Stan wrote:
>If I may fantasize about this relationship a bit: Einstein sees no
difference between gravitation and acceleration. We know now that
Universal expansion in the Big Bang is accelerating. As pointed out by
Layzer, and also Frautschi, the acceleration has been so fast that the
Universe has not been able to equilibrate internally. The result was
progressively: decoherence -> strong forces -> gravitation ->
organization. That is to say, here acceleration is the parent of
gravitation. In "equal and opposite" spirit, the Second Law was
simultaneously instituted in the drive of the Universe to equilibrate
(we can surmise that the Universe is an isolated system because
otherwise it could not expand in accelerated fashion, and, of course, we
know that al energy gradients are labile). The strength of the Second
Law should therefore be scaled to the force of gravitation. So, in the
notion that the area of the surface of a region is proportional to its
entropy, in the Universal nonequilibrium case, that entropy would have
to be the maximum possible entropy, not the actually achieved amount.
If that is so, then the distortion of spacetime now is not what it would
be calculated to be at equilibrium. In any case, I would say that the
Second Law implies the existence of gravitation, while this implies the
existence of Universal acceleration.
Not fantasy, just thinking in a top-down mode as opposed to the more
classical bottom-up of physics. My chosen field of study for the last
fifteen years (almost four books now) has been toward understanding the
large-scale structure of space-time; gravity, expansion, order, in
Boltzmann like fashion meaning in purely probabilistic and equilibrium
terms. This is my last post to this group.
In regards to gravity and expansion relationship, Alan Guth explains:
(according to particle physics) ...at very high energies there
should exist peculiar kinds of substances which actually turn
gravity on its head and produce repulsive gravitational forces. The
inflationary explanation is the idea that the early universe
contains at least a patch of this peculiar substance. It turns out
that all you need is a patch; it can actually be more than a billion
times smaller than a proton. But once such a patch exists, its own
gravitational repulsion causes it to grow, rapidly becoming large
enough to encompass the entire observed universe.
Guth's terms are made as a post description of events. Looking back,
Guth is implying that gravity is turned around and made repulsive at the
very outset of time when it would actually be more accurate and more
disciplined to not refer to an initial repulsive force as gravity, and
state that initially as time begins there is only a repulsive force
behind inflationary expansion, which later folds back, becoming an
attractive force. Generally it is far more accurate to refer to gravity
as a portion of expansion that is turned inward, or as I like to put it,
folded backward toward the past.
In that the universe originates and is presumed to exist in a highly
ordered state, the second law considers the issue of what other states
are possible. The conclusion Boltzmann led us to is that there is a
greater measure of disordered states pulling time in that direction. The
greater body of disordered possibilities could be said then to be
located in the direction of the future, with all those states more
ordered located in the past. However, there are significant improvements
possible over Boltzmann's method of categorizing states as either
ordered or disordered.
As a small example of expanding upon Boltzmann's general ideology, we
consider the influence of all the states which are more ordered than the
present state of the universe? There is of course a vast group of states
between our present state and the extreme of order at or near the
beginning of time. We apply the second law to the atomic world and
consider it as an explanation of why entropy increases, but what about
applying the influence of such groups to the large-scale structure of
space-time. Suppose we consider the influence of ordered states? What
phenomenon seems to pull the universe backward toward past-like
conditions. The answer of course is gravity.
So could (quantum) gravity be a product of all the possible states more
ordered than our present state? In Boltzmann terms, gravity clearly
opposes disorder. Intuitively speaking, gravity tries to recreate and to
some degree successfully maintains the past. If gravity is a product of
ordered states, what else can be said of this approach. Of course in
opposition to gravity, the universe expands. Expansion compliments
disorder, at least it appears so in the intermediary stages of cosmic
evolution. It certainly compliments entropy. If extended this approach
would suggest that cosmological expansion is a product of a greater
number of states in which the universe is more expanded than its present
state.
>Acceleration is the parent of gravitation.
Suppose we consider the state of the universe as time begins. All states
are more disordered, more expanded, than the original state, thus all
probability would be for time to move in that direction. Only after the
system moves away from the extreme of order would the group of states
which are more ordered than the present state of the system increase in
measure. We could describe this as a portion of the probability for
expansion turning backward toward the past, therein causing gravitation.
Hopefully this is an intriguing idea, without departing from Boltzmann,
but if one improves upon how Boltzmann modeled all possible states,
rather than simply considering ordered and disordered states, we find
other ways to sort apart the set of all possible states in respect to
the present state of the universe. A quantum cosmology is all
probabilities, and so if the universe seems like it should be in a
greater stage of equilibrium then there is something wrong with how we
are modeling all possible states.
The most obvious method of grouping states is in respect to density or
the average density of a state. Obviously, if there are so many more
states of greater disorder than the state we are in, it would seem there
are also more possible states in which the average density of the
universe is less than its present state. However, in grouping states in
reference to average density there are some unexpected consequences,
because our gradient is more evidently bounded, by an extreme of low
density.
There has never been any mainstream consensus (if any discussion at all)
that I am aware of toward recognizing if boundaries exist in Boltzmann's
model in the direction of disorder. Cosmologically speaking and so
concerned with the set of all possible states, it is said that the
second law is responsible for the arrow of time, but there isn't serious
debate on whether or not there is a limit to the measure of disordered
states? Is there a single extreme state of disorder? In regards to
cosmological evolution, we presently model order and disorder as a giant
wedge shape of possibilities. There are ever fewer states of order at
each point of greater density as we move backward in time toward greater
order. Inversely the precise measure of disordered states at any
specific average density is greater at any such point in the future. In
other words, there were fewer possible patterns available at higher
densities than lower densities.
The problem with the consistency of this claim surfaces when we
recognize that a gradient of states in reference to density is bounded
by the extreme of absolute zero. Without question, the universe is
moving toward zero. The temperature and matter density of the universe
has been decreasing since time began and accelerating expansion only
accelerates that trend. Accelerating expansion shows the direction of
time to be distinctly moving toward zero, and not simply toward
conditions short of zero. The direction of time toward zero is perhaps
the most fundamental characteristic of the universe. The problem which
arises in acknowledging that there is an extreme state of absolute zero
density in the direction of a future of decreasing density, is that
there must also then be a boundary limit for the measure of disordered
states in that same direction. And thus, as the universe evolves from
past to future, the measure of states which are more ordered than the
present state increases, while the measure of states which are more
disordered decreases.
Please try to appreciate fully what I have just said, because the
consequences are very dramatic to the Boltzmann method of understanding
why entropy increases. As the universe evolves, if the measure of
past-like states are on the increase and the measure of disordered
states are on the decrease, then in reference to large-scale cosmic
evolution, a system will eventually reach an equilibrium balanced
between order and disorder. If we merely acknowledge the extreme of
absolute zero as a boundary which is completely unavoidable, and
maintain Boltzmann's approach of explaining entropy, then it cannot be
said that there are always more disordered states than ordered states.
In fact according to Boltzmann's methods a system at zero should
probabilistically move toward order or grouping. With all the
ingredients considered the cosmological arrow of time has to be toward
an ultimate point of balance between order and disorder, according to
Boltzmann. Prior to the discovery of accelerating expansion, that dictum
was entirely within the realm of possibility. It was still possible
prior to 1998 that we would discover the universe would expand endlessly
at an ever decreasing rate toward a temperature short of absolute zero.
That temperature would mark the cosmic balance point between order and
disorder. Except that scenario is not what we discovered. We discovered
that the direction of time is precisely aligned with zero. Time is on a
crash course with absolute zero either in finite or infinite time. The
only two scenarios realistically possible are the big rip and the big
freeze or chill aligned directly at zero, and in either of these
scenarios time converges in state space to the single state of zero.
So either we throw out Boltzmann's probabilistic method entirely, or we
recognize that absolute zero is the true balance point toward which
cosmic evolution is attracted. Could absolute zero be the ultimate
balance state in nature? If so it would obviously be a balance between
positive and negative, not order and disorder.
I don't know if others would agree but it is my contention that the most
stable example of perfect (ugly) symmetry is absolute zero. I also
contend that absolute zero is a physical state, a perfectly flat and
empty Euclidean space, in respect to the measurable properties of
space-time. I realize that Einstein stated there is no such thing as
empty space, and I understand why he made that statement, but the
expansion of the universe is now accelerating and we can't simply ignore
the fact there is at least the potential for the universe to reach
absolute zero, with expansion literally stretching all matter and energy
perfectly flat. Zero is a possible state. All matter and energy would be
converted to spatial expansion, and time would end in a state of hyper
expansion, although such properties, including the extension space at
zero being infinite, are definable only from our present position in
time. I believe even that absolute zero is the native state of the
Universe, not the state from which time begins, but rather the ultimate
state in which there is no time or change.
Finally there is one more issue, the structure of the adjacent possible
at right angles to the gradient from bang to zero. There is also a
smooth pattern, a smooth and uniform state like the smoothness of
absolute zero existing at every average density of the universe from the
extreme density of the big bang all the way to zero. Everyone knows
this. Why the universe did not remain smooth after the big bang has long
been a question in cosmology. But there is another state not ever
focused upon, even less acknowledged than absolute zero, which is the
physical extreme of lumpiness that inevitably exists opposite of the
smooth extreme. In fact the set of all possible states is bounded in all
directions by extremes. Image below or click here
<http://everythingforever.com/statespacemodel.gif>.
The universe can be considered to be in a particular state. There is an
average measure of cosmological density, as in, there are so many atoms
per square meter. The present state of the universe rests within the
spectrum of all possible states shown below, and is influenced by the
greater measure of possibilities, but not only along the axis of average
density, but also between two adjacent extremes to that axis, smooth and
lumpy extremes. Suppose we freeze the universe from expanding or
collapsing, removing the influence of set A and B. What are the possible
directions of freedom remaining for a universe frozen at some specific
point in its expansion or average density?
Considering the entire range of possibility, stars and galaxies could
break up and atoms could spread evenly throughout existing space, so
grouping could disintegrate and spread out uniformly. Even the mass of
particles could disintegrate to be evenly distributed in space.
Eventually you have perfect smoothness and thus high symmetry. In
contrast, in the opposite direction of change, galaxies could lump
together to form super galaxies, which could also group, and then
finally there is the most radical extreme of a single mass within a
space-time bubble (a geometrically flat universe is still a bubble of
space-time, bounded spatially by the first moment of the big bang.
Relativistically the bubble expands internally with each observer acting
as a centerpiece. The space surrounding the milky way galaxy, our local
group, is the oldest area of the universe, and the outer edges of
space-time are literally where at this moment the big bang is still
occurring. So, with the contours of this bubble as our frame of
reference, all galaxies, all matter in particle form, could conceivably
exist in the very center of the space-time bubble surrounded by an
evolved expanded cold space region which is followed by the contour of
temporal decline back to the early universe).
To portray this single mass accurately in reference to grouping and
symmetry order, the extreme of lumpiness would be all protons collapsed
into a uniform whole particle with an equal number of electrons also
grouped into a super electron that exists in an orbital around the giant
purely positive nucleus. So essentially we have something similar to a
giant hydrogen atom as a universe, which seems complete fantasy imagined
as a real physical system, but only because it is so different than the
universe we observe. It is different because probabilistically, both the
lumpy and smooth extremes are highly improbable. On either side of a
cosmological system there is a group of states pulling equally toward
opposite extremes (image below or click here
<http://everythingforever.com/adjacentgroups.gif>). Movement by a system
in one direction increases the measure of possible states in the
opposite direction, which is why the universe did not remain smooth
after the big bang. Remaining smooth would have been like winning the
lottery every second. Note that the adjacent possible is influential in
short time durations, while the overall set of states pictured above is
influential in the deep time of cosmological evolution.
The approach of modeling all possible states in reference to extremes
also provides a probabilistic explanation for electromagnetism, the
strong and weak force. Forces are seen to be divided between past and
future. The most interesting element is the concept of convergence. If
time is moving directly toward a single state, absolute zero, then that
state will dictate events in its own past. If some event is inevitable
in your future, other events have to organize themselves enough to make
the later event happen. If it is inevitable that you will be at the top
of the Eiffel tower in a week, but nothing else is pre-determined, then
what is possible in the week prior to the tower remains open to a wide
range of possibilities, but that range is extremely restricted from the
broader range of possibilities by the future event. Electromagnetism,
the force of balance, is a force from the future. It is the flat perfect
uniformity of absolute zero shaping its own past. The weak force must
eventually break up all complex particles into protons and electrons so
that electromagnetism can spread all atomic material evenly as the
universe nears the Einstein-Bose condensate final stages before a
complete cosmic equilibrium ensues.
Hopefully I have included enough here to suggest a probabilistic
relationship between gravity, expansion, entropy, electromagnetism.
Everything described is actually just an extension of Boltzmann's
general approach to thermodynamics. The cosmology is presented in
greater detail at my website and more so again in my forthcoming book.
Devin
Received on Sun Jun 6 17:18:45 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET
