Evolution & finished work

[Byblos]

I am not saying that we live in static universe.

And I wasn't saying that you said that.

I was correcting your statements like there is no space-time in static universe and so on.

Understood. This doesn't change the point I'm making, however.

And by the way. There could be the same physical laws in static universe as in our universe up to the law concering the expansion of the universe. There would be the same Newton equations describing our every day experiences, Maxwell equations describing electromagnetism, quantum mechanical laws describing the world of the tiny, and so on.

In theory, maybe. But again, it doesn't change the point I'm making connecting the necessity of expansion with anthropic possibilities.

[Byblos]

I first will focus on the first mentioned principle.
I have found some intresting things concerning the low entropy state of early universe.

First, what low enetropy state of early universe means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time):

"The thermodynamic arrow is often linked to the cosmological arrow of time, because it is ultimately about the boundary conditions of the early universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot with energy distributed uniformly. For a system in which gravity is important, such as the universe, this is a low-entropy state (compared to a high-entropy state of having all matter collapsed into black holes, a state to which the system may eventually evolve)."

Our real world is quite orderly plus mystery of low entropy state of early universe:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/carroll ... index.html:

"If you didn't know any better, if you asked what the universe should be like, what configuration it should be in, you would say it should be in a high entropy configuration. There are a lot more ways to be high entropy — there are a lot more ways to be disorderly and chaotic than there are to be orderly and uniform and well arranged. However, the real world is quite orderly. The entropy is much, much lower than it could be. The reason for this is that the early universe, near the Big Bang, 14 billion years ago, had incredibly low entropy compared to what is could have been. This is an absolute mystery in cosmology. This is something that modern cosmologists do not know the answer to, why our observable universe started out in a state of such pristine regularity and order — such low entropy. We know that if it does, it makes sense. We can tell a story that starts in the low entropy early universe, trace it through the present day and into the future. It's not going to go back to being low entropy. It's going to be compliant entropy. It's going to stay there forever. Our best model of the universe right now is one that began 14 billion years ago in a state of low entropy but will go on forever into the future in a state of high entropy.

Why do we find ourselves so close to the aftermath of this very strange event, this Big Bang, that has such low entropy? The answer is, we just don't know. The anthropic principle is just not enough to explain this. We really need to think deeply about what could have happened both at the Big Bang and even before the Big Bang. My favorite guess at the answer is that the reason why the universe started out at such a low entropy is the same reason that an egg starts out at low entropy. The classic example of entropy is that you can take an egg and make an omelette. You cannot take an omlette and turn it into an egg. That is because the entropy increases when you mix up the egg to make it into an omelette. Why did the egg start with such a low entropy in the first place? The answer is that it is not alone in the universe. The universe consists of more than just an egg. The egg came from a chicken. It was created by something that had a very low entropy that was part of a bigger system. The point is that our universe is part of a bigger system. Then you can start to try to understand why it had such a low entropy to begin with. I actually think that the fact that we can observe the early universe having such a low entropy is the best evidence we currently have that we live in a multiverse, that the universe we observe is not all that there is, that we are actually embedded in some much larger structure."

And here we go with the appeal to multiverse but here's the kicker, the BVG theorem and anthropic principles applies to any type of universe up to and including multiverse, oscillating universe, etc, etc. Makes no differences whatsoever. Here's another point, if our universe was born with extremely low entropy and it came from a larger universe-producing multiverse, first as I stated, that multiverse must also be expanding, and second, it must also have even lower entropy. High entropy does not produce low entropy. So now we just went from probabilities of virtual infinity to 1 to infinity to 1 (for the multiverse itself). And the further back you go the lower the entropy.

law entropy and inflation:
http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html

"Does inflation explain the low entropy of the early universe?
Not by itself, no. To get inflation to start requires even lower-entropy initial conditions than those implied by the conventional Big Bang model. Inflation just makes the problem harder."

Exactly the point I just made above.

1) Low entropy: Order is highly, highly improbable and disorder is highly, highly probable. Low entropy is an absolute requirement for any chance of a life form.

I see.

Now to the expansion of the universe:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astrophysics ... sion.htm#b:

"the expansion of the universe results in a cooler universe, and therefore one with increased entropy (as required by the second law). It's almost as if an expanding universe is required, if the second law is to be obeyed.

The exception would be a contracting universe. What would happen if the universe contracted to a large black hole, or even if multiple small black holes were formed? Well, the entropy would also increase! When matter falls into a black hole, its ordered information is lost to the universe, so the universe becomes more disordered (increases entropy). This was proven by Kip Thorne and by Hawking. So it doesn't matter if the universe is expanding (cooling) or collapsing into black holes, it's entropy is always increasing!"

So, how does the law entropy principle leads to an expanding universe? It can lead also to a contracting universe. At the beginning there was a low entropy state of the universe. Second law of thermodynamics leads to increasing entropy, but increasing entropy does not lead to only expanding universe.

Right. So? First the only thing this is saying is that high entropy might (and I emphasize might) result in a universe to contract. Does it ever yield extremely low entropy in a new universe? No, the probabilities are still virtual infinity to 1.

[1over137]

Byblos, how you get from the low entropy principle expanding universe? Please, explain.

[Byblos]

Byblos, how you get from the low entropy principle expanding universe? Please, explain.

Perhaps that's where the confusion is. I'm not making the claim that low entropy results in an expanding universe. What I'm saying is that in order for life to even be possible, there are certain criteria that must be there for any type of universe and any type of life. First, there must be expansion (as per the BVG theorem). Second, there must be low entropy (whose probability is virtual infinity to 1). Third, there must be units of complexity and constant laws of interaction. Fourth, there must be constant values and those values must be within a very tiny narrow range from a virtual infinite possible values left or right (we have 17 or more of them in our universe).

So to state again, I'm not saying low entropy causes an expanding universe. I'm saying those conditions must all exist in any given universe for there to be an anthropic possibility. How those conditions come about and in what order I could not even presume to answer. I leave that to you.

[1over137]

Perhaps that's where the confusion is. I'm not making the claim that low entropy results in an expanding universe.

This is what you said before:
"Here's the point though, you know what all these anthropic principles have in common? You guessed it, they all require an expanding universe. "

So, it seemed that you said indirectly that low entropy principle leads to an expanding universe.

What I'm saying is that in order for life to even be possible, there are certain criteria that must be there for any type of universe and any type of life. First, there must be expansion (as per the BVG theorem).

This I do not understand, please, explain. Why there must be expansion?

Second, there must be low entropy (whose probability is virtual infinity to 1).

This I understand. On the other points I will look after discussion of the first point.

[Byblos]

Perhaps that's where the confusion is. I'm not making the claim that low entropy results in an expanding universe.

This is what you said before:
"Here's the point though, you know what all these anthropic principles have in common? You guessed it, they all require an expanding universe. "

So, it seemed that you said indirectly that low entropy principle leads to an expanding universe.

What I meant is the exact opposite, that only an expanding universe can yield all those anthropic conditions (and that the probability of that happening is virtual infinity to 1 for any type of universe and any form of life).

What I'm saying is that in order for life to even be possible, there are certain criteria that must be there for any type of universe and any type of life. First, there must be expansion (as per the BVG theorem).

This I do not understand, please, explain. Why there must be expansion?

Otherwise the necessary anthropic principles cannot come about.

[1over137]

What I meant is the exact opposite, that only an expanding universe can yield all those anthropic conditions (and that the probability of that happening is virtual infinity to 1 for any type of universe and any form of life).

Then, how expanding universe yields low entropy principle?

[Byblos]

What I meant is the exact opposite, that only an expanding universe can yield all those anthropic conditions (and that the probability of that happening is virtual infinity to 1 for any type of universe and any form of life).

Then, how expanding universe yields low entropy principle?

And THAT is the mystery of it all Hana. This should not have happened. Every conceivable odds say this could not have happened. Penrose calculates the probability at 10^10^123 which is virtual infinity to 1 and yet that is exactly what we see in our universe. It seems to me it all comes down to a matter of belief. Either one must believe in impossible odds or one must believe in an intelligent acting agent. One belief system is rational and the other one isn't. That's the bottom line.

[1over137]

What I meant is the exact opposite, that only an expanding universe can yield all those anthropic conditions (and that the probability of that happening is virtual infinity to 1 for any type of universe and any form of life).

Then, how expanding universe yields low entropy principle?

And THAT is the mystery of it all Hana. This should not have happened. Every conceivable odds say this could not have happened. Penrose calculates the probability at 10^10^123 which is virtual infinity to 1 and yet that is exactly what we see in our universe. It seems to me it all comes down to a matter of belief. Either one must believe in impossible odds or one must believe in an intelligent acting agent. One belief system is rational and the other one isn't. That's the bottom line.

I do not think this is called low entropy principle. What you said now is probability of universe in which life is, or not? What this has to do with expanding universe? What this has to do with entropy?

[Byblos]

What I meant is the exact opposite, that only an expanding universe can yield all those anthropic conditions (and that the probability of that happening is virtual infinity to 1 for any type of universe and any form of life).

Then, how expanding universe yields low entropy principle?

And THAT is the mystery of it all Hana. This should not have happened. Every conceivable odds say this could not have happened. Penrose calculates the probability at 10^10^123 which is virtual infinity to 1 and yet that is exactly what we see in our universe. It seems to me it all comes down to a matter of belief. Either one must believe in impossible odds or one must believe in an intelligent acting agent. One belief system is rational and the other one isn't. That's the bottom line.

I do not think this is called low entropy principle. What you said now is probability of universe in which life is, or not? What this has to do with expanding universe? What this has to do with entropy?

Let me try to put it in a different order, maybe this will explain better what I'm trying to say:

What are the necessary conditions for life to be possible?

1) Low entropy is needed, without which there can be no life because disorder produces nothing but disorder. According to Penrose, the probability of low entropy is virtual infinity to 1.
2) Units of complexity and constant laws of interaction
3) Constant universal values

Those are the conditions necessary for any kind of life to even be possible. But how do those conditions come about and in what type of universes might we expect to see all those conditions all at once? The answer is in an expanding universe. So the conditions necessary for life to be possible cannot even begin to exist unless we start with an expanding universe.

Now if you disagree with this, then you're postulating that a non-expanding (static) universe can in fact have all those anthropic conditions all at once. And that's what I asked you to explain because I don't see how that's even possible. How can you have low entropy in a static universe? How can you have gravity, galaxy formation, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generations of stars where the building blocks of the periodic table are formed one generation after another from the simple to the more complex (you see that? simple to more complex, i.e. complexification towards higher order activity)? Is this all possible in a static universe? Every literature I've read on the subject says no.

[1over137]

1) Low entropy is needed, without which there can be no life because disorder produces nothing but disorder. According to Penrose, the probability of low entropy is virtual infinity to 1.

This I understand.

Those are the conditions necessary for any kind of life to even be possible. But how do those conditions come about and in what type of universes might we expect to see all those conditions all at once? The answer is in an expanding universe.

Ok.

Which literature you read that? I prefer written word.

[Byblos]

1) Low entropy is needed, without which there can be no life because disorder produces nothing but disorder. According to Penrose, the probability of low entropy is virtual infinity to 1.

This I understand.

Those are the conditions necessary for any kind of life to even be possible. But how do those conditions come about and in what type of universes might we expect to see all those conditions all at once? The answer is in an expanding universe.

Ok.

Which literature you read that? I prefer written word.

Robert Spitzer's book titled "New Proofs for the Existence of God, Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy". In the mean time until you get the book, listen to the lectures I linked before as he summarizes the book in those 2 lectures, The anthropic principle lecture is 1 hour (4 pieces 15 minutes each), and the other is about 2 hours (7 or 8 pieces 10 minutes each).

[1over137]

This I wrote to Steindhart and Turok through the web page for their book Endless Universe week ago and got no answer:

"Dear Proffesors, fellow physicists.

I have recently read the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin article from 2003 about the BVG theorem. The article can be found here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1176639.
There is written on page 4 in the left column:
"We finally comment on the cyclic universe model in which a bulk of 4 spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two 3-dimensional branes. The effective (3+1)-dimensional geometry describes a periodically expanding and recollapsing universe, with curvature singularities separating each cycle. The internal brane spacetimes, however, are nonsingular, and this is the basis for the claim that the cyclic scenario does not require any inital conditions. We disagree with this clam."
It continues in the following paragraph.

I'd like to ask if the disagreement have been resolved and whether there can exist cyclic model without  beginning.

Thank you in advance.
Dr. Hana Hlucha"

[Byblos]

This I wrote to Steindhart and Turok through the web page for their book Endless Universe week ago and got no answer:

"Dear Proffesors, fellow physicists.

I have recently read the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin article from 2003 about the BVG theorem. The article can be found here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1176639.
There is written on page 4 in the left column:
"We finally comment on the cyclic universe model in which a bulk of 4 spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two 3-dimensional branes. The effective (3+1)-dimensional geometry describes a periodically expanding and recollapsing universe, with curvature singularities separating each cycle. The internal brane spacetimes, however, are nonsingular, and this is the basis for the claim that the cyclic scenario does not require any inital conditions. We disagree with this clam."
It continues in the following paragraph.

I'd like to ask if the disagreement have been resolved and whether there can exist cyclic model without  beginning.

Thank you in advance.
Dr. Hana Hlucha"

According to Spitzer the answer is no, it hasn't been resolved (he addressed it in one of the videos I linked). It seems there simply is no resolution for it because of the paradox it creates where when a new cycle starts expanding (the curving singularity) it will require time, but time is created some plank time after the singularity itself and that is the unresolvable paradox: needing time to create time.