• [deleted]

The second law of thermodynamics is *not* a barrier to a cyclical universe, IF (and very probably only if) the effective number of dimensions available to radiative degrees of freedom changes. This is because the *definition* of entropy is dependent upon the number of dimensions in which it is calculated. This generally does not occur for real, but there are scenarios in GR where this could occur. In section 3 of my STUFT paper this dimensional dependence of entropy is applied to a simple toy model of a black hole, and I easily derive the form of the thermodynamic temperature and Hawking entropy of a black hole without touching quantum theory.

In a closed cycle that crosses a change in the number of dimensions there will exist an entropy anamoly because it's definition changes. This would be true for a closed cycle of mass falling into a black hole and being emitted as radiation - the apparent 'information paradox' of a black hole is very possibly an example of such an anamoly. A cyclical universe where some subset of dimensions compactified would also display a similar entropy anamoly - this is capable of giving a cyclical universe without violating the second law. Yes ... really! (it is fairly simple to check). Dimensional reduction is rather odd and has some unexpected effects - the definitions of physical quantities changing on you is one of them.

Michael

Perhaps not the only way,

But dimensional reduction does open up some interesting possibilities. Researchers thought 2-d gravity was a dead end, until they figured out the scenario can still admit topology. That was a game changer.

The big deal for me is that adding or reducing a dimension gives you a different perspective on where you are now. Being in a 3-d space lets us see the whole circle on a 2-d page, a perspective we would not have from anywhere on the paper. But the reverse is apparently also true.

all the best,

Jonathan

Thank you Michael,

Your statement is precisely correct.

He is right Yuri,

So long as the dimensionality of space is mutable, any number of cyclical scenarios are possible. A dimension change can be seen as a spontaneously broken physical symmetry, in this context. In one theory; I am exploring the possibility that decoupling was just such an event. In that scenario; there was a change in the dimension of space, during decoupling, which turned the fabric of space inside out - a condition I describe in my essay.

In a paper I published with Ray Munroe; we discuss ways that entropy might 'push' the universe toward a particular dimensionality. But at that point; I had not considered how paralellization might influence that. I'm now inclined to believe that this property is a game changer, but I will wait to say what this means.

all the best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Jonathan,

On your point about measuring rods and size is relative, the compactification of dimensions can give a significant example of this point. This is certainly the case in my model where there is a compactification-inflation see-saw between a spatial S3 universe and S7 particle gauge dimensions. As you say, size is relative which is why in GR the radial scale factor R of the universe is not physically defined as measurable. Extending GR to more dimensions doesn't make this go away. My S3 universe has the same radial scale factor R as normal GR, but the S7 dimensions has its own radial scale factor X. Neither R or X are definable in a measurable way, but one can be measured in terms of the other, i.e. R/X is a physically measurable quantity. This means that every physical scale is effectively measured in units of X, including the scale of the compactified dimensions, which gives X/X=1 and the artifical impression that the compactified dimensions are of a fized size! This would mean that the Kaluza-Klein condition of fixed scale compactified dimensions is highly misleading. This is what many physicists seem to object to about KK and compactified dimensions (I certainly used to) because the fixed scale seems artifical - and actually it is! The dimensional scale can be fixed in physically measurable terms and yet be varying in absolute terms ... except in GR all size is relative and so no absolute view exists.

A simple analogy of this measuring rod effect is given by a mass bouncing up and down on a piece of elastic but using the elastic to measure the length of itself - the measured length would be constant, giving the artifical impression that nothing is happening. This would correspond to a total energy view of the bouncing mass - which is constant - and the same sort of measuring rod effect with compactified dimensions would also give a distorted energy view as well. In addition, the definition of energy in GR is not fixed for a time dependent metric, such as that of an expanding universe.

So with the dimensional dependence of the definition of entropy as well, our set of measuring rods will be subject to highly significant changes with the compactification of dimensions. Not taking these measuring rod effects into account will give a highly misleading view of the universe.

Michael

    Thank you Michael, for the insights and clarification;

    The see-saw effect you describe above is one of the things I like best about your theory. The shrinking of one figure becomes the growth in another, because they share the same topological boundary. In many ways, topology drives the shape and geometry of space to evolve into what it has become. But looking straight at the fabric (or topological surface) gives us a clearer picture of what the space is doing.

    We are used to having an environment full of objects with a well-defined size. The concept of size would be meaningless, in any given space, unless there were objects in that space to define a relativity of large and small. Nor can a single observation or measurement give you the full picture, as perspective makes closer objects look larger. But the same objects seen from enough different perspectives will give a more well-rounded outlook of relative scale.

    all the best,

    Jonathan

    • [deleted]

    Dimensional reduction put into question the existence of the Planck length and Planck time, but don't touch Plank mass.See my essay in 1413

    Jonathan, I posted a new paper entitled "Gravity in an expanding universe". It may help overcome reluctance to accept my essay's derivation of the gravitational constant. By the way, I am back in our Monterey, Ca house.

    Hello Jonathan,

    Did you have any thoughts on my essay? Some of the ideas are summed up in a good conversation with George Ellis on his page, Sept 9th - 10th (12.49 - 20.33). We agree on a lot of things, but he has the spacetime interpretation and block time modified, I think they need replacing. He agreed with what's in my essay, which is a rational argument that standard block time must be false. I pointed out a major weakness in the EBU picture (emerging block universe) on that thread, which he didn't really refute.

    Anyway, have been enjoying the discussion on your page.

    Look forward to talking with you,

    Best wishes, Jonathan

    Dear Jonathan,

    Having noticed several insightful comments you have made on other threads, I was prompted to read your essay. It did not disappoint. In what follows, I hope you'll forgive me if I mention how my own ideas relate to a lot of what you said. The fact is, you touch on many if not most of the points I think are crucial to advancing physics, and consequently these are things I have thought a lot about.

    1. An important point you make is how little we actually know about cosmology. This should be self-evident from the mere fact that 95% of the postulated matter-energy content of the universe is "dark," meaning we know not what. An important factor here, I think, is scale dependence; the strong/weak interactions, EM, gravity, dark matter, and dark energy all dominate on different scales. This suggests fractal concepts at work, which is exactly what you suggest. Bravo!

    2. You mention noninteger dimension. Again, I think this is right on target. In particular, dimension is something I would like to try to explain, rather than assume.

    3. On the subject of inflation, I will just remark that theories based on causal structure, rather than manifolds, may have an advantage here, since one of the main problems inflation seeks to explain is homogeneity, and there exist causal structures that may accomplish this in a more natural way than manifold inflation. Scale-dependence, fractals, non-integer dimension, and causal structures all play a role in my own approach, described in my essay here: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

    4. You mention twistor theory. It's very likely to be important; I wish I knew more about it!

    5. You make some other interesting remarks about dimension, which I will have to consider more carefully.

    6. Regarding the quaternions and octonions and the relations to spheres, I think you are talking about Hopf fibrations. These are important even in ordinary quantum information theory, whether or not they have anything to do with fundamental structure.

    7. You mention holism; I think this definitely applies at the quantum level, and one way to think about it is Feynman's sum over histories, in which the entire history of the universe is relevant even to local evolution on the quantum level. I also discuss this in my essay.

    8. You mention the symmetry groups of the Standard Model. I think that ultimately we will have to replace group representation theory with something more primitive. See my essay again for details.

    In conclusion, thanks for the great read. I would also be interested to know your thoughts on my own submission. Take care,

    Ben Dribus

      • [deleted]

      Thank you for the nice remarks on my essay.

      Here are some thought about gravity that are a bit different.

      Einstein, who, more than anyone else gave us our current view of the nature of gravity, said that gravity is not a force and yet in most of contemporary physics gravity is treated as if it were. It appears that the presently held view of gravity is that it does not pull you into the chair in which you are sitting but rather, because of the curvature of space-time, it pushes you into the chair. This is a bit absurd; Gravity is either a force or it isn't, it simply can't be both.

      Einstein used the example of a man jumping from a building. The man would feel no force pushing or pulling him. The only way he would know he is moving is by the motion of the building that seems to be moving up and the friction of the wind. While nobody challenges this it seems to be almost universally ignored. The example of the man falling is a good one but gravity can be proved to not be a force by use of a very simple, basic physical law.

      Suppose I hold a ball of a given weight stationary in the air. The understanding of vectors tells us that a force equal to the force I am supplying must be pushing down on the ball. Vector analysis also tells us that a resulting vector will appear in a direction opposite the acute angle formed by the two vectors. The acceleration of the resultant vector, if the forces are constant, is dependent upon the sine of the acute angle formed by the two vectors. In the case of my holding the ball the angle formed by my pushing up and the alleged force of gravity pushing down is 180°. The sine of 180° is zero so the resultant vector is zero. It is important to remember that the force and acceleration of both vectors is still very real.

      Newton's second law of motion says that Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration - F=ma. If I hold a ball ten times heavier the force I supply must be ten times stronger as well. In order to the stationary position of the ball I must also increase the downward force ten times. Herein lies the problem.

      Acceleration is dependent on force and mass. The only way acceleration can be changed is to alter either the force or the mass. We know that acceleration in a gravitational field is a constant. On the earth it is 32 feet per second squared. If the gravity of the earth is a force and created by the curvature of space-time then this force too must be constant. The only thing that is a variable is the mass however, if we change the mass we change either the force or the acceleration. Thus either heavier objects fall more slowly than lighter objects or the acceleration changes as a result of the change in mass. We know empirically that this cannot be true as both force and acceleration are constant. Therefore gravity cannot be a force.

      The ball is now ten times heavier and thus the gravitational field (if indeed that is the correct term) is ten times as strong. The curvature of the space-time created by the ball is greater and so, if gravity is a force, the ball is pulling the earth with a stronger force. Actually the acceleration of the earth toward the ball has increased and so the earth is falling toward the ball at a greater velocity. We can see this in Newton's other formula: F = G(m1m2/r2) While this does not exactly hold in GR it is sufficient for this argument. The increase in the apparent attraction of the earth and the ten pound ball is so small as to be virtually immeasurable.

      If gravity is not a force why do we feel our weight when sitting in a chair? Consider a situation where two opposing vectors are both forces, such as two cue sticks pushing on a billiard ball at two points in direct opposition.

      The change in the position of the ball is zero and we can state that this is the resultant force of the two primary vectors. We have the mass of the cue ball and the force applied by the cue sticks. This means that there is in both cases an acceleration. An object can have any number of independent motions and in this case the ball is moving in two directly opposite directions but the ball is moving. The second law of motion states that force and mass will produce an acceleration. These two opposing accelerations do not 'cancel each other'. They create a vector with zero acceleration. Perhaps it may be more correct to say that they produce no vector.

      Since gravity behaves much like a force, we feel our weight in a chair because we are still falling. Just because the chair stops a change in position does not mean we are not still falling. Our feeling of weight comes from momentum. A falling body has a certain momentum even if it does not actually change its position. It is this momentum we feel when sitting in a chair.

      Since gravity is not in any way a force it has none of the properties of a force. It does not propagate. It would only propagate if it were a force. Contemporary physics not only thinks of gravity as a force but appears to think of it as an electromagnetic force. Many, many hours have been spent by really brilliant people trying to reconcile the 'force' of gravity with such forces as magnetism. The mass of an atom does not create the curvature of space-time any more than the nucleus creates the electron. The curvature is an integral part of the atom that was created when the atom was created. It cannot be modified nor removed.

      Newton, when he worked out his gravitation theories, was concerned with action at a distance. Even though gravity is ubiquitous through the universe there is no action at a distance because there is no action. Gravity does not do anything, it simply is. It is not one of the elementary forces as it is not a force. There is no need for energy mediating bosons to mediate the force ergo, thus there is no graviton. I seriously doubt that the Large Hadron Collider will find any evidence of a massless, spin-2 boson.

      It has been said that if the sun were to suddenly disappear we would not be aware of it for eight and a half minutes. That is true but has nothing to with the curvature of space-time and thus gravity. If the sun were to disappear instantly the curvature would disappear instantly as well. We would not sense this in any way, since the path of earth around the sun is a geodesic nothing would have changed; we would still be traveling in a straight line. Eight and a half minutes later everything would become instantly dark and start to quickly become very cold. That we would certainly sense and then we would know that the sun had disappeared.

      The extent of a gravitational field appears to be limitless. It diminishes as described by the inverse square law but never completely disappears. Thus the entire universe is one large structure formed of a myriad of space-time curvatures.

      Finally; since gravity is not a force why it is considered along with magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force to be one of the primary force interactions of physical reality? Gravity is not a force, it is a condition.

      If indeed gravity is not a force, are we correct is thinking that gravity functions at the quantum level? Does an elementary particle warp the space-time or is the concept of space even valid at the quantum level. It seems quite possible that gravity at quantum level may be a mathematical concept that would only be valid if gravity is a force.

      4 days later

      Hello everyone,

      I heartily thank Gene, Jonathan, and Ben for their comments above. Sorry for my absence from this forum. I've been sidelined with unexpected responsibilities, but things are now getting back to normal. I'll be making more comments and reading more essays, over the next few days.

      I expect to post some supporting materials here, to make a summary of important concepts covered in my essay, and also a brief review of concepts that carry over from my past FQXi essays, some time soon.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Dear Jonathan,

      Studying the question of connection of entropy and gravitation, I found Lorentz-invariant formula for entropy in the book: Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1. In short the question is described in the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 pages. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0 in such way: Using the stress-energy tensors for the substance and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields allows us to write the equations of thermodynamics explicitly in the Lorentz-invariant form. As a result the entropy, the amount of heat, the chemical potential, the work and thermodynamic potentials can be represented as tensor functions of microscopic quantities, including the electric and gravitational field strengths, the pressure and the compression function. This allows us in § 21 to find out the meaning of the entropy as the function of the system state - it is proportional to the ratio, taken with the negative sign, of the absolute value of the ordered energy in the system to the heat energy, which is chaotic by nature. The ordered energy means the energy of directed motion of the substance, the compression energy from pressure and the potential energy of the substance in the gravitational and electromagnetic fields. When the system achieves equilibrium, part of the orderly energy inevitably is converted into thermal form and the entropy obtains a positive increment. I hope it may be interesting for you.

      Sergey Fedosin

      Jonathan

      I agree with your comment above on topology, and extend that to the need for a physical boundary topology for inertial frames, which I offer.

      Do let me know if you've read my essay yet as promised, I do look forward to your comments as I'm deluded enough to really believe I've uncovered an astonishing new insight, which I think you amongst not too many will grasps the kinetics of quite quickly. You may also enjoy the superficial touch of theatre.

      I also think your own essay deserves to be very much higher and it's slipped in at the top of my score list. Glad you're back in action. Personally I'm nearly essayed to death!

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Dear Jonathan I enjoyed our discussions on this and my page.

        ---

        Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

        This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

        Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

        A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

        An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

        Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

        Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

        Thank you and good luck.

        Vladimir

          After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

          Cood luck.

          Sergey Fedosin

            Hi Jonathan,

            I liked the easygoing flow (play) of your essay that gives a 3D view of what is happening in flatland.

            It is also good to be with you in another essay contest.

            Best of Luck,

            Don L.

              Thanks Don,

              It is my pleasure to be in this contest with you, as well. I am glad you enjoyed my essay, and got that I was playing tour guide about our journey through dimensional space. I hope to read your essay soon, and I wish you great luck too.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan

              Thank you Sergey,

              I appreciate the time taken to read and your input, and I hope to give you the same courtesy soon.

              Regards,

              Jonathan

              Thank You Peter,

              I appreciate your kind remarks. I have started reading your essay several times, and gotten distracted. What I have read looks very interesting. I shall make a special attempt to finish up and comment soon, before the cut off, as you were one of the first to visit my essay and forum page.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan