in space from which gravity emanates.

I find the idea of such pointilised gravity counter-intuitive at large scales – we don’t see points. We see corridors or troughs of gravity. Higgs suggested a change in a field to create matter. Changes in field states are expressed as waves.

I suggest that gravity propagated as a wave at the time of the Big Bang, much like it did in the recorded observations of the neutron stars. As it’s wavelength redshifted, the temperature dropped causing mass/matter to precipitate through some (the Higgs) mechanism. It was no ordinary wave though. I suggest it was a ‘Prime Wave’, meaning that it came momentarily before the others.

Gravity is unique among the forces, for while it does not respond to the influence from the other forces, it does exert an effect upon them, much like a master-slave relation. “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote5 ]

“The fundamental reason that gravitons have proved harder to model than other bosons such as photons, is that other types of bosons do not interact with other bosons of their own type. For example, photons do not interact with photons. Photons carry the electromagnetic force, but are not charged themselves and do not interact via this force. Photons have (relativistic) mass and interact with gravity, but not with their own forces. Like photons, gravitons also carry (relativistic) mass, but unlike photons and gluons, they carry the gravitational force which interacts with this mass. As well as gravitons having to thus interact with other gravitons, quantum mechanics means they must also interact with themselves via virtual particles.” [ quote6 ]

It's prime position among other particles and forces, and the way it curves spacetime, suggests that the emanating gravitational wave from the time of the Big Bang might be the underlying fabric of spacetime itself.

“In some descriptions energy modifies the "shape" of spacetime itself, and gravity is a result of this shape, an idea which at first glance may appear hard to match with the idea of a force acting between particles.” [ quote7 ]

The universe we see is not dominated by outwardly expanding rings of gravity, but rather cut up into interference patterns (clusters of matter in long thin threads). For this reason, the idea of gravity troughs or gravity corridors carries a greater visual power than gravity waves – although the one necessarily implies the other. (I will attempt to explain this clumpiness shortly).

Dark Matter

“Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter distinct from baryonic matter (ordinary matter such as protons and neutrons), neutrinos and dark energy.
Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.” [ quote8 ]

At this point I would like to redirect your attention to the earlier quote: “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote9 ]

“Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of baryonic matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, on the formation of galaxies, and its effects on the cosmic microwave background.
The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.” [ quote10 ]

I define gravity corridors as long sunken regions of space where the collective gravities are exerting a collective pull on the fabric of space. I further suggest that this collective pull on the fabric of space is causing a sinking of space beyond the numerical sum of each individual gravity (an extended caving in around gravity clusters)- such an effect could be a candidate for Dark Matter. It is an important note here while I am insisting there can be no matter without gravity, I am also asserting the existence of gravity without matter. We could liken the formation of matter from gravity as similar in nature to a thermocline, where matter precipitates out beyond a certain gravity value/curvature. That value was attained at the time of the Big Bang.

The idea that gravity should be thought of in terms of permanent corridors (more than just being a ripple effect of a disturbance or a matter-point phenomenon) is further strengthened by the examination of superclusters.

“The entire universe can be seen as an intricate network of galaxies called the Cosmic Web. Some areas are almost empty, dark voids. Others are densely packed regions of galaxies known as superclusters. Superclusters are the biggest structures found in the universe. But scientists have struggled to map where one ends and the other begins.” “Cosmic flows are the paths galaxies migrate along.” “Most galaxies are being pulled toward a dense centre, known as The Great Attractor” (paraphrased) [ Link ] I highly recommend you watch the 4 min video in this link.

Once created, matter became ‘locked’ in its energy configuration, to mostly dwell in the bottom of the gravity corridors in which it was formed. The settling of matter in these descending corridors has created the appearance of “Clustering or Clumpiness” of matter in the universe.

As was established at the start of the first OP, matter has sequestered energy that is no longer freely available for the universe to use in its energy fields. It is perhaps useful to think of matter, with its gravity that will only yield to entropy, as a stabilising force, giving a certain rigidity and integrity/permanence or inertia to gravitational wave corridors.

In addition to acting as a stabilising force, this locking of energy gives a property to matter discreet from gravity. It is the ability to move translationally through spacetime given enough momentum to do so- taking its gravity with it. Collisions amongst particles, gravity slingshots, or descending gravity corridors, might have provided such momentum.

This interaction of matter with itself has created the interference patterns in the otherwise symmetrical ripples of space time. It is these interference patterns and gravity corridors we can see when we look at the Cosmic Web and superclusters.

Thus gravity is a wave phenomenon which gave (gives?) rise to matter. Matter thereafter has it's own intrinsic gravity. Gravity though persists without the need for matter, although matter will settle into it's deepest parts. It is this recognition of gravity not dependent on matter which could account for Dark Matter - an unseen gravitational force of massive magnitude.

Quoting MikeL

Part II

Moving on without me? Okay then. Enjoy your discussion with apokrisis.

Quoting MikeL

My point is that entropy may be a drive to restore the energy value of the universe by sucking it back out of matter so it can be read by the container again. It is an ontological attempt to explain entropy.

What are your thoughts?

Quoting apokrisis

This is pretty much what cosmology says. The Big Bang started in a state of thermal equilibrium - an even bath of radiation with all the same temperature. Then the radiation cooled to a point where a fair chunk of it condensed out as matter.

In that respect, the universe fell out of equilibrium and so there is an entropic equilibrium to restore. All the matter will want to find ways to turn back into radiation and catch up with the general cosmic flow again if it can. Hence stars, for instance. And black holes can also radiate so will eventually evaporate over sufficient time.

Makes sense to me - excepting perhaps Mike's talk of a container which can "read" or "detect", but that could be down to his "colourful language". That seems to cover the main point in Part I.

So, this is not so much Mike's contention, as most likely someone somewhere had already figured it out, published what they'd figured out, and so on, such that we've reached a stage where someone with the right level of knowledge can recognise it and point it out.

Reply to apokrisis

The Universe as a Gas Can - Part III: Dark Energy

The previous post spoke about the inwardly curving gravitational space.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if space can curve inwardly into high density regions, it also curves outwardly into low density regions (an inward curve and an outward curve). In fact, in true wave fashion, they both must exist. Imagine flopping onto a half-inflated mattress, the depression you create is offset by the rise in the mattress around you.



Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the Universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space.”” [ quote ]
Data indicates that the majority of the mass-energy in the observable universe is a poorly understood vacuum energy of space which astronomers label dark energy. [ quote 2 ]

“ Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively) like radiation pressure in a metamaterial to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. According to general relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the stress–energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity. In the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion". [ quote3
]
This negative pressure is somewhat contentious. In its strictest definition it has been implied to be in the very fabric of space itself, leading to all sorts of confusion in my opinion. Nonetheless, this contention is fine, so long as we realise that the fabric of space is the Gravitational wave.

When we examine the gravity wave, we see that in addition to its gravity trough, it also has a crest. The crest rises above the height of the midline – the position it would be at if there was no wave.

While gravity in the form of matter and Dark Matter inhabits the troughs, I suggest that Dark Energy represents the crests. The midline would represent the place where gravity transitions to Dark Energy, and begins pushing back against the trough- an opposite direction.

This opposite pushing effect may be described as a negative pressure. Because it is a crest and not a trough it may also be considered anti-gravitational in nature. The crest, being antigravitational also aids in the clumping of matter, preventing it from spreading evenly throughout the universe.

When we examine the geometry of a crest we see there is an outward expansive force in two directions: forward and backwards. However, in a disrupted wave that has broken into an interference pattern, such as we noted in the previous post on Dark Matter, the expansive forces become multidirectional – or pan-directional. Outward expansion is its natural direction. It would have a resisting effect should space be compressed.

“it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. [ quote4 ]

When we examine both the gravity crest and trough together we see they both exert an outward expansive force. However, gravity is pushing from a trough and Dark Matter is pushing from a crest.

The way spacetime geometry is configured, gravity- the trough- because of its ability to concentrate matter and forces becomes high density space (see the stress-energy-tensor later on), and therefore Dark Energy -the crest – is low density. To include the same overall -mass/energy equivalent, expected of a wave, Dark Energy, being low density space, would need to take up a lot more room. This is seen in the images of the superclusters and intergalactic space posted earlier – the cosmic web.

Thus we must pay close attention here to a divergence in understanding. The gravitational crest is widening spatially so maintain the energy value of the gravitational crest. Thus, it is possible for the crest to contribute a substantially greater geometric push to spacetime while maintaining an energy integrity consistent with the waveform. From this we can see the true gravitational wave that is spacetime must be energetic and not spatial, although both exist.

This is on par with conclusions we reached when we said the universe is expanding to draw out the energy value in matter. Space and Energy are in different reference frames (or dimensions).

The expansion of the universe is a spatial expansion. It is this push that is occurring as the crest red-shifts (widens) against a trough also red-shifting (widening). That is the universal push and why it seems ubiquitous. As both crest and trough flatten, the horizontal vector component of the push increases, and we observe a universe expanding at an ever increasing rate.

It must be remembered that the gravity trough and crest are diametrically opposed in terms of the forces they exert on spatial geometry- accounting for the mysterious attributes ascribed to Dark Energy. Both will want to flatten their part of the wave up to the midline. At the midline though the forces reverse.

Entropy
I feel it would be remiss to explain the redshift of the gravitational wave in terms of space without some reference to entropy – the point we started.

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." quote5

Even black holes experience entropy through black body radiation. Entropy causes a decrease in gravity through the loss of energy.

According to a GR reference frame, Entropy, by decreasing gravity, would affect the geometric curvature of spacetime- Specifically it would make spacetime less curved.

We can also arrive at this conclusion circuitously by looking at Gravitational Fields and the Stress-energy Tensor.
"The stress–energy tensor [sic] is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime [sic]. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity." quote6

Choosing to work backwards, if gravity is declining due to entropy, then that will be reflected in a weakening gravitational field. If the source of the gravitational field is the stress-energy tensor, then entropy must be affecting the stress-energy tensor. If the stress-energy tensor describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, then entropy must be affecting the density and flux of energy and/or momentum in spacetime.

Gravity is a high-density region of space. The density of spacetime must therefore be decreased by entropy. Decreasing pockets of high density space where gravity exists must make space more uniform (less bunched)– therefore entropy can be considered to have a space flattening effect.

We also see matter draining into “The Great Attractor”. At the distal fringes as matter moves translationally in the direction of this energy sink we can expect to see an unfolding of the space curvature. As space unfolds, either due to entropy or movement to “The Great Attractor” (or the equivalent of), it will create an expansive push against the dimension of spacetime, contributing to the expansion of the universe. This is because a rising trough/corridor will displace its previous vertically orientated trough walls into the horizontal plane. This movement will be opposed by the crest, which wishes to push its walls into the centre of the trough.

It can be speculated that as mass gathers in The Great Attractor, a black hole will eventually form, from which Entropy, through blackbody radiation will eventually dissolve it (as previously stated).

As an interesting aside to do with the the trough and crest of Dark Energy: If you don't like the idea of filling an energy value in the wave form, you could argue the asymmetry is temporal. You could suggest it arises due to gravity slowing time in the trough. The lack of gravity in the crest would similarly speed up time. When we calibrate against a standard time, we get the asymmetric wave.

To eliminate the need for the external energy comparison against which the gravity wave is trying to re-create itself - the container - it is possible to argue the geometric forces of the wave as well - its need for symmetry - as a restorative driver. In this scenario the energy of mass is being pulled out entropically as the stronger geometric forces seek to restore the wave to its symmetric (equilibrium) shape.

Such asymmetry, it could be argued arose at the time of the Big Bang fundamentally due to the self-restraining action of gravity. But that's another post.