Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is Invalid by Anton Biermans

Hi Edwin,

Nice to hear that you appreciate the essay, thanks!

As to whether ''the 'big bang-like' system could exhibit the zero energy of the 'self-creating universe''': a BBU is a universe which is conceived of as an ordinary object which has a beginning and has particular properties as a whole, which evolves in its entirety so here all particles have about the same birthday (ignoring virtual particles which managed to become real) and all galaxies are in about the same evolutionary phase: this universe grows old in time, it lives in a time realm not of its own making, so is a fictitious universe. A BBU has a physical reality as 'seen' from without, which would be observable (and hence have a non-zero energy) if not for the fact that it is impossible to actually step outside of it and inspect it from without. In contrast, only in a SCU which creates itself out of nothing, obeys the conservation laws which says that everything inside of it, including space and time must cancel, so an imaginary observe who look at it from without would see nothing at all. A SCU only exists as seen from within, to an inside observer whose body particles are part of the sum which is to stay nil.

If the universe would only contain a single charged particle so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it cannot be charged itself, so a property only exists, is preserved in interactions between charged particles. So in saying that the universe has particular properties as a whole, that it evolves, 'en bloc', big bang cosmology in fact asserts that there is something outside of it, encompassing it, something it owes its properties, its (in that case, non-zero) energy, so implicitly asserts that the universe has been created by some outside intervention.

Lawrence Krauss, in ''A Universe From Nothing: Why there is Something Rather than Nothing'' (2012) also argues that the (big bang) universe is zero energy universe: if the sum of the potential energy (due to gravity between galaxy clusters) plus the kinetic energy as residing in their motion away from each other is nil, then it is a (flat) zero-energy universe. Unfortunately, this doesn't make sense: if in a zero energy universe the potential energy of the particles created at or shortly into the bang always would have been equal to their kinetic energy (since they depend in the same way on their mass) then there wouldn't have been a bang at all. The error of today's cosmologists, of Krauss, is that they regard the mass of particles as an absolute, unchangeable, privately owned quantity they got at their creation (whether with or without the help of Higgs) in contrast to a SCU where particles create one another and evolve towards higher energies.

Unlike a BBU which lives in a time realm not of its own making, where it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, in a SCU which contains and produces all time within, it is not the same time everywhere. In a SCU an observer sees clocks show an earlier time as they are more distant, meaning that clocks here are observed to run at a slower pace as they are farther away even if they are at rest with respect to the observer.

Indeed, if we must reject causality, then we can no longer conceive of the speed of light as a (finite) velocity of light*, meaning that, unlike a BBU where we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in ''the'' past, in a SCU we see the galaxy as it is ''at present'', to "us" -a difference which is elaborated on in my site (which I'm afraid still is quite a mess). (*Never mind that for obvious reasons the 'speed' of light is a limit to the velocity of massive objects) As I argued in my 2012 essay, ''Einstein's Error'' ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328), in a SCU c is just a number which says how many kilometers space distance corresponds to one second time distance: here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, in contrast to a BBU where, since it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, it takes a photon time to travel.

Regards, Anton

Hi Akinbo,

The key word in your reply is ''initial conditions'' which implies Something/Someone to choose and install them.

The concept of initial conditions refers to an imaginary observation post outside the universe, as if looking over God's shoulders at His creation, a habit you share with big bang cosmologists, with everybody (except yours truly), an addiction which exposes the big bang hypothesis as a religious tale, as an idea which has no scientific value whatsoever.

Indeed, to create from ''an infinitesimal quantity'' an '' astronomically sized entity'' presupposes the intervention of Something/Someone to create that quantity; to assume the existence of an ''astronomically sized entity'' is to assume that the meter and second are defined even outside the universe, which they of course aren't.

I have, by the way, already posted a comment on your thread.

Anton

Hi Hoang,

If you know what you want, you calculate how to go about getting what you want, so you have no freedom but are the slave of what you want. If you don't know what you want to wish for so any choice is random, then there's no will involved.

Anton

Edwin,

I'd like to reformulate my (above) reply. Though Lawrence Krauss, in his book ''A Universe From Nothing: Why there is Something Rather than Nothing'' argues that a big bang universe is a zero energy universe, this is certainly not the case. He reasons that, in a flat universe, the sum of the (negative) potential energy of galaxy clusters due to gravity between them equals the kinetic energy residing in their motion away from each other due to the expansion of the universe, so their sum must be zero as both energies depend in the same way on the mass of the galaxies. However, if the total energy at all times is zero, even at the mythical big bang, then it is hard to see how, why the particles (which supposedly, suddenly, mysteriously) were created at or shortly into the bang (before they contract to galaxies), would start to move apart at the bang. The fallacy of Krauss, of big bang cosmologists, is that they assume that fundamental particles have been provided (by whatever mechanism) with a definite, constant mass they retain in all eternity, as if it is a privately owned quantity, only the cause of interactions, so here mass does causally precede gravity -in which case the origin, the cause of mass can never be understood.

In contrast, as particles in a self-creating universe are cause and effect of their interactions, they acquire mass in an evolutionary, more or less gradual trial-and-error process. The point is that at least at the most fundamental (quantum) level, particle properties are interaction-dependent (contradicting the definition the dictionary gives for 'property'), that is, as relative quantities, in contrast to classical mechanics, in big bang cosmology and even in general relativity where it is thought of as an absolute quantity, something which but for practical difficulties can be measured even from without the universe, as if the meter, second, gram and joule are defined even outside of it, which of course they aren't. Though designed as a background-independent theory, I suspect that in regarding the mass of objects, the energy content of some area as absolute quantities, general relativity is contradictory at heart, never mind that it works so well in relatively weak gravitational fields.

Unlike a self-creating universe, a big bang universe necessarily has been created by some outside intervention, so I'm afraid that big bang cosmology, in regarding the universe as an ordinary object which, in our imagination can be inspected from without, as if looking over God's shoulders at His creation, represents an essentially religious view of our world. I think that it is impossible to exaggerate the damage the conceptual flaw big bang cosmology is based upon has wreaked upon physics: though cosmologists have done and do invaluable work in gathering observational data, I'm afraid that their interpretation is deeply flawed. The observational evidence in favor of the big bang largely rests upon whether we must conceive of the 'speed' of light as the velocity of light or that it just refers to a property of spacetime (which was the subject of my 2012 FQXi essay -topic 1328), and on the interpretation of the redshift of galaxies, which, as I argue in my website is much less unequivocal as presently is assumed.

I infer from your post that, like any physicist, you think about particles, fields and events inside the universe from an imaginary observation post outside of it. Though physics indeed has made awesome progress by doing so, the drawback is they we have come to regard particles as object which once created, keep existing even when isolated from interacting, as their continued existence doesn't require any effort on the part of the particles, as if 'to be' is a state, a noun, instead of the verb it is in a self-creating universe. Particles do not exist, have no physical reality to such outside observer, but only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact, so I think it's time to try to understand their behavior, their properties from within the universe, from the point of view of the particles themselves, so to say.

As to the 'confinement' of quarks: if particles are both cause and effect of their interactions, of forces between them, a force obviously cannot be either attractive or repulsive*, always, so , as I argue in my website study (www.quantumgravity.nl), there indeed is no need for a new kind of force, for a strong force which is attractive, always. *Despite observations which appear to prove that, on the contrary, the electric force between charged particles, for example, is either attractive or repulsive, always - see my study.

I am, by the way, reading your interesting essay; it may take me some time to react.

Regards, Anton

Hi Akinbo,

As to your first question, yes, I think so, though I'm not sure what you mean with ''astronomically''.

About Zeno's dichotomy: from the point of view of a traveling, massive particle, two points are only separated in space and time as far as they differ energetically, physically to the particle (as opposed to a mathematical space where all points are identical except for their coordinate numbers), a difference which depends on its mass, speed and on the trajectory.

In my study (see website) I have defined the mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite: this not only agrees with the uncertainty principle (which is at the heart of quantum mechanics), but, as the (in)definiteness in its position must be specified relative to an observing particle, also is a relativistic definition. The greater its mass is, the stronger the forces it exerts and feels from all directions, the more exactly equal they are, the smaller the area is where they are more precisely equal, the smaller the area it can be found in, the less indefinite its position is. Conversely, the smaller its mass is, the less definite its position is, the less it matters physically whether it exists or not, where it is when. So if positions somewhere are more equal physically in a larger area as it is emptier, if far from masses the particle cannot very well express and preserve its mass (as it is both cause and effect of its interactions), then it can be less at rest in that area. If by moving fast, it can (relativistic time dilation due to its motion) slow down its clock, then according to its own slowed down clock, the strength of its interactions seem unchanged, its mass preserved. The faster it moves from A to B, the weaker its interactions are with the objects in the environment it travels through, the more equal, energetically all points of its path become, the slower its clock runs, the shorter its path looks like to the particle, the smaller the distance is in space and time between A and B.

So if it could move at the 'speed' of light, then to the particle there would be no distance in space nor time at all between A and B: to the particle they would be at the same point in spacetime. You might say that the 'speed' of light is that velocity at which the particle can prevent its mass from being expressed in interactions with objects in the traveling environment, which is why photons, though they carry energy, mass, are massless. (Quotation marks as only in a big bang universe the 'speed' of light must be conceived of as the velocity of light, unlike a self-creating universe where it doesn't refer to the velocity of light, but to a property of spacetime so here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328).

So I suspect that it are the relativistic effects of his motion, however tiny at walking pace, which allow the traveler, despite the mathematic impossibility, to reach his destination. The point seems to be that whereas Zeno assumes that the universe is a single object where it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere (in which case it would take light time to travel from A to B) so all points of the traveler's path live in the same realm, in the self-creating universe we actually live in a space distance is a time distance, so you might say that the different points of his path live in slightly different universes, so the traveler at his destination also isn't the exact same person who departed at A.

Anton

Hi Peter,

The problem I have with cyclic cosmology is that if when one universe disappears in a big crunch and nothing is left, then there can be no relation to a subsequent big bang like universe. If a universe which creates itself out of nothing obeys the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then there's nothing left after the big crunch to serve as seed for the next big bang universe, so there can be no physical relation between successive universes. Moreover, to speak about successive universes not only implies that they all live in a time continuum not of their own making; to assume that the new universe pops up where the previous one disappeared, would only make sense if they pop up in a pre-existing space realm not of their own making.

Like the sum of all debts and credits on Earth by definition is zero, that doesn't mean that there exists no money. However, to an alien who by definition cannot observe the planet, who cannot communicate, interact in any way with the Earth and trade with earthlings, that money has no reality to him so the value and total amount of money to him is completely indefinite: he cannot say anything about the Earth, about its state or location.

If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior aka laws of physics in a self-creating universe must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when molded into physical, material particle and tested in actual particle interactions: only that information survives which enables its carriers, readers/writers to survive. If the universe would contain only a single charged particle (among many uncharged particles) so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it cannot be charged itself. If charge, if any property lives within interactions between particles, if particle express and preserve their properties by interacting, by exchanging information, then 'its', particles, particle properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them. If particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other, nor can one be more fundamental than the other, causally precede the other.

In other words, 'its', fundamental particles (and hence the macroscopic objects they form) only exist to one another if, to the extent and for as long as they interact but don't exist, have no physical reality to an imaginary observer outside the universe who(se body particles) cannot actually, physically interact with him. The universe is that weird, unique, paradoxical 'thing' which does not exist, which has no 'exterior', no reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, but only exists as seen from within, so the present cosmologies don't make any sense whatsoever. As I have been trying to communicate (alas, without succeeding even once) in all previous FQXi essays, the conceptual fallacy of big bang, steady state and cyclic universes is that it makes no sense to speak about the universe as a whole as conservation laws says that it cannot have a physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, but only exist as seen from within. By regarding the universe as an object which has particular properties and evolves as a whole in time, these cosmologies state that the universe lives in a spacetime realm not of its own making: that it has been created by some outside interference. All these cosmologies describe fictitious universes: they represent an essentially religious view on the universe and are tales of science fiction.

Regards, Anton

Dear Tejinder,

Thank you very much for replying to my post (of 19 July) on your thread even if it is on my thread. Though I agree that ideas must be quantified in equations so they can be put to test, before quantifying things and risk wasting time on flawed ideas, I first have to make sure that they don't lead to contradictions, that they are philosophically, rationally sound and might possibly agree with observations, or, if not, whether observations can be interpreted differently so they do.

If a new, good theory expands our understanding like being able to see the world for the first time in color instead of in black, gray and white, then present physics is still charting the world as it has shown itself in color by quantum and relativity theory. The fact that eighty years of efforts haven't solved the present contradictions nor led to an understanding why quantum mechanics works, strongly indicates that answers cannot be found within the current paradigm, formalisms. To solve some of those problems may require a new, different way of looking at things, of thinking about them, a view which may expose some key assumptions of the current paradigm to be invalid, as I argue in my essay and elaborate on in my post of 19 July.

If and when (as argued in that post) particles, particle properties indeed are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive, always, of its own, so to say, then this opens up a new, not previously explored path to the unification of forces. As in classical mechanics particle properties are thought to be only the source, the cause of forces, here we need two opposite, independent forces to explain any equilibrium between particles. Such equilibrium not only would be very unstable (unless we can invent a mechanism to avoid this, like asymptotic freedom), as opposite forces must be powered by different, independent sources, i.e., by physically unrelated particle properties, they never can be unified even in principle. As far as I'm aware of, string theory starts from just that classical assumption (never mind the Higgs mechanism) so it will never succeed in what it is intended to do. String theory to me therefore is a prime example of what happens when we allow mathematic formalisms to head our investigations for lack of ideas. Based on a misunderstanding about the nature of mass, of gravity, string theory is only one of the current popular theories which, I think, cannot solve anything but instead are part of the problem.

With regards, Anton