Alternative Models of Cosmology

Akinbo,

Aether was not just thought as universal light carrying medium in empty space but also as having somewhere at least one natural point of reference.

There is a decisive difference between such medium and a limitless line, area, or space without such reference.

The air within a flying air plane exemplifies how a dragged medium with boundaries or other points of reference on the line of motion would work. Norbert Feist even measured the effect of relative velocity between a car and the air localized with respect to it. Physicist like Lorentz argued convincingly against the dragged aether idea. In case of light there are alternatives that explain the null result:

- Mysterious length contraction or

- There is no universal point in empty space to which one could the velocity of light propagation refer to in case of just linear motion.

Yes, "there is a universal natural reference for length (space) available." However, the meter can only measure length, i.e. differences between points, not absolute coordinates with reference to a non-arbitrarily preferred point. Einstein failed to clearly explain what was wrong with the aether, and he gave to Lorentz gamma an unfounded interpretation.

Eckard

Eckard,

Aether as formulated has its shortcomings.

When you say, "In case of light there are alternatives that explain the null result:

- Mysterious length contraction or

- There is no universal point in empty space to which one could the velocity of light propagation refer to in case of just linear motion".

Can a matter medium like dark matter bound to earth like air is bound, do for the case of light what air does for the case of sound be an alternative? If it can't why not?

Akinbo

Peter,

Thanks for your comments. Here are a few more of mine regarding the nature of space. Is space a thing, or is space a not-thing?

If space were really a thing you should be able to detect some resistance as you try to move through it. Even if the 'density' of space is too low for you to detect personally, sensitive instrumentation should. Alas, no resistance factor has been detected, which just gives further credibility to the Michaelson-Morley Experiment which first gave rise to observational evidence suggestive that space was a not-thing. To repeat, there is no actual evidence in support of the idea that space is a thing.

Well what about that famous prediction by Einstein and confirmed by experimental observation about the bending of light in a gravitational field. Well, light is a thing, and gravity is a thing, so it is no surprise that gravity can have an influence over light. That doesn't require the concept of space-as-a-thing; space to be a sort of flexible membrane in order to accomplish this.

When a cosmologist gets up in front of an audience of their peers and actually creates some space, or provides observational evidence or at least puts up an equation that shows how it could theoretically be done - well till then the concept of space-as-a-thing is nonsense, virtually pseudo-science.

And therein lies a tale of the double standard. When confronted by pseudo-scientific claims, if they don't duck and run for cover first, most scientists shrilly scream out "show me your evidence; show me your Evidence; show me your EVIDENCE!". Okay cosmologists, your turn. Show me your evidence that the concept of space-is-a-thing has validity. Show me your evidence that requires cosmic expansion BY space as opposed to cosmic expansion THROUGH space.

The consequences of all of this is that if the Big Bang event did not, could not, create its own space-as-a-thing, then the Big Bang event happened in pre-existing space and therefore there was a before the Big Bang.

Given all that I have now said on this subject, if you were to apply Occam's Razor to the question, which side of the fence seems to have the greener grass?

John Prytz

John P, Akinbo,

It is not my business to tell you the in principle more than a century old but still valid arguments against hypotheses like dragged aether and expanding space. After I distrusted Michelson's null result of 1881 and later, I looked for a reasonable explanation and arrived at the overlooked role of the missing point of reference instead of a medium of reference like air which has of course such a point. Akinbo seems to dislike my finding because he loves his intuition that dark matter might constitute an aether that is dragged with the earth.

I am sorry, I don't have an alternative model of cosmology. I am just dealing with possible logical inconsistencies with current tenets.

Akinbo,

What paradox do you attribute to Euclid? I rather blame Parmenides and his pupil Zeno for imprecise thinking.

Eckard

"with current tenets" should read "within current tenets".

Eckard,

I did not really attribute paradox to Euclid, but paradoxes come from misinterpretation of his definitions. I discussed this a bit in my 2013 essay, "On the road not taken".

What imprecise thinking do you attribute to Parmenides and Zeno? Do you have a precise thinking solution to Zeno's Dichotomy Argument and his Arrow paradox? I am not talking of the mathematical solutions that lead to the imprecise infinitely reaching nearer and nearer a target.

Regards,

Akinbo

MORE ABOUT DARK ENERGY AND THE EXPANSION OF SPACE-AS-A-THING

Why is the modern standard model of cosmology a pseudo-science? Basically because it is advocating something akin to a perpetual motion machine - even worse. A standard pseudo-scientific perpetual motion machine operates at 100% efficiency. Energy input equals energy output and energy output is recycled back into energy input. There is no waste energy; no heat loss. The cosmos is even worse. Energy output exceeds energy input. The cosmos is way more than 100% efficient! Toss in 100 units of energy and you get 200 units of energy output (invented figures but it conveys the idea). In the case of the cosmos, the energy in question has been termed "dark energy", and dark energy is created by space-that-is-a-thing and dark energy in turn creates more space-that-is-a-thing, and the cosmic perpetual motion machine just keeps on keeping on.

How does space-which-is-a-thing create ever more dark energy and how does dark energy create more space-which-is-a-thing and where the heck does all of this stuff come from? Who knows! But the concept IMHO is pseudo-scientific nonsense. How do you get around the paradox of creating something from nothing?

While on the 'how' questions, how did the Big Bang event create space - assuming space to be a thing of substance and structure. Again, who knows! And a 'what' question: What is space-that-is-a-thing composed of? Who knows! Space clearly has no relationship to the standard model of particle physics. It's not composed of fermions or bosons nor any of the standard four forces associated with particle physics.

But here's an oddity. One needs to get away from the idea that space is just out there - it is up close and personal too. Space-that-is-a-thing however is not only around you but is inside of you, so it shouldn't be too difficult for some bright spark to 'capture' some and put it to the standard laboratory tests. How can something that's literally in front of your nose be so unknowable?

Is space-that-is-a-thing and dark energy the same thing? If not, what is dark energy and what is it composed of and how does it relate to the standard model of particle physics? Just calling something "dark energy" doesn't explain it. And like space-that-is-a-thing, dark energy should also be all around and inside of you. It can't be that difficult therefore to isolate some. It's not as if you have to travel into intergalactic space to get a beaker full of the stuff.

Here's another nail hammering down the coffin containing the space-that-is-a-thing concept. We've all seen the analogy of space-that-is-a-thing being a rubber sheet with a bowling ball distorting the flat shape of the rubber and a marble sent rolling across the rubber sheet in the direction of the bowling ball. The straight path trajectory of the marble is altered. The marble curves into 'orbit' around the bowling ball assuming it doesn't just curve around and fly past. If the former, the marble will eventually go 'crashing' into the bowling ball and not maintain any orbit for very long. In any event, the marble heads inward toward the bowling ball. By analogy, shouldn't our Moon be spiralling in towards the Earth much like our artificial satellite orbits eventually decay? Alas for the rubber sheet analogy of space-that-is-a-thing, our Moon is moving away from the Earth a few centimetres per year, not moving closer.

I do think at times that modern cosmologists have gotten so wrapped up in their technical essays of complex mathematical equations and jargon that they have totally forgotten much of what they were taught in their high school science classes, like there's no such thing as a cosmic free lunch.

Akinbo,

We left the topic. Nonetheless I will clarify what I consider wrong in perhaps all of Zeno's paradoxes. If he didn't live already from 490 to 430 i.e. before Euclid (325-275) I would blame Zeno for not understanding that a point is what has no parts and a line is therefore not composed of points. Incidentally, for the same reason I am not a presentist.

Don't keep me for arrogant. I am aware of making mistakes too. However, Zeno tried to defend the inability of Parmenides to distinguish between concrete reality and abstract notions.

Eckard

SPACE, AN UNSUNG PARTICIPANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

"I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to that or some truer method of philosophy" - Sir Isaac Newton.

It is human to acclaim only participants that are noisy or shiny or have a good or bad smell. But only near super-humans like Newton know that the most important participants may not fall into this category, which is why he says in the quote above that these participants can only be apprehended by the inner senses using the power of reason.

It is true that space has no taste, it has no smell, it has no colour and makes no noise. But can its participation in the drama unfolding in the universe be discerned using the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles? The view that space is not a nothing comes broadly under the label 'substantivalism'. There are sub-groups, some of which include General relativitists, for whom the substance is then 'space-time', and not just space. Newton, himself in many respects was the arch-priest of this view. In his Scholium and the Principia, he put forward his views using causes, effects and properties for argument, section 5.

I have a substantivalist tendency and with good scientific reasons of my own. This thread is for cosmological topics, but as it has been alluded here that space is nothing, I think it necessary to make some counter presentation to the rational and lucid but IMHO misleading arguments claiming space is nothing. Not to repeat Newton's arguments, I present here evidence from what we can see and evaluate with our eyes - evidence from gravitational orbits, which if interpreted dispassionately indicate the possible roles space may be playing, aside the cosmological roles ascribed to it.

1. THE SHAPE OF ORBITS

Motion according to Newton's first law can continue perpetually unless a frictional force acts to bring the body to rest. Orbital motion was desired to be analogous to the linear motion of Newton's first law of motion in a straight line and would consequently be circular in shape (the form that preserves an equi-potential orbit) and continue perpetually without being driven (a sort of perpetuum mobile?). Alas, orbits are not circular but elliptical in shape. Kepler also desired a circle, but Mother Nature presented us with the ellipse. Perhaps, there is a puzzle in this elliptical gift?

Reasoning from mechanical principles implies such a shape of orbital motion is not according to Newton's first law. The motion is under action of a force or of forces.

2. CENTRIPETAL/ CENTRIFUGAL FORCES

In gravitational orbits, Newton mathematically showed that a centripetal force equal in magnitude to mrω2 was operational, where m is the mass of the orbiter, r its radius from the hub and ω its angular velocity. A centripetal force, like all forces has direction, which is radially inwards to the centre of the circle.

From the laws for circular motion in which a centripetal force is present, there must necessarily be a centrifugal force which will be equal and opposite in effect to the centripetal force so that no resultant force is acting and the body can keep moving with uniform motion equivalent to a state of rest. Switching off the centripetal force makes the orbiting body spiral away and switching off the centrifugal force makes the orbiting body spiral inwards under its momentum collapsing ultimately into the hub.

Unfortunately, in gravitational orbits this centrifugal force that prevents collapse of the circular motion is ghostly and not easily discernible.

Newton seemed to also realize the compelling need for this centrifugal force to balance the effect of gravity and maintain the planets in their circular paths. Seeing no other source, he suggested that the centrifugal force must be arising directly from the motion of the planets themselves. The difficulty and illogicality of this however becomes apparent on three grounds. Firstly, since the centrifugal force must be acting on the body to oppose the centripetal action of gravity which also acts on it, it would appear unusual for the generator of the force, i.e. the orbiting body, to be the subject of the force as well. The idea from Newton's third law is that an object experiences force because it is interacting with some other body or agency and not with itself. Therefore a body cannot give rise to an action force which also serves as a reaction on it. Secondly, a force arising directly from a circularly moving body must be in a tangential direction to the orbit, being a vector like velocity. To balance and be equal and opposite to the centripetal force however, we see that the centrifugal force or its component must act radially outwards on the orbiting body, while the centripetal force acts radially inwards on it. Whatever momentum or force arising from the orbiting body's motion can therefore not be the source of the centrifugal force since it would be acting tangentially at right angles to the orbital radius and cannot have any component in a radial direction to oppose the centripetal force, in the way the centrifugal force would be required to do. Thirdly, a body moving in accordance with Newton's first law of motion as planets are deemed by some to move, while it can be subject to forces whose resultant on it must then be zero, cannot generate force from its own motion or state of rest which would be contributory to the same resultant state of rest or uniform motion. Conclusion: The motion of the planets is not the source of the centrifugal force, whose source must then lie elsewhere.

3. THE MOON KEEPS FALLING BUT DOES NOT REACH THE GROUND!

Newton got deserved acclaim by showing that the acceleration with which objects fall under gravity at the earth's surface was related to the centripetal acceleration towards the earth of the moon in orbit, taking the inverse square law into account. In other words, like objects here on earth the moon is also falling under the influence of the same force of gravity.

Assuming the inverse square law and therefore an acceleration due to gravity on the moon due to the earth to be approximately 0.0027ms-2 instead of the terrestrial value of 9.8 ms-2, we will expect from the most optimistic view of a constant and non-inverse squarely increasing acceleration of 0.0027 ms-2 and using s = ut + ½ gt2 that the moon will fall and reach the ground in about 6 days, if it is indeed falling under the earth's gravity as Newton demonstrated, given that the moon is about 3.8 x 108 metres away and is being acted on by gravity alone and no other force. Unlike the historical apple however, it is long overdue for the moon to fall on our heads, yet something prevents it from doing so. Who or what is this benevolent agent preventing this?

4. MORE CONTRAVENTIONS TO NEWTON'S SECOND LAW OF MOTION

Newton's second law of motion states categorically that acceleration due to force A must take place in the direction of that force. This implies that observed deceleration of an accelerating body acted on by a force A must be due to another force B acting in the opposite direction and cannot be due to the continuing action or stoppage of action of force A. Furthermore, Newton's law of gravitation stresses that although gravitational force can vary in magnitude according to the inverse square law, it has a constant direction of attraction which cannot change. Therefore any change in the direction such as observed repulsion between masses must be due to the presence of another force.

In gravitational orbits, the sun-earth for example, we see the satellite respond to gravity and move closer to the hub as it approaches perihelion. However instead of continuing in that direction, moving closer to the hub, what we see is a kind of repelling action at perihelion. It is as if the direction of gravity has changed. Instead of attraction, we get repulsion.

To simplify and illustrate, we can use the simple pendulum with a visible bob but an invisible string as an example. We expect things to proceed in an orderly manner and for the pendulum to swing from side to side, which is what happens. However, an observer oblivious of the string because it is invisible must be baffled by the ordinary course of events. This observer knowing about gravity is not surprised by the downswing but he must indeed be alarmed if on reaching its lowest point, instead of continuing downwards in the direction of gravity, he sees the bob swing upwards. He must therefore question, whether gravity can reverse its direction, thereby repelling the bob upwards. As the bob accelerates downwards, increasing in velocity, by what means does it stop accelerating and instead start reducing in velocity and decelerating to gravity? The observer cannot be blamed for suspecting a ghost at work. It must however be an orderly ghost, since the pendulum has a period which remains regular. A less superstitious person would however acknowledge that a force yet to be identified but whose characteristics we can discern from our observations is at work and acts on the pendulum bob in a manner opposite to gravitational action thus preventing what will amount to a contravention of Newton's second law and his proposal of a universally attractive nature for gravity.

Analogously, reasoning with these mechanical principles we can suspect that a force opposed to gravity is at work in orbits. It is this force that will prevent contraventions to Newton's laws that will occur and explain the mysterious deceleration to gravity at perihelion. The observed deceleration to gravity will represent a contravention of Newton's second law and his law of universal gravitation if no force is deemed responsible. Newton's second law therefore, compels the presence of another force in addition to gravity to serve as one of the return forces operating the orbit as with oscillations of the simple pendulum.

5. ANGULAR MOMENTUM CONSERVATION DOES NOT WORK AS AN ALIBI

Although using considerations involving angular momentum conservation, angular velocity can increase when the radius of the orbit reduces, it cannot be used to contravene Newton's second law and convert angular acceleration to angular deceleration without the intervention of a force.

A further reason for the non-attractiveness of angular momentum conservation as an explanation for the seeming contraventions of Newton's second law and the universally attractive nature of gravity is somewhat of a mathematical nature.

Angular momentum is given by mr2ω, where m is the mass of the orbiter, r is the radius of orbit and ω is the angular velocity. If the angular momentum is exactly conserved and mass is constant, r2ω will be a constant and ω will be inversely proportional to r2. This will result in disharmony with the inverse square law and Kepler's third law, both of which have the relationship between angular velocity, ω and radius,r as

ω2 = k /r3, where k is a constant.

If angular momentum conservation is to be used in explaining the reduction in angular velocity with increasing radius and the sequential increase in angular velocity with reducing radius, then (1) Kepler's third law will be invalid and T2 will be directly proportional to r4 instead of r3, where T is the period of oscillation and (2) the inverse-square law will be invalid and instead will be an inverse-cube law, with gravitational force proportional to 1/r3.

There is also nothing in the laws of momentum conservation compelling momentum conservation in the direction of deceleration at perihelion as it can be equally conserved in the direction of continuous acceleration and continuous reduction of orbital radius as the orbiter spirals inwards. The angular deceleration seen at perihelion must therefore be the outcome of an orderly force.

Kepler's first and second laws, imply that what we observe in the motions of planets is governed by law and cannot be attributed to random perturbations. That is, even in the absence of perturbation, Kepler's first and second laws with the alternating increase and decrease in angular velocity and the alternating acceleration and deceleration of planets to the sun's gravity will hold. Conservation of angular momentum features prominently in the quantum scenario, but as we cannot observe directly what is occurring, we refrain from using it for argument.

6. CONTRAVENTIONS TO THE LAWS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION - ANY FREE LUNCH?

When the radius of orbit of a satellite reduces, the kinetic energy (K.E.) increases while the potential energy (P.E.) reduces as P.E. is converted to K.E. and the satellite is speeded up.

However because P.E. decreases by twice as much as the K.E. increases by applications of the known dynamical equations below, there is on the whole, a loss of energy when the orbital radius of a satellite reduces.

Assuming the zero of potential energy in the gravitational field of the hub is at infinity by convention,

P.E. of mass in orbit = - GMm/r

while

K.E. of satellite in orbit = GMm/2r

where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the hub, m is mass of the satellite and r is the radius of the orbit.

Einstein's General relativity similar to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory (for charges) says that acceleration of masses in gravitational orbits leads to loss of energy which is radiated away as gravitational waves.

The consequence of the above is that when the satellite accelerates to gravity, it should spiral and the gravitational orbit progressively collapses. Contrary to what physics predicts, orbiting bodies alternately gain and lose energy, with energy and potential being lost as perihelion is approached and energy and potential being regained after perihelion and as aphelion is approached. Ordinarily we could explain away what we see in orbits as conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and back but for inability to account for the energy loss and the force that makes the orbiter rise to the same height in aphelion as in previous orbital cycles.

The loss of energy and potential due to the effect of gravitational force is comprehensible. What is not accounted for is the source of the energy that makes the orbiter to regain the same potential since the initial energy lost must have radiated away as heat or gravitational waves and is not available for re-conversion to potential energy after perihelion.

Also generally speaking, inter-conversion between potential energy and kinetic energy requires a force to effect the conversion. The simple pendulum once again is a good example that illustrates this inter-conversion. While gravitational force effects conversion of the potential energy of the bob to kinetic energy as it downswings from one end, a different force will be needed to convert the kinetic energy at its lowest point back to potential energy in the upswing. This is provided by the tension force in the string. In gravitational orbits, the force that converts the maximum kinetic energy at perihelion to the maximum potential energy at aphelion is mysterious but it must exist. If we could identity the force then all would be well and if there is no force, then at least we must identify the source of the energy replenishing the orbit.

Putting this quantitatively, from equations for P.E. and K.E. above,

Total energy of a satellite in orbit in joules (J) is given by

P.E. + K.E. = - GMm/2r

Using the sun-earth system as an example and given the mass of the sun as 2x1030kg, mass of the earth as 6x1024kg, the earth's perihelion distance as 147x109m and aphelion at 152x109m, we have:

Total energy of earth in orbit at aphelion (P.E.and K.E.)= - 2.63x1033J

Total energy of earth in orbit at perihelion (P.E. and K.E.)= - 2.72x1033J

Therefore, total energy at perihelion is less than at aphelion by 8.94x1031J as expected from orbital dynamics. This is energy lost per cycle between aphelion and perihelion which represents 3.4% of initial energy at aphelion. If no new energy is added, the next aphelion will occur at a distance of 147x109m instead of the previous 152x109m.

Also although the rate of energy lost is likely to increase more rapidly, if we optimistically assume a steady loss, the orbit is expected to collapse after 29.4 cycles (100/ 3.4 ), that is after about 30 years, but this has not happened billions of years, since the earth formed and started orbiting the sun. Rather what we see is that approximately the same quantity of energy lost is replenished and the aphelion distance is fairly maintained at least for more than thirty cycles. Who is the replenisher and provider of this free lunch?

7. SOME POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNKNOWN AGENT PRESERVING THE ORBIT

i. Must be invisible

This is obvious as we cannot visualize the agent responsible for maintaining the orbit. It is certainly not matter, but may be anything else.

ii. Must possess force that can oppose gravity.

The agent must provide force capable of opposing centripetal force of gravity and give the balancing centrifugal force. It must therefore tend to oppose gravity and instead promote spreading tendencies for gravitational masses in space.

iii. Must be able to supply energy

The agent must be capable of supplying energy to replenish the orbit and prevent collapse. In doing this, it must at a stage in the orbital cycle intervene to prevent collapse by causing deceleration of the orbiter to gravity and increasing its potential.

iv. Must be omnipresent in time and place

The agent must always be available to carry out its functions. Since all the orbital cycles are prevented from immediate collapse, the agent must not be a temporary one but present all the time, for all the cycles and as well throughout the visible universe wherever orbits either of stars, planets and galaxies occur.

8. PARTICIPANT IN MOTION IN DIGITAL OR SIMULATED UNIVERSES

In Simulated Universes, the space between objects can be represented, e.g. by pixels on the computer screen for example. When we observe objects move on the screen, the pixels representing the object change to the character of those representing space, while the pixels representing space in the direction of motion, change to the character of pixels representing the moving object. In other words, the cooperation of the pixels representing space is required for motion to take place. It is my opinion that something similar happens in a real digital universe, with slight difference.

This is responsible for my frequent reference to Zeno's Dichotomy Argument and his Arrow paradox, both of which try to show that in some sense motion cannot occur without the fullest cooperation and participation of that which we call space. The Dichotomy paradox suggests motion cannot commence without the cooperation of the first pixel, nor will it end without the cooperation of the last. While the Arrow paradox says something similar, that the Arrow would not even leave the pixels constituting it in the first place unless our concept of motion undergoes a revolutionary review.

Akinbo

(This post are mainly excerpts from an old unpublishable paper of mine in response to John Prytz insistence that Space is Not-thing).

It makes far more sense that the Object universe, what is, is not expanding but merely continuously recycling itself. What is being observed expanding then is the Image reality created from processing of received EM radiation. Radiation that persisted in the environment, after the configurations of objects forming events, from which it scattered, ceased to be.So the Object universe is not all that is seen but something else. The Earth is not a stationary observer of the whole universe expanding away from it but moving as it orbits the sun and with the motion of the solar system and motion of our galaxy which takes it away from the origins of the majority of the sensory data being received. The Earth is the center of the fabricated Image reality visible universe but has no preferential position within the unseen Object universe.

Experiment

Space-time in the output image reality is a nothingness because no sensory data was provided by it from which to create an Image reality representing it. However that does not mean that foundational space is just an emptiness. To show this it might be possible to create turbulence in a vacuum, using various kinds of apparatus.For example spinning food processing or blender type blades or something on a much, much smaller scale as the effect may be extremely small. That turbulence should affect the way in which light travels through that space. It maybe that it is very difficult to produce turbulence if it is a super fluid that wants to move as a whole but it could be tried. Surely overcoming inertia the fluid resisting change of trajectory must be moved or altered in some way, which may be detectable using changes to EM passage in proximity as an indicator. Compare before motion and after motion light paths.The turbulence should persist even if for a very short time after the motion has stopped. So disturbance of the light directly can be discounted and any disturbance can be attributed to disturbance of the vacuum filling medium.

COSMOLOGY: IN THE BEGINNING, AND AFTERWARDS TOO

Gravity rules the cosmos. You can't come to terms with the origins, evolutions and ultimate fates associated with cosmology or astrophysics without understanding gravity and the theory of relativity. Quantum theory also has to apply to cosmology (and astrophysics) any time you run across micro phenomena where quantum effects need to be considered and where they apply. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where both gravity and quantum physics need to be simultaneously considered - singularities. Unfortunately gravity and quantum physics aren't compatible.

The Alpha: In the beginning was the Big Bang event origin of our Universe - 13.7 billion years ago. The origin of the Universe (the Big Bang) was a quantum event because the initial size of our Universe was such that quantum effects dominated. At least that's what the standard model dictates. It was also a time of extreme gravity, since all the mass of the cosmos was situated at the same time and place. But the relevant and separate equations of relativity and quantum mechanics break down as one approaches such extremes as would of applied at the Big Bang Alpha, giving rise for the necessity of a new theory of quantum gravity in order to come to terms with the Alpha object.

There are two main pillars of modern physics - relativity (part of classical physics) and quantum mechanics or quantum physics. Alas, the two pillars aren't compatible, and thus, a Holy Grail for physicists is to find a 'Theory of Everything' (TOE) that merges the two. Now in the day-to-day life of physicists, a TOE isn't essential, because relativity deals with the very big (the macro-universe) and quantum mechanics the very small (the micro-universe), and rarely do the twains meet. But, meet the two do in exceptional circumstances. Relativity deals with gravity (in the main), and on quantum scales, gravity is so weak that gravity can safely be ignored. But, there are objects that are very small, yet very dense - that is, tiny objects that have high gravity. There are basically two such objects - the Alpha Big Bang object or singularity and Black Hole singularities, or, to be honest, singularities in general regardless of where or when. And thus, to come to terms with the physics of singularities (immense gravity; micro size), the relativity and quantum worlds need to combine. So, TOE is basically a search for a theory of quantum gravity, and there are various highly complex and theoretical scenarios that fit the bill (though not yet even remotely experimentally confirmed).

Now while theories of everything or theories of quantum gravity are, in the final analysis, necessary (it just doesn't wash that relativity and quantum mechanics can't be made compatible - you can't have two separate software packages governing the overall Universe), it is my opinion that they aren't necessary to come to terms with singularities, which are usually described as an object of zero (point) dimensions and infinite density.

However, it is my opinion that it is absurd, in the extreme; to even slightly entertain the idea that a (Big Bang or Black Hole) singularity even remotely approaches such limits, far less acquires them. One cannot have a zero (point) dimensional object; one cannot have an object of infinite density. A singularity must have some sort of volume, and must have a finite density, even if the volume is very tiny, and the density is extremely extreme.

The basic logic is that a singularity has a finite volume and finite density. As you add more stuff to the singularity, the volume might remain the same but the density increases. However, as more and more stuff gets added, ultimately the density reaches the maximum possible, and from that point onwards, the volume of the singularity increases, finally increasing beyond the point where quantum mechanics can play any useful role, and gravity alone is the lone player left standing in the game.

Thus, a singularity could be large enough in volume that relativity theory alone can deal with the extreme gravitational conditions. The Big Bang object, containing the mass of the entire Universe, would be (the ultimate as) such a singularity. Massive (Galactic) Black Hole singularities, ditto. Singularities aren't quantum objects. If you continue to add mass to a Black Hole, it gets bigger; the singularity at the centre gets bigger. To believe otherwise is, IMHO, entering the realm of scientific fantasy.

The upshot off all this is that the Big Bang was not a quantum event, nor would a future Omega Big Crunch be, and likewise, Black Holes are not quantum objects.

The Omega: In the beginning was the Big Bang event origin of our Universe - 13.7 billion years ago. Now what? It's taken 13.7 billion years to get to 'now'; what's the state of play in another 13.7 billion years, or even 137 billion years hence?

What's the ultimate fate of our Universe? Our Universe is currently expanding post Big Bang - ever increasing in volume like a balloon blowing up and up. Now either our expanding Universe will one day cease to expand as gravity slows things down to a crawl, then a stop, then a reversal - a contracting Universe, or our Universe will keep on expanding forever and ever and a day, ultimately terminating in a Heat Death. A Heat Death is when the temperature of the entire Universe becomes uniform. Every place has the same temperature, and that's going to be cold - as close to absolute zero as makes no odds. Thus the Heat Death is the death of heat. That's the Universe ending not with a bang (or even a very Big Crunch) but with a whimper. I really don't like that ending at all.

Assuming that the Universe will ultimately contract into a Big Crunch, what will happen? Well, as one gets ever closer to the Big Crunch, density increases (but will not, can not, become infinite) and temperature increases (but again, not infinitely so) and the volume of space decreases (but will never become infinitely tiny) and time just keeps ticking on. Further, we know there are lots of Black Holes out in the cosmos; both small and massive (such as exists at the centre of our own galaxy). As the Universe contracts, these Black Holes will get closer and closer, not only to each other, but to the rest of non-Black Hole stuff as well. Ultimately, all the non-Black Hole stuff will get ingested into existing Black Holes as the Universe shrinks and matter's density increases. Of course large Black Holes will also ingest smaller Black Holes, until ultimately, at the time approaching Big Crunch; there will be one ultimate/universal Black Hole left containing all that was.

Then what happens? The conditions inside a Black Hole are still unknown, beyond the equations of current physics, but whatever parameters are present, infinities aren't among them (which might put me at odds with most astrophysicists). My reasoning is that no matter what, there's only a finite amount of stuff comprising the universal Black Hole. Squeezed into a tiny area, the density will be extreme, but not infinitely so. The volume will be tiny, but not infinitely so. That is because there is an ultimate limit to how small length (hence volume) can get. The smallest possible length is known as Planck length and anything less than that space ceases to exist. Planck length is 1.6 x 10 to the minus 35 meters. Gravity might be so intense that not even light can escape, but it doesn't take an infinite amount of gravity to do that. And there can't be a time equals zero, either at the beginning (Big Bang) or at the end (Big Crunch). Because time exists in discrete quantum units (Planck-Wheeler time units), one must go from a minus one (contracting phase) time unit directly to a plus one (expanding) time unit, as there can be no time unit where time equals zero. In other words, you go from a Big Crunch directly to a Big Bang, contraction to expansion, endlessly cycling or recycling. Or, the universal Black Hole ingesting in all matter and energy (approaching the Big Crunch) turns inside out and becomes a universal White Hole (the Big Bang) spewing out stuff (matter and energy).

That's sort of akin to having four cars approach an intersection, on each from the north, south, east and west. If each car is one kilometre from the intersection, and each car is travelling at say 50 kilometres per hour, then it is clear this contraction of automobiles will result in a Big Crunch. However, it might be difficult to then go to an automobile expansion as the cars will be a wreck and in no condition to go anywhere! That's one possibility.

The other possibility is that it might be unrealistic to expect in a contracting Universe that each and every bit and piece will meet at exactly the same point in time and space. Using our car analogy, what if each car was one kilometre away from the intersection, but say the north car was going 46 kilometres per hour, the east car 48 kilometres per hour, the south car 50 kilometres per hour, and the west car 52 kilometres per hour. Then, we can go directly from automobile contraction to automobile expansion as each car passes through the intersection while only having near misses with the other vehicles.

Akinbo,

I still fail to see why the shape of orbits, centripetal/centrifugal forces, laws of motion, angular momentum, etc. REQUIRE space to have substance and structure. Most of the parameters in your equations are things, like energy, gravity, mass etc. but I fail to spot anything in your equations that stands for space. Your essay would be far more credible if you could give an equation for the creation of space-as-a-thing. I'll be looking forward to that equation that says Space = XYZ where X, Y, and Z are things of structure and substance.

John Prytz

John Prytz,

I agree space is difficult to "see" directly. Were this not the case the historical dispute starting from ancient times, to Newton-Leibniz would not have persisted this long. A very stubborn persistence.

Firstly, the fundamental meaning of 'substance' is not liquid, solid or gas but something that can act and be acted upon is substance.

Ref: "...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can", p.8 - Newton.

If you want me to elaborate more on substance I can.

Then talking of 'structure', I am happy we both share the idea that there is nothing like a zero-dimensional point and dimensionless particles. Euclid and others before him define the 'point' as the fundamental unit of geometry. If it is not of zero dimension then infinitely divisibility is unlikely as you also rightly pointed out, probably a limit exists at about 10-35m.

As to your request: "...if you could give an equation for the creation of space-as-a-thing. I'll be looking forward to that equation that says Space = XYZ where X, Y, and Z are things of structure and substance."

In thermodynamics, there is an equation possibly answering your demand, i.e. Entropy, S = k lnW. I can only make a poor attempt, but going by your demand I will say Space is proportional to W, W being the number of different possible arrangements available. k is Boltzmann's constant.

Certainly, even from our opposing view points I think we can agree that the concept of space has something to do with the number of arrangements available in a system.

The Second law of thermodynamics, tells us how entropy, S and therefore W also can be increased, e.g. by introducing energy, E at a temperature, T. That is,

dS = dE/T

Therefore when you introduce energy into a system made of ice of a given size for example, it breaks down into water till it attains equilibrium. After equilibrium, if you add energy again, it turns to steam, till it again attains equilibrium at some high temperature. If you add energy again, it breaks down into H and O, which makes for even more possible ways of arranging the system. (number of possible arrangements, W depends on the number of constituents and the number of positions that can be 'occupied'). If you continue, the system continues to obey the second law till you get to quarks, if they are the most fundamental matter. If you pump in more energy into this soup of quarks at equilibrium they cannot break down further. The best they can do is to move faster and faster. Now, if in addition to a finite lower limit to divisibility, there is a finite higher limit to speed and yet the system must obey the second law, how does it or how can it do this? IMHO, if the second law cannot be disobeyed, the only way is for the system size to increase, so that more ways of arranging the system can be available to the constituents. Space appearance and increase is therefore compelled, even if that space was not previously existing. Do you have an alternative way, the second law may still be obeyed after finite divisibility and speed limits?

I do not wish to digress at this point, but later on contemplate what possibility might exist if absolute temperature was zero at the time of energy introduction, i.e. T = 0. You might see way back in time to the lowest possible entropy state as well, which some may call the Big bang.

I see somewhere, where you wrote: "There has to be some nothing as well as some something. If everything were something, then nothing could move as all the Universe would be chockablock - ...You couldn't push anything out of the way as there would be no nothing to push it into!" This is brilliant thinking. I was here before! Only something that has mass can according to Newton's third law be pushed out of the way. Space cannot therefore be pushed out of the way, as it has no mass. But can it disappear and appear? If 'virtual' particles can appear and disappear, if a whole universe can appear and disappear, is it such an impossible task for units of space to disappear and appear that motion be made possible?

Finally, one sure way you can help me out is to tell me the store (like a spring) or source of the energy replenishing the orbit after perihelion, (see the values I gave in section 6 of the post). If you do this in a way consistent with reasoning from mechanical principles, I might give be giving up the idea that space is something capable of acting and being acted upon and therefore capable of storing energy in a coded form.

All the best,

Akinbo

*You may want to check my 2013 Essay where I elaborate more on this my view of space.

By the way I very much share your views about superposition and entanglement but I take your UFO with a heavy dose of salt.

Akinbo,

Actually I note in your earlier (28 November) post about "Space, an unsung participant in the universe?" that much of your discussion revolves around motion. IMHO, you can have motion through absolute nothingness (the not-thing that is space) just as you can have motion through things (like oceans and atmospheres). So I fail to see how motion distinguishes space-as-a-thing from space the not-thing.

Substance is basically the standard model of particle physics. Structure is basically the 3-D geometry that substance takes.

If space is a not-thing, the number of possible arrangements that can take is zero.

Thermodynamics, entropy, etc. all relate to things that have substance. You can have things of substance (fast-moving, slow-moving, etc. particles) that can exist in a not-thing, like space.

Of course there is both something (substances) and nothing (the abstract container we place our substances in which we call space and I clarify by calling it a not-thing).

Virtual particles don't appear and disappear. Conservation laws rule, OK? There is a one-on-one exchange between matter (the virtual particles) and energy (which created the virtual particles which annihilate returning back into energy). The entire universe, even blocks of it, can't appear and disappear. There's just exchanges between states of matter and states of energy. Those exchanges can happen in space that happens to be a not-thing.

Regarding energy and orbits, surely you have heard of the slingshot effect that NASA (for example) uses to give added oomph to space probes and cut down on transit times. By slinging the probes around another planet(s), the probes pick up extra energy, but in doing so the planet loses some energy. The Moon for example is slowly robbing Earth of energy and thus Earth's rotation is very so gradually slowing down and the energy the Moon picks up is increasing the size of its orbit. The Moon is moving away from us. As I've stated time and again, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Well I've asked you to give me the recipe for creating space-as-a-thing. You haven't done it - and you can't do it IMHO because space is NOT a thing that can be created. Thermodynamics isn't really a recipe for creating anything - what can you create out of thermodynamics? OK, thermodynamics has substance, but used as a ways and means of creation? Well perhaps heat is used to create new things, new substances from existing things, but it's not creating anything out of nothing.

The flip side would be for you to give me the recipe for creating dark energy, since space-as-a-thing allegedly creates dark energy. That should be relatively easy for you to do since we create energy (out of matter - which is a thing) all of the time. However, I have a nagging feeling that you wouldn't be able to give me that recipe either.

Well then, perhaps you can give me one actual cosmological observation that requires space-as-a-thing to exist; that is a cosmological observation that cannot be explained by my theory that space is a not-thing.

All for now.

John Prytz

Theory of Everything based on Kant and German idealism:

http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as

_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_us

ing_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

COSMOLOGY AND THE MULTIPLE YOU

The quantum mantra revolves around the theory that in physics, anything not forbidden is compulsory - given enough time and/or space. While there is nothing forbidden about an identical twin(s) of yourself existing elsewhere in the cosmos, how compulsory that is depends on what sort of cosmological model you adopt.

You are unique, aren't you? There never has been a person exactly like you before, there isn't now, and there never will be. Maybe! Depending on what's really real in all things cosmological, the odds that there are identical copies of you out there can range from plausible if improbable, to plausible and probable, to in fact near certainty, even certainty. The key issue revolves around the concept of infinity, or near infinity. If one has an infinite number of universes to play around with, and/or infinite time, then every possible history is, sooner or later, somewhere, compulsory.

The idea of a duplicate you or two or three isn't that far-fetched. Even on Planet Earth, this tiny speck within the cosmos, you have had, do have, and will have doppelgängers. But those are just look-alikes, not actual duplicates of you down to the nittiest-grittiest detail.

From the outset, some definitions are in order. We have the 'observable universe' which is that part of the entire Universe we can actually see in the here and now. Parts of the Universe that exist, but which light hasn't yet reached us, aren't part of our 'observable universe' - yet. The 'Universe' is all that we can ever know about, regions seen, and regions as yet unseen. Then there is the 'Multiverse' which, if it exists, are a conglomerate of separate Universes, each of which exists as a discrete entity in a three dimensional arena and which we could potentially interact with. Think of separate houses along a street you can visit in turn as separate universes. An overall analogy could be the nucleus part of a liver cell (our 'observable universe'), the entire cell (the Universe), and the grand collection of liver cells - the liver Multiverse as it were. Apart from those, there are parallel (mirror/shadow/alternate) universes which 'exist' - for lack of a better phrase - in other planes of existence and like houses that exist in a time instead of a special sequence, say on the same block of land, one can't easily travel from one to another. There's also the Many Worlds Interpretation variation of parallel universe, and simulated universes.

Firstly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in the existing Universe? That's plausible, but probably unlikely.

Discussion: The existing Universe could be as near to infinite as makes no odds. It obviously can't be infinite, because it would take an infinite amount of time to expand the Universe to an infinite volume, and we know the Big Bang took place less than 14 billion years ago. And, the Universe can't contain an infinite amount of stuff; otherwise it would have to have an infinite volume to house it all. The fact that our night sky is dark, suggests that there can't be an infinite number of stars and galaxies in our observable universe, otherwise, no matter in which direction you looked, you'd see a star or galaxy and the night sky would be as light as the daytime. However, from our point of view, while not infinite, the Universe is still BIG! And it does contain a lot of stuff. It is within the bounds of possibility that within such a vast space, by chance, there could be a duplicate(s) of you, even more identical to you than any identical terrestrial twin you might happen to have. The odds aren't very high to be honest, but they aren't zero. However, even if an identical copy of you exists elsewhere out there, the probability is far greater that they already have, or someday will. The odds that two copies of you exist right now multiply the odds against by many orders of magnitude. Finally, even if another copy of you exists somewhere out there now, they are in all probability way to far away for the both of you to ever shake hands.

Secondly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in a cyclic Universe? That's not only plausible, it borders on near certainty.

Discussion: Current cosmological observations suggest that our Universe began some 13.7 billion years ago in a Big Bang. Alas, the expansion of our Universe appears not only not slowing down, but ever accelerating due to something cosmologists and astrophysicists are calling dark energy - which they admit they don't really understand. Anyway, despite dark energy, many cosmologists cling to the concept that eventually the expansion will slow down, halt, and reverse, resulting in ultimately a Big Crunch billions of years in the future. That Big Crunch leads directly to another Big Bang - expansion - contraction - Big Crunch - Big Bang, etc., etc. Thus one has an ever oscillating or cyclic Universe with no beginning and no end. Ah, the concept of infinity (this case in time) rears its head. Since the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of these cycles, as surely as night follows day follows night, anything that could have happened, has happened, and happened an infinite number of times. That includes in infinite number of you, and the life your leading now right down to the last detail an infinite number of times, as well as leading differing lives in every possible variation from the major (marriage, career, children, lifespan, etc.) through to the relatively minor, right down to the highly trivial (like an infinite number of lifetimes absolutely identical to the current one except for one morning when you had an ever so slightly different breakfast cereal). Just think, somewhere in the infinite past, there was a version of you who lived an entire lifetime driving a car and never hit a red light! Again, anything that is within the realm of possibility, even if improbable in the extreme, has happened, and has happened again an infinite number of times. Such is the nature of infinity. The other nice thing about an infinite Universe (whether in time or space) is that all those unsuccessful eggs and sperm, all those failed or un-germinated seeds, all those spores and pollen that never bore fruit, all those lives that never were, all now get their moment in the sun!

There's an interesting variation on the above theme. Most of us are probably familiar with the sci-fi idea of being caught in a time-loop. You repeat an interval of time over again and again, probably until some weird sense of deja vu alerts you that something's not quite right. Expand the idea to the grandest scale possible. Big Bang - expansion - contraction - Big Crunch - Big Bang - expansion, etc. but each cycle isn't a new cycle with a new history and new possibilities rather each cycle is absolutely identical to the one that came before, and the one before that, etc. So, there will be an endless number of you, but there will be no wild new things in your lives, just the same old life, again and again. Maybe that's where we get our now and again sense of deja vu from.

Of course in a cyclic universe, one universe dies before the next is born, so a copy of you in a previous universe is kaput before your universe comes into being, and you will be kaput before the next cycle starts, so there's no meeting of identically like minds.

Thirdly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in the Multiverse? That's not only plausible, but much more likely than if only our one Universe exists.

Discussion: We live in a Universe that is very friendly to life-as-we-know-it (life-not-as-we-know-it is another can of worms that need not concern us here). That is, it seems that the various physical laws and physical constants are fine tuned to allow our kind of life. If any of those values were slightly greater or slightly lesser, the biophysics and biochemistry that allow organic life forms to exist wouldn't be possible. For example, if gravity were ever so slightly weaker, atoms/molecules wouldn't coalesce into macro-bodies like galaxies and stars and planets. If gravity were ever so slightly stronger, stars would be far more massive on average, and the more massive a star, the shorter it's lifespan, to the point where there wouldn't be enough time for life in a young solar system to develop before the parent star went poof! So, that fine tuning leads to a trio of possibilities.

The first is that we (meaning the Universe's life forms) are just incredibly lucky that our one and only Universe just happened to meet all the Goldilocks criteria that allow us to exist. The second is that there is indeed, an intelligent designer responsible for those conditions. For want of a better word, let's call this intelligent designer "God". (There's an interesting variation on this theme and that is this Universe was created by an extraterrestrial intelligence in another Universe, a feat which might be relativity simple to a highly advanced technology able to manipulate the basic forces of physics.)

The third possibility is that there is a Multiverse. We can all agree that our Universe is a Goldilocks universe. We can also all agree that we can imagine other universes, while superficially akin to ours (it would at least have space and time), have differing values for some of all of the physical properties we associate with ours - differing values for the physical constants, the types and numbers of physical forces and particles, the physical laws that are part and parcel of physics, etc. It's akin to humans - we're all superficially similar, yet each one of us (past, present and future) is unique (even identical twins differ and the same applies to clones as well as nurture affects us as well as nature). So, like we have a multiverse of humans, we could have a multiverse of universes (the Multiverse), some of which, like ours, will be Goldilocks universes, although most won't be because some critical constant(s) or force(s) or particle(s) or law(s) will be different enough not to allow the complexity we associate with life-as-we-know-it.

In other words, there exist dozens, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe multi-millions or billions (or more) of universes where the physical laws and constants may well be different. That being the case, most universes will be barren of life because their physics, hence chemistry, aren't compatible with life-as-we-know-it. But a few, by chance, will be Goldilocks Universes. It wouldn't surprise anyone that because we exist, our Universe must be a Goldilocks Universe.

How exactly a Multiverse would come about is neither here or there. But there is at least one theory. To help explain various observational cosmological anomalies that would follow a traditional Big Bang, several decades ago the idea was floated that immediately following the Big Bang came a period of ultra-rapid inflation, before the expansion settled down to a far slower rate. Today, inflation is widely accepted as part and parcel of the Big Bang model. However, inflation need not have ceased at the exact same nanosecond everywhere. That is, if inflation continued on at one point, another Universe would quickly form, and if inflation didn't shut down exactly at the same moment, another bubble or pocket or baby universe would bud off, and so on and so on, resulting in a sort of bubble/foam collective of universes - the Multiverse.

The upshot is that lots of universes (a Multiverse), could mean a lot of you! However, distances separating the various copies of you are now even vaster, so again, getting together for dinner and drinks isn't possible.

Fourthly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in Parallel Universe(s)? It's plausible, but perhaps not all that probable.

Discussion: We've all seen various sci-fi shows where our heroes get propelled into some sort of parallel or mirror universe. The characters they meet are close to, but not identical to themselves. The history they encounter is similar to, but not identical to the history they know. Of course that's for the sake of the plot. A parallel universe could easily contain a parallel you. Unfortunately, sci-fi aside, while there's theoretical reasons to postulate parallel universes, there's no known way of getting to them (and therefore no way of meeting yourself - assuming another yourself exists). But like in the Multiverse concept, if there are multi-billions of parallel universes, that increases the odds of a duplicate you.

Fifthly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in the 'Many Worlds Interpretation' of quantum physics? That's taken as given!

Discussion: There is a theory known as the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics that each time anything, from fundamental particle to human being, comes to a fork in the road as it were, and has to make a choice(s), both/all forks are taken (something can be, and not be at the same time). To accommodate both/all alternatives, this quantum decision making (in the case of the micro), or macro decision making (in the case of scales we're familiar with), the entire Universe splits, and where we had one Universe, we now have two (or more), one for each fork. Of course when you consider the number of forks that the Universe encounters, well it's been calculated that every second, some 10 to the 100th power of Universes need to be created. (Just think how many hundreds, perhaps thousands of decisions (usually quite trivial, often subconsciously) you make every day. There has to be a new Universe to accommodate every alternative. Of course that means that when you add up all these collected Universes, there must be a lot of you, and a lot of everything else, each one ever so subtly different. In the case of deciding between wearing a green dress or a red dress there are now two Universes - one with you in a green dress; one with you in a red dress. And as in the case of parallel universes, there's no known, even theoretical, way of getting from this (say green dress) one to say another one of them (say red dress) and thus exchanging greetings with your identical self or selves.

Lastly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you as a Simulation? That too is as close to certainty as makes no odds!

Discussion: Do you exist? I mean really, really exist and have a physical reality? That's a pretty dumb question you'll probably ask! The answer is an obvious 'yes'. But, what if I were to suggest that the odds are very high that you have no actual physical reality, and that I have no actual physical reality, and that in fact all terrestrial life, Planet Earth, perhaps the entire observable universe has no actual physical reality! In other words, what if we are a computer simulation!

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that in the real physical Universe, there exists some tens of thousands of extraterrestrial civilizations which have evolved technology our equal or better; even more advanced than we can conceive of. The odds are high that most would have invented computers - hardware and software. Any one civilization, such as our own, have (to date) produced multi-thousands of computer programs, many of which simulate life forms - think of the hundreds, indeed thousands of computer or video games. No doubt these programs will grow, over time, ever more complex and lifelike until they simulate reality to the same degree as reality itself.

If one advanced civilization produces multi-thousands of individual computer programs that simulate an actual, or imagined, reality, what are the odds that we aren't one of those simulated thousands vis-à-vis being that advanced civilization that actually exists in real reality? How could you know if you were real (hardware), or imaginary (software)? I maintain there's no way of you knowing, at least for absolute sure.

There's only a relatively few actual civilizations, but untold numbers of created false (simulated) realities - what odds we are one of the real ones and not one of the imaginary/simulated many?

Perhaps our concept of 'God' is nothing more than a mythological version of some advanced, but hardly supernatural, extraterrestrial computer programmer! Now as long as nobody hits the delete key!

But of course if there are multiple copies of that computer program containing you then that equates to a lot of you! You could exist hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of times over, all leading perhaps identical, but more likely as not, similar 'lives'. Now you quite obviously could not meet yourself as each piece of software is akin to a one universe - the collection of all the units of that software is akin to a type of Multiverse!

Is the idea really so way out in left field that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it could be right? We have to look to advances in our own terrestrial computing power to determine that. Computer generated simulations are already realistic enough that they are used to train pilots and MDs and other humans in professional activities where mistakes in training, if done in real situations, could be disastrous. Our cinema industry has already produced computer generated virtual reality films, bypassing real actors and real scenery. It's entirely possible to bring back in a sense dead actors to star again in new productions. We've all be awed by computer generated special effects in films that are so realistic that if you didn't actually know better, you'd swear they were real.

Walk into any DVD store and you'll find thousands of video (computer) games and/or simulations that you can run on your PC. Most have 'humans' in various role-playing guises that are software generated and which you interact with. The reality factor is increasing by leaps and bounds. At what point will the software become complex enough such that these simulated 'beings' are advanced enough to have self-awareness? What happens when the computer software programming these virtual 'humans' becomes equal to the software (brains) that program us? What happens when the computer software complexity exceeds that of the human brain? Far fetched? Methinks not. Now just replace our virtual 'humans' with ourselves, and maybe, just maybe, we're the virtual reality in somebody (something) else's actual reality.

That theory is testable. While I can think of no way to prove I'm not a simulated being, one can find evidence that we do live in a simulated universe, and by implication, we too are simulated beings. No software (computer or human wetware - brains) is perfect. If there are any glitches, or software upgrades, they might be detectable as anomalous phenomena in some context or another. Like say one of the physical constants were tweaked and altered ever so slightly (and there is some evidence for that - the fine structure constant for example or the proton-electron mass ratio has apparently changed over astronomical time periods), or say the expansion of the Universe began to accelerate for no real apparent reason (that sounds familiar - recall dark energy). Computer software - from our experience - is always being upgraded and updated. If the same applies elsewhere, we could perhaps notice it if we're a product of that software.

Even though there could be multiple copies of a video game that contains you as a character, it's one you per copy, so again, no meeting yourself. That's not to prevent the creator of the game from including multiple copies of you within the one game - if so; well a conversation between you and copies of you won't be very interesting since you each know what you're going to say before you say it!

Finally, one bright note is evident. Even as you approach your own demise, take heart and rejoice, for somewhere out there, there is another you(s) to carry on, and on, and on, and on, and on! As the sun (once upon a time) never set on the British Empire, so to will the sun never set on you.

By the by, if you want to split hairs, you could insist that any copies of you aren't really identical in that the elementary particles, atoms and molecules making up your twin aren't the same elementary particles, atoms and molecules making you up. The flaw in that argument is that all fundamental particles, like say all electrons, are identical to as many decimal places as you care to measure and calculate.

THE BRANES AND THE BULK AND THE BULK OF THE BRANES: THE BRANE NEW WORLD OF BRANEWORLDS

For millennia, New Age devotees have related observations of nebulous exotic entities from apparently alternative realities like Parallel Universes that have made a crossover into our reality. Rational people suggest that's just so much bovine fertilizer. Or is it? Perhaps theoretical physics and String Theory might just support such an exotic scenario, the scenario of the Braneworld.

Question: Might 3-Braneworlds equal Parallel Universes (or in mystic-speak Astral Planes; Alternative Realities; Spirit Worlds; Parallel Realities; Higher Planes of Existence; Higher Dimensions; Portals in Space-time, as well as a host of related New Age claptrap phrases that non-New Age squares indeed call claptrap) from which come 'higher beings', 'astral entities', our 'enlightened space brothers' or even plain ordinary everyday run-of-the-mill aliens.

You cannot have nebulous otherworldly beings, or alternate reality entities, without having an alternative place or reality or an other-world(s) from which they come from visiting from and call home. Higher planes of reality and associated phrases have been called so much poppycock and confined to the rubbish bin, but perhaps prematurely.

Well, String Theory comes to the rescue, if not for the benefit of New Age gurus, then for cosmologists and theoretical physicists. But perhaps we can kill the two birds with the one stone as it were.

It all starts with String Theory. Now you probably think of the elementary particles, if you think of them at all, as very tiny little billiard balls. However, some bright sparks decades ago came up with an alternative. Instead of a zoo full of different types of little billiard balls, there were tiny vibrating strings. How they vibrated determined what kind of elementary particle it was - one good vibration/second might be an electron; two good vibrations/second a positron; three good vibrations/second equate to a neutrino, etc.

Strings could either be open (like an ordinary piece of string) or closed loops like a circle or ellipse; somewhat like a doughnut.

Now these strings are one-dimensional. But there can be two-dimensional Stringy objects, called Branes, short for Membranes. In fact, Branes became the generic name for all structures in String Theory, usually identified as p-Branes (weak pun) where the "p" stood for the number of spatial dimensions. So a 1-Brane was a string; a 2-Brane was a membrane; a 3-Brane was akin to our own version of reality. A 3-Brane is commonly referred to as a 3-Braneworld.

Oh, there's a catch. In order for String Theory to theoretically work, there has to be extra dimensions (I can hear New Age mystics cheering now), in fact nine spatial dimensions all up, plus the one dimension we call time. So, in fact you could go all the way up to a 9-Brane. Again all p-Branes have an extra time dimension as well tagged on. All up, that's six more spatial dimensions than we are comfortable with, but they tend to be out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Most extra dimensions are extremely tiny and curled up and hiding in-between the bits and pieces, the flotsam and jetsam of the quantum realm. But one extra dimension could be extremely large indeed providing the space all else, like 3-Braneworlds, is housed in.

Now 3-Braneworlds have to exist in higher dimensional space, like a 4-Brane which we can't traverse. It's just akin to how a fridge magnet is 'trapped' on a 2-D fridge surface (a 2-Brane plus extra time dimension) yet resides within a 3-D (3-Brane plus additional time dimension) space. Or, to use another analogy, a 2-D shower curtain hangs in 3-D space but the water droplets are confined to the 2-D shower curtain surface. We're confined to a 3-D universe 'surface' (3-Braneworld plus one time dimension) but that resides in a 4-D (4-Brane plus one time dimension) volume. To cut to the chase, lets just call that what our spatial 3-Braneworld universe reside in a realm of five space-time dimensions. That realm has been given a name - it's called the Bulk. Why it is called the Bulk I have no idea, but that's what it is named.

I've notched the Bulk up to being a five dimensional space-time (out of a possible ten), but it could just as easily I guess be the tenth space-time dimension (9 spatial and one of time). It doesn't really matter since we can't directly see it, taste it, touch it, hear it or smell it, be it a 4-Brane or a 9-Brane. But regardless, the absolute key point is that gravity can connect 3-Braneworlds via the Bulk whether the Bulk has a 4-Brane, 5-Brane, 6-Brane, 7-Brane, 8-Brane or 9-Brane spatial dimensionality.

So much for the background theory: now, the interesting bit is what if our universe were in fact, in reality, really a 3-Braneworld (plus a single dimension of time) residing in 4-Brane spatial volume, or the equivalent, a five space-time dimensionality (the Bulk). What if in fact there were other 3-Braneworlds (each with a time dimension) residing in that same 4-Brane (plus time dimension) volume of five dimensional space-time (the Bulk). Because of that residing (or hiding) in a higher spatial dimension, two 3-Braneworlds could exist within millimetres of each other, unseen, separated by the Bulk. Why unseen? It's back to those tiny open and closed strings and where they call home.

Closed strings are confined to our own 3-D or 3-Braneworld universe (like water droplets on that shower curtain) where they appear as those elementary particles that are associated with electromagnetism like photons and electrons, as well as those particles part and parcel to the strong and weak nuclear forces. These three forces are the quantum forces that rule our roost. If closed strings are the case for neighbouring 3-Braneworlds, then we can't see them because their electromagnetic (light) particles, photons, are forever confined and trapped to that 3-Braneworld and never reach us. Other 3-Braneworlds are invisible to us. That leaves the fourth force, the non-quantum force, gravity.

Open strings are the force particles of gravity, called gravitons. Open strings can exist with one string end attached to our 3-Braneworld, the other string end to an alien 3-Braneworld. Open strings, in other words, could cross the Bulk from our 3-Braneworld to another 3-Braneworld and be attached to both. In other words, gravity is our best bet means of detecting other nearby 3-Braneworlds. But you can't see gravity, so our neighboring 3-Braneworld is for all practical purposes is still invisible to us. However, you can 'see' the effects that gravity has on objects you can see. You can't see the gravity that controls the flight of a baseball, but you can see the effect of gravity on the baseball.

Postulating a nearby 3-Braneworld explains a trilogy of puzzlements. One is Dark Energy, one is Dark Matter; the other third is why gravity is so weak relative to the other three fundamental quantum forces (electromagnetism; weak and strong nuclear)

The Mystery of Dark Energy: If two 3-Braneworlds are in close proximity, attached by gravity, then they could have a close encounter of the ka-boom kind. We might term that ka-boom a 'Big Bang'. If the Big Bang was an actual collision between two 3-Braneworlds (known as the Ekpyrotic Universe scenario), causing a ripple and expansion effect, then Dark Energy is that left over residual oomph, the continuing shock wave of the Big Bang which comes to the fore and dominates the Universe when the initial radiation dominated epoch and the following matter dominated epoch begin to thin out or dilute as the Universe expanded. In this scenario however, we have to have Dark Energy eventually thin out, dissipate and fade away too.

The Mystery of Dark Matter: In order to explain various rotational anomalies of the galaxy, ours and others, additional but unseen matter with associated gravity has got to exist - it's either that or we have to drastically revise the laws of gravity as we currently understand them and no scientist is wiling to tilt at that windmill. Unfortunately, this postulated additional matter isn't akin to normal matter which you can detect because you can see it. We can't see this additional matter which is postulated, indeed nearly required, to exist. That's why it is called 'Dark Matter', though a better term might be 'invisible matter'. However, if a nearby 3-Braneworld universe shared its gravity with us, via those open graviton strings that transverse the Bulk, well that explains the 'need for extra gravity' to explain rotational anomalies and thus eliminates the need for the theoretical un-matter-like 'Dark Matter'.

The Mystery of Weak Gravity: Gravity is the 98-pound weakling force relative to the trio of Charles Atlas quantum forces. Why has always been a total mystery that theoretical physicists have had to deal with. Open (gravity) strings in the Bulk explain why. Closed strings are confined to our own 3-Braneworld. We feel their full strength. However, our open string gravitons aren't confined to our 3-Braneworld. Our gravity is diluted by spreading out into and throughout the Bulk and also attaching to other 3-Braneworlds. That's why it's the 98-pound weakling.

Another mystery is to answer the question, if our 3-Brane universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Well, it's expanding into that five space-time dimensional Bulk.

Anomalies aside, another 3-Braneworld could be, well millimetres away from our 3-Braneworld along with their 'shadow entities' or 'higher beings' or 'aliens' and we'd never know it except through their gravitational contribution, what we call 'Dark Matter' which, because it doesn't actually exist in our own 3-Baneworld universe, can never have its identity 'discovered' in our labs or high-energy particle accelerators like CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

It should be pointed out that even though two 3-Braneworlds could be millimeters apart, they are not intersecting, just as your home and your next door neighbor's home don't overlap.

So another question obviously arises. If our 3-Braneworld in that five dimensional space-time Bulk is in extremely close proximity to another 3-Braneworld also in that five dimensional space-time Bulk, and there's gravity twixt them and us, well, what happens when two 3-Braneworlds collide in the higher dimensional Bulk?

If two 3-Braneworlds are attached by sharing gravity via those open strings, then they in fact can collide. It's our Big Bang event of 13.7 billion years ago explained. The Big Bang was just a massive supply of kinetic energy supplied at one location; one set of coordinates, caused by our 3-Braneworld impacting another 3-Braneworld at that one specific point. The two 3-Braneworlds then rebounded, but of course could collide again at a later (unpredictable) date. It's an interesting variation on the concept of a Cyclic Universe.

The standard 3-Braneworld model likens them to very flat and thin rubbery membrane sheets parallel to each other, sort of like thin LP albums cheek-by-jowl with only tiny separations between them on a shelf. They can approach (under gravity), collide (not everywhere at once as they are not 100% mirror smooth due to random quantum fluctuations if nothing else) then rebound. I think that's imposing a rather artificial and rigid set of conditions though I gather if you crunch the numbers two membrane thin and parallel 3-Braneworlds are the most likely and stable geometric configuration you can get (but I still think that's unsatisfactory). Normally when you think of something like the Universe, and something that's expanding, you think of round things - not flattish membrane sheets. So how about an elastic balloon-ball analogy?

Say we have two 3-D elastic balloon-balls in 4-D 'space' (I think they actually call this hyperspace as well as the Bulk) or a five dimensional space-time realm. There could in reality be a dozen 3-Braneworld balloon-balls all in close proximity, but two's enough for now to illustrate things. These 3-D elastic balloon-balls in collision can expand and contract and ripple, though they remain tethered together by those spring-like inter-brane forces (those open string gravitons).

Each 3-Braneworld balloon-ball has a mix of radiation, matter and Dark Energy which dominates that balloon-ball in turn as the 3-Braneworld evolves cyclically by experiencing a collision, the Big Bang; an expansion; dilution of each component element in turn - otherwise called entropy; cooling; and contraction back to its original state ready for another collision and Big Bang. That term entropy is nothing more than the concept that order tends towards disorder, or in other words, all that original high ordered radiation, matter and Dark Energy becomes more disordered and all ends up ultimately as a uniform but very dilute 'soup' until the next injection of kinetic energy - the next collision and Big Bang in an endless cycle.

So, the story thus far: Two 3-Braneworld balloon-balls in higher dimensional space-time (the Bulk, which isn't a static 'observer' but an active participant in these events), slowly, ever so slowly start to gravitate towards each other, slowing but surely picking up speed over time. Okay, so they approach each other under their joint mutual gravitational attraction. They hit (that's our Big Bang); they ring or reverberate like a bell; they compress and each balloon-ball heats up die to that initial compression and expands; the two balloon-balls rebound but quickly slow, stop and set the evolving conditions in each balloon-ball recycle back for a repeat performance.

Another way of putting that evolution is that the kinetic energy of motion resulting in the Big Bang event at time and point of collision was converted to radiation, matter and Dark Energy which then dilutes over time as the 3-Braneworld expands, finally cools, slows down, contracts back to it's original balloon-ball configuration.

Those extra-dimensional spring-like dynamics keeps the 3-Braneworlds apart but tethered though both are individually expanding or contracting or rippling and both are on the rebound from the other. When things settle down, and maximum entropy rules the roost, they can come together again still connected to its neighbouring counterpart by those open graviton strings.

Fly-In-The-Ointment #1: Even if other entities are just millimetres away in their 3-Brane Universe, they are as separated from us by the five-dimensional space-time Bulk as we are from them. How can they use gravity to get from their 3-Braneworld to its next door neighbour 3-Braneworld (that's us) through higher dimensional space-time? One can't just hike across gravity like it was a bridge. There's gravity between the Earth and the Moon but you can't walk-the-walk between the two.

How then does an other-world, a 3-Braneworld ET or the 'higher beings' that exist there get to our 3-Braneworld and then appear as those New Age 'shadow beings' from those mystic Never-Never Lands they like to go on, and on, and on about? Well, about the only viable scenario I can think of is excessive gravity translates into Black Holes which can, in theory, translate into Wormholes (for lack of a better word or concept) and Wormholes can be used, in theory, as a transit system. On the plus side, entities intelligent enough to manipulate gravity to create a wormhole transit system with entrance and exit portals will have no need of intergalactic or interstellar spaceships and million year journeys.

Fly-In-The-Ointment #2: String Theory, Branes ("p" or otherwise), the Bulk (or hyperspace), etc. well it's all just pure (and highly technical) mathematical theory. There's not one shred of experimental evidence; there's not one single run on the board that Strings and Branes exist. Till some theoretical physicist turns experimental physicist and hits a home-run, well I'm afraid all of the above will have to reside in New Age La-La Land, however fascinating the scenarios are.

John Prytz, (and thank you to Georgina),

As I was contemplating what other stroke to use in replying a different folk, Georgina seemed to have given me a hint.

So, John as you keep telling me to prepare you various recipes that Space is not a Nothing, which when I do you declare that they are not tasty, can you return the favor and prepare a recipe for Action-at-a-distance? Newton himself declined doing this, with his famous statement, "hypotheses non fingo".

You may also read Georgina's post on the Faster than Light thread on Dec. 2, 2014 @ 07:25 GMT and the quote attributed to Newton (one of my favorite quotes from the man).

Thanks for pointing to the slingshot effect. I read it and it is interesting. It is an outcome of good reasoning from mechanical principles. The Wikipedia refers to it as Gravity Assist.

In the relevant physics, the applicable equations are time-reversible, so if I am correct, in reverse motion the Moon can also sling backwards and donate energy to the Earth. IMHO, this slingshot effect does not fully address how come orbits are stable and behave like a perpetuum mobile.

Now, one figure says more than a thousand words, so let me give you more figures to contemplate.

Given the Moon's distance at apogee as 405400km and at perigee 362600km, with the Total energy in orbit (potential and kinetic) as

-GMm/2r,

putting in the Earth's mass, M and Moon's mass, m

At Apogee, the total energy of the orbit = -3.628 x 1028J

At Perigee, the total energy of the orbit = -4.056 x 101028J

Therefore, we have a difference of 4.28x101027J of energy, either lost as heat or otherwise radiated away and replenished by the Simulator after perigee,

Or Stored somewhere by the Simulator for re-use every cycle, which Store may not be classified as a nothing.

In one of your posts I was delighted to see, "That is because there is an ultimate limit to how small length (hence volume) can get. The smallest possible length is known as Planck length and anything less than that space ceases to exist. Planck length is 1.6 x 10-35m". I think we can build on this, as something that has a finite limit to divisibility must have structure of some kind.

Regards,

Akinbo

AN INFINITE COSMOS: ISSUES ARISING

The nature of, the size, the shape and the duration of our Universe has been speculated and debated upon ever since humans gazed in wonder at the night sky. Though ideas have waxed and waned, and though modern cosmology is more focused than ever on actual observations, speculations, well that's still the case today. My take, albeit slightly more philosophically inclined, is that our Universe is just part of an overall infinite in space and infinite in duration cosmos.

In the infinite beginning there was something rather than pure nothing - a finite amount of something in an infinite void of nothingness. This scenario eliminates the philosophical quandary of what's beyond the boundary - that only other alternative. This eliminates the philosophical quandary of how much stuff there is. An infinite amount of stuff doesn't leave you much elbow room.

In the infinite beginning, well there was no beginning; there can ever be an end. No Alpha - no Omega. This eliminates the philosophical quandary of what comes before the 'beginning' and what comes after 'the end'.

Okay, having postulated an infinite cosmos in space and in duration, well, other certain and not so philosophical issues come to the fore. If they can be addressed, well that's all to the good. If not, well it's back to the drawing board.

I'll start with...

Olber's Paradox

The night sky should be as bright as the daytime sky since in whatever direction you look, sooner or later you should see a star or galaxy that's in your line of sight. That's Olber's Paradox because the night-time sky isn't as bright as the daytime sky. One resolution is that our observable Universe is finite and there are only a finite number of stars and galaxies and thus, there will be lines of sight that do not intersect with an object that's emitting light.

But what if the cosmos is infinite in size and has existed for an infinite amount of time? Does that resurrect or reinstate the validity or viability of Olber's Paradox? Not necessarily.

Why is there something rather than nothing? That's been a prime philosophical question that has raged for aeons. But, on reflection, overall, there is a great deal more of nothing than of something. If everything was something, it would be rather difficult to move. There would be no elbow room. In other words, just because the cosmos is infinite in duration and in volume doesn't mean that there has to be an infinite amount of something within.

Let's say that pure nothing is a perfect vacuum. Then something within that nothing makes for an imperfect vacuum. One could image a cosmos so dilute that there could literally be gaps of pure nothingness between the bits and pieces of something. Or, one could imagine a universe that contained just one final cosmic Black Hole that had over all the infinite aeons gobbled up everything else that had been a something within the cosmos, and thus 99.99999% of that cosmos would contain absolutely nothing.

That aside...

Stars, like people, are born, and thus their light may not have yet reached us.

Stars, like people, die, and thus their light has ceased to reach us. It has all now passed by.

In an infinite space, stars maybe so far distant that by the time their light reaches us, it's so diluted or spread out that only one photon per hour hits the eye and that threshold is too low to stimulate the optic nerve and thus register.

Ever present cosmic Black Holes have gobbled up a lot of the radiation that is emitted and reflected. In fact, in a cosmos that's infinite, why haven't those astronomical Black Holes sucked up everything that can be sucked up thus terminating any and all evolving universes within that cosmos? Well the answer is Hawking radiation which theoretically predicts, on pretty substantial grounds, that eventually Black Holes will radiate away their mass. Once input is less than Hawking radiation output, the Black Hole will slowly, ever so slowly, radiate away, giving back to the cosmos what it once took away. There will be more on the significance of that shortly.

Entropy and Cosmic Recycling #

Another concept that needs addressing is entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise known as the 'arrow of time' or sometimes as 'time's arrow'. If one considers an infinite universe to be a closed box or closed system, then over time, and we have an infinite amount of it, that closed box should reach absolute equilibrium and no further cosmic evolution would be possible. There would be a maximum amount of disorder, and there would be no further energy available to reverse that level of disorder.

It should be noted from the outset that in any closed box or closed system, entropy rules. Things will go from a state of order to a state of disorder without outside interference, that being an external source of energy to reverse the natural trend. The commonly cited example is if you have a closed box (the kitchen), and you turn off the fridge, the kitchen and the fridge will eventually reach absolute equilibrium, the same temperature. The kitchen warms up the fridge; the fridge cools down the kitchen, until both are at the same temperature - maximum disorder. It takes an outside energy source - electricity - to keep the fridge colder than the kitchen and thus in a state is disequilibrium or a state where entropy has not been maximized. Trouble is, once energy is evenly spread out throughout a closed system (like the fridge in the kitchen), no matter how much of it there is, it's useless in terms of doing useful things - like initiating change.

Another example: Your own body is a closed system. Your body's energy is in equilibrium. You are at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit from head to toe. Within that state of affairs, your body can not do useful things. Fortunately, there's a larger closed system that your body is a part of (like the fridge is part of the kitchen) that enables you to disrupt your body's equilibrium and thus provide the means for your body to initiate change. Your outside energy source is food, which is good since once you invoke that larger closed system that contains you, that larger system absorbs your body heat that gets radiated away into it. So the fridge needs outside energy to replenish its supply of cold; you need energy to replenish your body heat and to provide the ways and means to keep you keeping on. Of course as we all know, that's just postponing the inevitable. Sooner or later the fridge breaks down with wear; ditto you too. But in the meantime, and for a little while, you can keep your body's entropy under control.

Now any attempt to tunnel around various laws, principles and relationships of physics might be in vain, but not a total waste of time. The laws, principles and relationships of physics are constantly being refined, even overturned as in Einstein refined Newton's gravity; the Sun going around the Earth got overturned by Copernicus. However, anyone attempting to tunnel over, around, or through the Second Law of Thermodynamics should abandon all hope. If you try to butt heads with entropy you'll just end up with a sore head. You'd have better luck patenting a 'perpetual motion' machine, itself a violation of the ways and means of the entropy concept. In fact entropy is why you can't construct a perpetual motion machine and why any patent officer worthy of the name would refuse you a patent for one.

Still, in an infinite cosmos, a cosmos that keeps on keeping on, there probably needs to be a way to go from a state of disorder (high entropy) back to a state of order (low entropy).

As we noted in the example of the fridge and your body, it takes energy to reverse entropy or at least hold it at bay. A reversal of entropy is sort of like that closed box with Maxwell's Demon (representing energy) that controls a slot that the Demon can either open or close that's in the middle of that closed box that's of a uniform temperature. The Demon opens the slot whenever a rapidly moving (hot) molecule heads toward the left side or when a slower moving (cold) molecule heads toward the right side. After a while, the left side of the box will be containing just hot stuff (rapidly moving molecules) and the right side cold stuff (slowly moving molecules). Maxwell's Demon is like a kid expending energy sorting a bag of 1000 various coloured marbles (maximum disorder) into piles of reds and greens and blues and yellows (maximum order). Of course our infinite cosmos contains no demons, and marble-sorting kids need not apply if there's ever a job ad for restoring order to an infinite cosmos.

Okay, without demons (or entropy reversing kids), our infinite cosmos heads towards a state of maximum entropy or maximum disorder or maximum uniformity. The cosmic temperature will be the same everywhere; matter will be evenly distributed. But, can an infinite cosmos ever reach such a state? It could or should take an infinite amount of time, but that's also assumed.

Yet alas, what even an infinite cosmos needs is a Maxwell's Demon. The cosmos, if it is to retain a state of vitality for an infinite duration, needs something that recycles stuff that's at maximum entropy (maximum disorder) back to the basics of minimum entropy (or minimum disorder) where useful things can continue to happen.

* The Role of Gravity

Gravity seems to be a Maxwell Demon's kind of force that keeps on keeping on. As long as you have two bits of matter, even just two electrons, you have gravity. Radiation (electromagnetism) could be dispersed evenly in infinite space over infinite time, but it is hard to imagine that situation with gravity. The only real way gravity could be rendered inert and useless as an energy source would be if it was 100% concentrated in just one place - like a super ultra mother of all cosmic Black Holes. The only other way gravity could be nullified would be in matter were distributed so absolutely evenly such that every bit of matter were being gravitationally pulled on absolutely evenly in each and every direction. But the slightest nudge or deviation from this ideal theoretical state (inevitable given quantum fluctuations) would throw everything out of equilibrium. But because matter is energy and energy is matter, if gravity can disrupt the distribution of matter from a state of near perfect uniformity, then energy will follow the short and curly material bits. Light (photons) reacts to gravity as much as electrons do. Further, the one extra nice property that gravity has is that it can't be blocked. You can block out light or shield yourself from electromagnetic effects, but nothing will shield you from gravity.

* The Recycling Role of Radioactivity

Fortunately, there are several basic ways of recycling complex cosmic stuff back into the cosmos in the form of simple stuff. The first of these however has issues. Gravity can contract and pull together interstellar gas and dust into a proto-star which will ignite under pressure via thermonuclear fusion to form a radiant star. Stars however fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, and when a star goes nova, or becomes a supernovae, those heavier elements increasingly form the next generation of interstellar gas and dust. Eventually, after many generations of enrichment, interstellar gas and dust is lacking in those lighter elements (mainly hydrogen and helium) which easily undergoes fusion. Heavy elements, like iron, just won't fuse any more and so the continued formation of radiant stellar stuff grinds to a halt. But, there is an escape clause.

Among the heavy elements; elements that stars manufacture, are radioactive elements with unstable atomic nuclei. Radioactive decay re-releases back into the cosmos those fundamental bits and pieces that can reform into those lighter elements that are the basic building blocks for forming radiant stellar objects. There is cosmic recycling from the simple to the complex and back to the simple again.

* The Recycling Role of Cosmic Black Holes

The second way of cosmic recycling is, believe it or not, via cosmic Black Holes. Astronomical Black Holes, via the vacuum energy (quantum foam or fluctuations) and quantum tunnelling, can release elementary particles back into the cosmos. As mentioned earlier, this is known as Hawking Radiation, after theoretical cosmologist/astrophysicist Stephen Hawking. Complex stuff can go into a Black Hole, but just very simple stuff ultimately comes back out again.

* The Recycling Role of Life

Life can be an entropy buster as in the case of Maxwell's Demon, the kid who sorts the marbles, the mum who does the housework, the bird or beaver who gathers up forest debris to make a nest. But, it takes outside energy to accomplish these things and at the end you haven't decreased complexity - the marbles are still marbles; twigs are still twigs. But microbes like bacteria, etc. can break down complex stuff (like twigs) and turn it into less complex stuff which can be recycled into hundreds of new and different complex things. So, when our home planet eventually meets its Waterloo, and gets scattered back into the cosmic winds, thanks to bacteria, there will be more simple stuff floating around than would otherwise be the case

So complex stuff gets recycled back into simple stuff, all brought together again by gravity to ultimately form complex stuff again. The cosmos receives recycled stuff back, from which it can keep on keeping on!

* A Fly in the Ointment

In a cosmos that's both infinite in space and infinite in duration, here's an interesting 'angels on the head of a pin' question. There are two forces which in theory can extend their influence indefinitely, that is, unto infinity. They are electromagnetism (of which light is a prime example) and gravity. So, can the influence of a force cross an infinite space if it has an infinite amount of time to do it in?

Perhaps Maxwell Demon's 'closed box' isn't really an appropriate 'container' for an infinite cosmos. If the cosmos is infinite, can it be described as a closed system?

The Multiple You

And so finally, consider and reconsider the quantum mantra: "Anything that isn't forbidden is compulsory; anything that can happen will happen". That's even more the case when you have infinite time and space to play around with! So, I add to that mantra "and will happen again and again and again, an infinite number of times". That actually means, or at least very strongly suggests that every possible scenario, every possible history, and every possible variation on each and every scenario or on any theme that you care to think of or think up will happen again and again and again. That, by the way, includes you. You are a scenario, and you, and every possible variation of you and your history will transpire numerous times; actually an infinite number of times. If that isn't spooky, I don't know what is, but it's a logical consequence of having an infinite cosmos.

# There are other ways and means of cosmic recycling too.

Stars are of course spewing out photons, as well as a whole stream of other bits and pieces from cosmic rays to neutrinos collectively called the solar wind, augmented by solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Interplanetary and interstellar space is full of this flotsam and jetsam that stars are giving off. In fact, the Universe tends to be a pretty active place: bits coming together via gravity only to be ejected back into space again be it radio waves (photons) from pulsars or gamma-ray bursts from high energy objects deep in the cosmos.

I understand that even seemingly stable subatomic nuclei aren't really stable in the ultra long term. After trillions of years even the elements we think of as everlasting will disintegrate and go poof with their own half lives.

On a smaller scale, an isolated neutron will decay into a proton, and electron and an anti-neutrino. However, since a neutron is already pretty fundamental, further breakdown isn't all that additionally useful.

Some variations on the standard model of particle physics require protons to decay (into a positron and a pion) albeit with an extremely, extreme half life. Experiments have been conducted to verify this proton decay but to date without success. No matter, a proton (like the neutron) is already pretty fundamental.