BBC Focus Magazine

[Flakkarin]

Ok, here's another one! Since I subscribed to Focus and got the Wonders collection free I thought I'd brush up on my physics, and watched the first 2 episodes of Wot Universe today.
At one point, Coxy talks about the start of the universe and how quarks grouped together to become protons etc and then the elements... and my question is, if the universe is bound by the arrow of time to always tend towards greater entropy, how did this happen? What is more disordered that an infinite amount of the same thing, like the grains of sand in the desert?

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'll give it some thought.

[Healerman]

The free quarks would have been in a very highly energetic state, and would therefore be inclined to lose energy to come into equilibrium with their environment, "condensing" into particles with a lower net energy.

This process happens at all levels. Without the input of the Sun's energy water vapour becomes water, becomes ice... and before you know it Earth is just a few degrees above absolute zero. Entropy is, at its heart, a very cold place.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Sorry but I have to ask the question.
So if the universe is a closed system within which the Law of Conservation of Mass presumably applies, well, in the event of entropic decay whereby a closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy, or basically everything decays into heat energy............. where does all that 'heat' energy go to ?

[Healerman]

Well, I suppose the first point is that there are hot spots and cold spots, and gradually everything will become more and more homogenous.

The big question is, in our expanding Universe, is more matter/energy coming into existence to fill the extra space, or is the supply already fixed and is it just going to be stretched thinner and thinner, and thus get steadily colder and colder? Various theories exist on this one.
As you cannot destroy energy, the Universe can never become completely cold, 0ºK, but it can become very chilly. Face it, most of it already is.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I suppose this hinges on the crux of the argument between the 'big bang' universe, expanding out from a defined beginning (with a probably quite dark and cold end) over one that is in a state of constant, turbulent, destruction and renewal where entropy is not as simple as it might appear, because it is all being played out on a scale way too large for us to see within our very limited horizon.

We could just be one tiny little 'pop' in an insignifcant corner of something quite mind-boggling?

[KingPhillip]

"We could just be one tiny little 'pop' in an insignifcant corner of something quite mind-boggling? "

I thought we already are, an infinitesimally tiny little "pop" in an accelerating ever-expanding universe of 14+ billion light years radius-wide. To paraphrase, if the universe's age was mapped on to a 12-hour lock, our existence occupies the latest nano-second tick.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I suspect I did not explain my point very well KingPhillip sorry.
I was trying to suggest that what we view as "an accelerating ever-expanding universe of 14+ billion light years radius-wide" is in fact only the tiny little 'pop', (or bubble if it makes it plainer) that we view as being the entire universe.

In other words, what we view as being 'everything' might only be a very tiny percentage of what is out there and as such we cannot really second guess what it is doing in relation to everything else.
Yes our little 'bubble' might have begun over 14 billion years ago and also be expanding and even at an accelerating rate but I'm not so sure that this is the whole story at all.

[KingPhillip]

NO! Not the Lava Bubbles!!

All kidding aside, if we're venturing into multiple bubble "universes" where all we can hope to see is some perturbation due to two bubbles passing each other, then I'll get off at the next light.

To the thread premise, after the inflationary phase, all particles looked for stabilisation, an equilibrium of sorts; much like chocolate particles in a stirred hot mug of milk. By doing so, other forces are brought into being creating additional agitations requiring different equilibriums to be reached.

[Lateralman]

Actually, I think I have this one sussed. A new theory. One I have not read about anywhere. One that explains many things. It amazes me that it has not been suggested yet as it is so blatantly obvious for it links in all the other universe concepts into one very simple cohesive idea. Will keep you posted.

It has nothing to do with a hot cup of coco. One lump or two...! And you have the Super Smash!

Not lava bubbles indeed. Go on prove me wrong.

[M Paul Lloyd]

NO! Not the Lava Bubbles!!

No definitely 100% absolutely not.
Or indeed any suggestion that the universe is composed of bubbles of any sort.

No I'm just suggesting, and only suggesting mind, that the wider universe, beyond the point at which we can see back in time, may be far more extensive, diverse and turbulent than we can possibly imagine, more so than any mug of coco, ink being dropped into a tank of water or indeed the jet exhaust from a rocket engine, and that, trust me, is turbulent.

[Shadowwolf]

One I have not read about anywhere.

That's likely because it's pure nonsense and if it is another of these ignore basic scientific knowledge fictions - like lava bubbles and super smash - you really should keep it to yourself.

Go on prove me wrong.

It is up to you to prove claims not the other way, however, disproving your ideas is laughably easy, the only difficulty is in convincing you of those facts, which appears to be impossible but of no consequence.

[Healerman]

There are times when I feel we ought to abolish the word "Universe" as we use it.

It was invented to describe everything that there is, but we have now gone and found there's a whole lot more besides. It seems "The Universe" is not in fact unique, but is one part of a multiverse, so the term universe becomes effectively a non sequitur. If we can establish that the mutiverse is in fact all that there is, or indeed can be, then this is by definition, the new Universe and our universe needs to be renamed in a suitably subordinate manner.

And if you think there was an outcry over the declassification of Pluto...

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'm thinking universe for what we can see an megaverse for everything that lies beyond? Possibly?
Multiverse seems to suggest alternative dimensions if you ask me.

It takes some getting used to but at some point the ancient civilisations of the Mediterranean must have come to the conclusion that what they viewed as the entire world, from the far limits of the English channel right across to the Caspian sea was indeed just a small part of a greater whole?
Likewise I think we have to accept that what we view as everything may well be somewhat less than that.

[...]

we have to try to be objective about this.
the multiverse conundrum is just a prediction/idea in quantum theory isnt it? Universe is a sound name for everything, if there are extra dimensions in spacetime they are still here in the universe and just not tangible to us surely

[M Paul Lloyd]

But, at the risk of getting all philosopical, I wonder if we are looking at the universe as being just what we can see or do we include, by default, everything that might lie beyond?

You see it came up as a question a while back, 'What exists beyond the universe?' (or something like that) and I went to a lot of trouble to point out, in my ignorance that nothing lies beyond the universe because the universe is everything which, on reflection, I now believe to have been a teeny bit naive? Perhaps?

[Flakkarin]

Dear me, this topic got away from me!
But thank you, my original question is answered.
I think I'll read a few more books before I get on to the multiverse subject...

[M Paul Lloyd]

Apologies Flakkarin we do... well ok 'I' have allowed myself to go off at a tangent a bit there, sorry.

[Nails]

I wish there was a smiley for 'over my head' or 'my brain hurts after reading that'.....

[M Paul Lloyd]

I wish there was a smiley for 'over my head' or 'my brain hurts after reading that'.....

I find myself wishing much the same Nails.