I don't see why this kills the multi verse theory.
Which is a basic conclusion of a 10 dimensional space-time environment that doesn't include mass anyway.
At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
11–20 of 142 posts
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does entropy have to do with anything?
If the available energy is dispersed and chaotic, we won't be able to concentrate enough to perform the experiments? Though I doubt that'll be the case at any time while the human race is in existence... (caveat: I know very little of real physics)
> If the available energy is dispersed and chaotic, we won't be able to concentrate enough to perform the experiments?
That's a layman's definition of entropy, but we're a long way from that state.
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#13I don't see why this kills the multi verse theory. Which is a basic conclusion of a 10 dimensional space-time environment that doesn't include mass anyway.
Well, it's just a hyperbolic headline that tries to call a speculation a theory (the latter meaning an idea with some supporting evidence). It certainly doesn't kill any other current speculation. It's journalism masquerading as science.
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#14>With their field stuck at a nasty impasse
of course. Natural thing when a field is dominated by orthodoxy that closes their eyes to everything that they don't want to see. Like yesterday "entangled photon imaging" where what really happens is that a beam modulated by an image heats/excites crystal (with that heating/excitement thus obviously modulated by the image) which generates another beam (thus that another beam is obviously also modulated by the image) which hits CCD - no miracle of entanglement here, yet Nature published it as such : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8234221
as "entanglement" and "mutiverse" are very much in fashion this season and get you published.
With Higgs as a "mass" boson it was also non-starter because the theory of it failed to address gravitational and inertial mass equivalence. I mean i don't doubt that CERN found new particle of course, yet nowhere it was shown that it is the boson "generating mass". The article seems to suggest that finally the mainstream physics starts to seriously ponder whether the mass is a result of dynamic interaction - that has been obvious for decades to the "fringe" physicists, who couldn't just dismiss the above mentioned gravitational and inertial mass connection, a pretty fundamental fact that has to be at the center of anything called physics :)
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does entropy have to do with anything?
If the available energy is dispersed and chaotic, we won't be able to concentrate enough to perform the experiments? Though I doubt that'll be the case at any time while the human race is in existence... (caveat: I know very little of real physics)
If humanity lives to a point where entropy becomes a problem, I'm pretty sure our lives would be the first to go, not our "ability to perform experiments".
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does entropy have to do with anything?
Entropy = the inverse of available energy to do anything at all. EDIT: Look -- if you don't understand physics, don't compound your ignorance by downvoting the posts of people who do. Instead, post a written objection, and I will explain why you're wrong.
Well, I don't think I understand entropy - even after Wikipedia. So is there somewhere in universe some energy that is not available to do anything at all? How does that work? Is it too diffuse such that the energy needed to pull it together to perform a unit of work is greater than the energy available ? If so how did it get to that state?
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#17Feels like I'm a kid and I've just been told Santa Claus is made up.
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does entropy have to do with anything?
If the available energy is dispersed and chaotic, we won't be able to concentrate enough to perform the experiments? Though I doubt that'll be the case at any time while the human race is in existence... (caveat: I know very little of real physics)
You might enjoy Isaac Asimov's short story: The Last Question
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
I recommend you read the whole thing, but if you're looking for a plot summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question#Plot_summary
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entropy = the inverse of available energy to do anything at all. EDIT: Look -- if you don't understand physics, don't compound your ignorance by downvoting the posts of people who do. Instead, post a written objection, and I will explain why you're wrong.
Well, I don't think I understand entropy - even after Wikipedia. So is there somewhere in universe some energy that is not available to do anything at all? How does that work? Is it too diffuse such that the energy needed to pull it together to perform a unit of work is greater than the energy available ? If so how did it get to that state?
> Well, I don't think I understand entropy - even after Wikipedia.
Okay, here's a commonly used explanation. Entropy and time are bound together -- as time passes, overall entropy increases (with local violations like us). This is one idea about why time "moves" in the direction it does -- if time were to reverse, we could tell because some classic entropy results would run in reverse, violating common sense.
Imagine that there's a room, and in one corner of the room there's a perfume bottle. At time zero, the cork is removed from the perfume bottle. Because of entropy, the tendency of isolated systems to move from order to disorder, the perfume disperses through the room.
Ask yourself what the probability is for the perfume to spontaneously recombine in the bottle, versus the probability that it will disperse through the room. That probability differential is a measure of entropy.
> So is there somewhere in universe some energy that is not available to do anything at all?
Sure -- any isolated system can eventually get to a point where no useful work can be performed. Imagine an engine without any temperature differentials anywhere, or any way to acquire a temperature differential from an external source. Such an engine cannot do useful work.
A steam engine requires a heat source and a heat sink. Without a temperature differential, the engine cannot function. Same with a gas engine.
> Is it too diffuse such that the energy needed to pull it together to perform a unit of work is greater than the energy available ?
But without tapping an external energy source, the energy in an isolated system won't concentrate itself or spontaneously create a temperature differential suitable for exploitation. In an isolated system, the level of disorder always increases over time.
> If so how did it get to that state?
Simple physics. For two masses having a temperature difference, one with temperature "a", the other "b", and a temperature conductivity of "k", they will eventually reach the same temperature this way:
Δ = (b-a) e^(-t k)
Δ (delta) = temperature difference at time t
a = temperature a
b = temperature b
t = time
k = energy transfer coefficient
Re: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale
#20I wonder if it's possible to ever find out what our reality is even if we will eventually reach the intellectual and technology necessary because we are part of it and it's probably impossible to have an objective view of the matter.