The big bang

[Locut0s]

You're going off into quantum theory and are not really directly answering the OP with traditional physics.

When it comes to maters of the birth of the universe one can NOT avoid quantum mechanics. Modern cosmology is founded on quantum mechanics and the modern "big bang" theory is as much quantum mechanics as it is general relativity.

 

[SlitheryDee]

You don't know what entropy is do you?

Essentially entropy is a measure of a systems "orderliness" the more orderly the system the lower the entry. The more messy or chaotic it looks the higher the entropy.

I know the definition of entropy, but I'm not sure how it is being interpreted in that graph. When you say "the more orderly the system" aren't you talking about the orderliness of the matter and energy in that system?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Just to confirm...OP, you are from the US right?

 

[Locut0s]

I know the definition of entropy, but I'm not sure how it is being interpreted in that graph. When you say "the more orderly the system" aren't you talking about the orderliness of the matter and energy in that system?

I believe all they are saying there is that the rapid expansion of the universe creates a state where the maximum possible entry is very very large. This maximum entropy state would equate with a sea of random particles, no stars, no planets, no galaxies, just a smooth soup of mater. This is the natural state that mater and energy in the universe tends towards. Given no significant change all matter and energy in the universe would eventually reach this high state of entropy (thermal equilibrium). However the universe is expanding faster than thermal equilibrium processes can operate. This allows for the existence of lower entropy things like stars, planets, galaxies and life. Life is one of the lowest entropy states in the universe.

Anyone who REALLY knows this want to confirm what I'm saying here?

 

[KGB]

"I think... therefore I shit."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Here's my thought:
Since temporal causality can work to allow the big-bang to create itself at the start of all existence; can we have a non-universe space outside of the big-bang universe that is drawing the universe to a teleological end?

We discussed this briefly before. I think you've made a number of errors in your thinking.

It is a mistake to suppose that the big bang "create[d] itself." For one, the big bang was an event, not a thing. A singularity is a feature of a certain mathematical model, not an object in reality with physical dimensions. It wasn't "created." It happened (according to our reverse extrapolations of the expanding universe).

Second, it requires an uncommon definition of "universe" to suppose that any idea resembling a "non-universe space" makes any kind of sense.

Personally, I think you make too much of the "arrow of time," as if you could establish a preferential or universally inert frame of reference. Time is a dimension just like space (in fact, there is no distinction, there is just spacetime). The coordinates of these dimensions exist simultaneously -- over there exists simultaneous with over here, and then exists simultaneous with now.

I won't argue that the apparent paradox of the "arrow of time" and the time-symmetry of the laws of physics is not a controversial one, but I simply think you're making unwarranted and dubious inferences. Personally, I think the "arrow of time" appears because of our unique sensory apparatus, and particularly the gaps between our synapses over which sensory data must leap. And again, those are themselves consequences of our relatively uniform velocities within our immediate environment.

Not a vitalism, but some end-state that is outside of time that is impacting reality through transcendence of the temporal arrow of entropy?

If you'd like some better answers to your questions than even I can give you, I can PM you a link to a discussion forum I frequent (less so, lately) where I know a brilliant mathematical physicist that is a regular participant.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I won't argue that the apparent paradox of the "arrow of time" and the time-symmetry of the laws of physics is not a controversial one... those are themselves consequences of our relatively uniform velocities within our immediate environment.

Interesting;

Clearly this doesn't explain the answer; but it does help get at our lack of explanation of answer.

 

[KingGheedora]

Have always wondered, is there any way for the universe to be infinite rather than to have a single moment of origin? Maybe oscillating periods of expansion and collapse? I have seen that idea mentioned before but I don't know if it's really one that's taken seriously by modern physicists/astronomers.

Maybe time itself collapses along with the collapse? Maybe they were right in the superman movie about how if you can make astral bodies move backwards it reverses time too?

Send me my Nobel.

 

[KingGheedora]

You don't know what entropy is do you?

Essentially entropy is a measure of a systems "orderliness" the more orderly the system the lower the entry. The more messy or chaotic it looks the higher the entropy.

I think I see what he's asking. Slithery, are you referring to the idea that as the universe expands, objects in space like galaxies and solar systems, and black holes will eventually drift far enough apart that they will never be able to interact with each other? At that point The stars will die out and the heat death of the universe eventually takes place, but the maximum entropy reached there is still much lower than the particle soup (energy & matter evenly distributed across space) that is the theoretical max. Because we are already in a state of low entropy and time cannot go backwards, the max entropy given the universe's current state may be one where entire (very, very cold) planets will exist.

 

[Cheesemoo]

They say it all started out with a big bang. But, what I wonder is, was it a big bang or did it just seem big because there wasn't anything else drown it out at the time?

-Karl Pilkington