An Infinite Universe Is the Only Reasonable Universe - A False Assumption by Reeve Armstrong

The computer and the universe

John Archibald Wheeler

Abstract

The reasons are briefly recalled why (1) time cannot be a primordial category in the description of nature, but secondary, approximate and derived, and (2) the laws of physics could not have been engraved for all time upon a tablet of granite, but had to come into being by a higgledy-piggledy mechanism. It is difficult to defend the view that existence is built at bottom upon particles, fields of force or space and time. Attention is called to the "elementary quantum phenomenon" as potential building element for all that is. The task of construction of physics from such elements is compared and contrasted with the problem of constructing a computer out of "yes, no" devices.

Preparation for publication assisted by the University of Texas Center for Theoretical Physics and by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY78-26592.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ck753337h0515573/

Dear Reeve,

Interesting essay. I think your account of thermodynamic death is quite more complicated than what you suggest. On the other hand, you may not know but there is a book edited by Calude and Paun entitled Finite versus Infinite, I though you would like the reference, it is published by Springer. Good luck.

See my discussion with George Ellis

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1337#addPost

Reeve

Excellent analysis of finite cosmology, though not including the odd good early cyclic models (i.e. Dicke/Peebles) it included a few I wasn't aware of. I'm quite convinced a cyclic model is correct, and have evolved another version (in review) based on a scale invariant model of AGN accretion and re-ionization (in astrophysical or 'quasar' jets). This implies a secular galaxy evolution model over a shorter cycle. Watch this space! The patterns of CMBR anisotropy provide consistent evidence for such a pattern, with hellicity on the 'axis of evil' of flow.

Your essay helped me focus better on a few associated issues, though I've never been a fan of the 2nd Law. And think it is quite co-incidental, the effects emerging naturally from the process.

My essay this year is about the fundamental physics from which it arises. The end notes mention it and last years essay (Community 10th) also discussed it. I hope you'll read this years and give me any comments.

Best wishes.

Peter

Dear Reeve,

Your essay is very interesting. No doubt these are very profound issues, so you'll forgive me for not yet completely understanding your proposals. I would be grateful if you would answer a few questions.

First, however, in regard to Loschmidt's paradox, let me remark that one way in which a preferred direction can emerge is through asymmetry of configuration space, even if there is no notion of time in the "classical universes" or "configurations." This happens in Barbour's shape dynamics, I believe. My version of causal theory described in my essay here also uses configuration space asymmetry, but I take causal relations to be fundamental, so my "classical universes" do have a directed structure.

Now for my questions:

1. I don't quite understand the following, and I'm sure this is a dumb question, but I want to know the answer. You say (page 3):

"Let us now consider something unconventional: Let's suppose that the heat death is actually the starting point of the system. If this was the case, how would we expect to see the system evolve over time? Since the system would begin in a state of maximum entropy, the second law of thermodynamics would tells us that the system was overwhelming more likely to evolve into states of lower entropy as time went on. The system should evolve into a low-entropy singularity."

Are you already making a finiteness assumption at this point? It seems that the answer is no, because only afterwards do you invoke the Poincare recurrence. But without a finiteness assumption, I see no reason to believe that the system would ever progress appreciably toward a low-entropy singularity; as soon as it leaves the maximum entropy equilibrium, it seems that it would tend to return. The initial phase space motion would be toward lower entropy, but I don't see how you get to the low-entropy singularity.

2. Have you looked at Cristinel Stoica's essay? He proposes a "singular" version of relativity in which information is preserved through Bing-Bang-like events. I have no idea if it is actually right, but it is serious and precise work. You might be interested in taking a look.

3. How would you relate the concept of "time" to the concept of "cause and effect?" In particular, do you believe the universe possesses distinct temporal and causal structures? The reason I ask is because some of your statements seem to accord a primary status to time; for instance, "On the other hand, if you were to travel towards the Big Bang you would see that, over time, systems would go from disorder to more and more ordered states; decreasing entropy until finally you found yourself at the "big crush" a.k.a the Big Bang. Following this thought, it is obvious that we humans should see entropy increasing overall since we are biological systems existing within a series of temporally connected events that are tilted away from the Big Bang."

Please don't interpret my questions as negative criticism; in fact, I rate your essay very high for interest and relevance even if I don't yet know to what extent I might agree with your views. Good luck with the contest, and take care,

Ben Dribus

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

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

I liked this essay in fact Mr Amstrong, you are right in fact, the finite groups are essential !

Don't stop your passion for physics. Physics are the chief orchestra of our physical laws.They dance our spheres, they rotate, they evolve, they build....

ps an finite evolutive sphere with variables volumes of evolution is an evidence, the finite cosmological spheres and quantum spheres also are in a pure thermodynamical evolution.The desnity with the finite spheres in increasing of mass are very relevant when we insert the singularities(the central spheres, coded)

The closed evolutive system is essential for our universal proportions due to rotations of spherical volumes in increasing of entropy. The fermions polarise and synchronize and sort the bosonic informations. The serie of the universal finite serie or group possesses so a precise finite number.The oscillation is universal. The density increasing, so it seems that only the fermionic spheres increase in mass.The bosonic photonic spheres, them seem having a smaller volumes. The fusion m/hv so mass light seems so relevant when the angles and the volumes of the serie are inserted considering the pure universal serie of uniqueness. This number is the same than our finite cosmological number. The central main sphere, the biggest volume, is the number 1,x is the number of planets , we can even insert moons.The central BH of our Universal evolutive 3D Sphere is relevant considering the main singularity of our Universal sphere.This singularity possesse a lot os quantum singularities. See that the link with all cosmological spheres and quantum spheres is relevant considering the pure finite universal number.

All singularities are so linked. The physicality, boundeed and closed and ine evolution furthermore is linked with the infinite light above our walls via these singularities. The infinite light so builds the pure physicality. The relevance is the future and the infinity of the physicality due to this infinite light without motions above our walls.

Regards