Well then your idea is back to being crackpot. You see when I read Stengar's idea I thought that was what you were talking about except that you left out one important detail. The detail I thought you left out was that subsequent expansion increased the capacity for entropy.

Without that little detail you idea is crackpot. Maximal entropy means no work. No stars galaxies etc.

Yikes. Again, what I am saying is incredibly obvious. The question is "Why wasn't the entropy of the early universe much, much larger?" The answer is the exact same as to the question "Why isn't the entropy of the universe much much larger right now.?" Going to the states in which the entropy is much larger involves violating the other laws of physics.

What you've told me of Stenger's view** is that it is basically the same thing. The entropy of the universe was at a close to maximum value for its small size close to the beginning. The universe could not be larger than it was at that time, even though those states have greater entropy, without breaking the other laws of physics.

Your understanding of this stuff is incredibly poor. You must at least understand that you have no idea what you are talking about right? I know you have a strong dislike of me personally, but come on.

**Obv I have no idea what Stenger's view actually is as I have no confidence in your ability to understand it and retell it.

Here is an essay by Stenger

http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/stenger.pdf

Read it and tell me if I'm not understanding his position correctly. Namely that the universe started it out in a state of maximum entropy and then expanded thereby increasing its capacity for entropy. Point out my flaw please.

See your modus operandi is if someone disagrees with you, you call them stupid, or say dumb things, or incapable of understanding. Thats because you are arrogant and you would do much better in your profession if you learned a little humility. You think you know everything.....you remind me of my 17 year old boy.

BTW I think its an essay the atheists would appreaciate.

No, I didn't say that you were wrong. I was just saying that I am not wiling to take your word on what somebody is saying about physics

You called my views crackpot so I honestly told you what I thought about you. Physicists don't claim to turn the other cheek and humility is certainly not a trait that all good physicists have. The great thing about math and physics is that even if you are an arrogant jerk people will read your papers if you are good. Anyway, this is an old tactic. When loosing the technical arguments which are cut and dry start complaining about behavior (of course ignoring the insults you dished out) which is not as cut and dry.

I don't think I am loosing here. What have I said that was wrong?

Was it:

a)entropy models predict entropy will be higher in the past.
b)the reason high entropy isn't observed in the past is because the time right after the big bang the universe was in a state of remarkably low entropy
c)observed naturalistic processes envolve moving from low entropy to high entropy.
d)without any evidence to the contrary, entropy would likely be higher before the big bang than lower.

Now i know that you have this crackpot idea that entropy was and has always been near the maxium, but that seems to be a minority opinion from what I have read. Stenger's idea that the universe started out as black hole with maximum entropy but has low entropy now because it is no longer a black hoe makes more sense than the dribble you've written in this thread. And before you accuse me again of not understanding what stenger wrote I'll save you the embarrassment of having to admitt you were wrong...again. Here is a Stenger quote.

I don't know what you mean by entropy models. Anything that predicts entropy will be higher in the past is wrong, so it probably not a good place to start.

The reason high entropy isn't observed in the past is because high entropy states where not allowed due to other laws. (To be fair, I have heard this argument from physicists, (Sean Carrol I think?) but it is much closer to crackpot than my view)

ALL observed processes "envolve" moving from low to high entropy. It is not clear that there exist processes that are not "naturalistic".

No. Without any evidence to the contrary, entropy would likely be LOWER before the big bang. This is because everything we have ever observed involves going from lower to higher entropy and the big bang likely happened.

So why should I believe you over people like Roger Penrose, Brian Green, and the school that put out this graph?



Oh...I know....you'll say I must have misunderstood them.

Your out in whackoland with this veiw Max. The only reason we observe entropy being lower in the past(while our formula's predict it should be higher) is because shortly after the big bang the universe was in a state of low entropy.

Also the model I refer to is Boltzmann's

I have said the entropy has been near the maximum it could be without violating all the other laws of physics. Stenger is saying exactly what I am, but is making additional claims about the initial state of the universe. Stenger thinks that the pre big bang state was black hole like, but even if that isn't true, my (and essentially his) argument still works. Are you trolling, or did you really not understand that yourself?

Because what I am saying makes more sense on the technical merits. And you do realize that the "predicted" values there are wrong, right? That is why there is that observed curve? Penrose has many views that are completely outside what the majority of physicists think. If authority is all that matters, Green's opinion is irrelevant and you should find out what Witten thinks and blindly follow him.

No, I already told you that actual physicists hold the view you are saying, but they are definitely the minority.

No. My view is standard. Not sure why you think you can determine what is "whakoland" and not. Actually, I know why you think you can, but you obv can't.

That says nothing about time, gravity, lepton conservation and tons of other things that are important in figuring out what the universe should look like. And that is really just a definition not a model per say, but it is a defintion that turns out to be hugely useful physically.

My principle objection to Stu Pidasso's argument is his continually referring to 'pre big bang' or 'before the big bang'. I maintain such a concept is meaningless since the big bang includes the creation of time.

This is the second time you've followed him in using this terminology. Is that a sign that I'm wrong, or have you been tricked into using his suggestive but incorrect language?

In other words - what does 'pre big bang' mean? How do you distinguish between 'pre universe' and 'post universe' for example? How about a universe 'outside of time but in the present'? I think all of these concepts don't refer to anything - they are linguistically seductive but ultimately meaningless.

It is possible that the phrase "before the big bang" is totally vacuous, but it is also possible that it makes sense. To know for sure we need at least a quantum theory of gravity and the relationship between our observable pocket universe and the multiverse, if that even exists. We might need to know even more things, which would presently be considered "unknown unknowns" in Rumsfeld speak .

Personally, I am confortable with talking about things before the big bang in non technical discussions, but anything anybody says about it is speculation. That doesn't mean everything in before the big bang physics is equally likely, it just means we can't be sure that anything that seems possible is wrong.

Well, I guess I have to defer to authority and concede Stu Pidasso's right to talk about 'before the big bang' then.

I'll bow out of these conversations, since not only do I have no idea what 'before the big bang' refers to, the whole concept seems as meaningless as 'smaller than zero cubic metres' or 'colder than absolute zero'.

Because we don't/can't understand something or make sense of it, doesn't necessarily mean that it's devoid of meaning or understanding.

It's devoid of meaning and understanding in my case. Given Max Raker can apparently parse 'before the big bang' then I must conclude it is meaningful (and hence retract my criticism of Stu Pidasso's argument).

Nonetheless, I don't know what they're talking about - they may as well debate the properties of matter at -4K for all the sense I can make of it.

It says there are more ways things can be in disorder than in order. It doesn't need time, gravity, lepton conservation, etc to make that conclusion.

Time is kind of a wierd beast. Our physical laws don't set an arrow for it but it apparently has one(at least from our prespective). Now a lot of folks think the second law of thermodynamics is what sets the arrow of time. That it is this march from order to disorder that is responsible for time only flowing one way. The big bang may not be the begginning of time but rather a period in which entropy is flowing from low to high....a period in which time moves in just a single direction.

One of the examples Max brought up is that the state of things could have been that existence was in a state of maxium entropy and because of a statistical fluke...something that might happen in the order of 10^10^200 years, all the disordered energy of the universe suddenly found itself in an ordered state....just as a matter of pure happenstance. Then the second law of thermodynamics takes over, entropy moves from low to high, and you find time flowing one way.

Penrose suggests something like this in the video lecture(you have to watch the whole series). He suggests that eventually the universe will be nothing but black holes. Space will cool down to a temperature that is lower than the temperatures of blackholes. The blackholes then radiate their energy into space. Eventually all energy is radiated into space, there is no matter, the universe is in a state of maxium entropy and time ceases to flow in just one direction. For all intents and purposes time stops. It stays like that for eons and eons and eons and then a statistical fluke hits and the universe is back into a state of low entropy....a new big bang....time starts flowing one way again....rinse and repeat.

Existence doesn't necessarily depend on time. I don't really think the universe began with the big bang, rather the big bang represents the lowest point on a graph of entropy. To the left of the bigbang entropy is higher....to the right of the big bang entropy is higher.

I guess, all I can say is: use your imagination.

I think people who think they are imagining something colder than absolute zero, smaller than zero cubic metres, lighter than zero kilograms or something earlier than the big bang are making an error. It's like people who think they can visualise four dimensional objects - whatever it is they believe they're conceptualising, it's not what they think.

Maybe. I can't see any reason to think any of that is right (admittedly it's hard to argue with "could have been", "many people think" and "possibly"). I think our best theories are that spacetime started with the big bang - our perspective is not often trustworthy enough to go against the predictions of our best scientific theories, in my experience. Max Raker agreeing with you means I'm probably wrong, but that doesnt mean I'm going to start pretending that 'before the big bang' means anything to me.

When you hear someone say everything began with the big bang its time to throw up the bull**** flag. The big bang marks where are understanding ends so you can't really say the universe started or time started with the big bang. In fact inflation(cosmological), which appears to be quite a robust theory, basically says the big bang is just an event in a pre-existing universe. One of our best theories presupposes a "before the big bang".

Try these then: imagine infinity, justice, truth, and peace. This is as pure as abstraction can get.

Can you do it? Can it be done? There quite a number of things we only have a rough idea of, but the concepts, though far from ideal, are intelligible. I don't see how you can categorize ideas like non-temporality separately; it's on the same abstract level as the concept of infinity, imo. Just because we can't give it a mathematical notation doesn't mean it's meaningless.

It's meaningless to me - I've conceded that other people seem to be able to make sense of it, so I'm withdrawing my objection to them referring to the concept. Who am I to tell them they're not making sense when the expert says they are?

The only categorising I'm doing is into "things bunny finds intelligible" and "things he doesn't" - that can't be controversial.

Difficult to do when you're the one saying it.
Yes I can - it's qualified with "it looks like" or "our best guess is", just like any scientific theory.
That's not my understanding of inflation theory but that's not really important - you just keep telling me it's sensible, you haven't outlined any properties or distinguishing features of 'before the big bang'. Listing people or theories who agree with you is fighting a war you've already won. I'm conceding - I'm not sure why it's so hard for you two to accept that I'm saying I must be wrong. The fact I can't understand a physics-related concept doesnt count for much if Max Raker does.

Yes, inflation does predict pocket universes. Meaning that it is possible that our universe is just one of the pocket universes of another pre-existing universe. But inflation does also predict that there is an ultimate beginning (or past incomplete), at least according the BGV theorem.

So really Stu brought it up, but the fact is it would not really solve the issue at hand, but would just delay discussion for one step.

Lol, no it doesn't. It is just DEFINING a new number calling it "entropy". By itself, it doesn't tell you anything about physics.

But you need all of those things to understand how the universe looks, not just the 2nd law. Blindly applying the 2nd law to the early universe like you are doing is equivalent to saying that if t=0 is right now, the next instant all energy should be in the form of radiation filling up the whole universe uniformly. That obv does not happen.