Science contradicts itself..Questions

[Charlie_V]

After all, if everything including time, space, matter and energy did not exist before the BB, then there was no place for everything to be in,
there was no time for anything to be in, and there was no matter that could perform the act of being, as any of those require the elements
time, space, and matter.

The whole system including space, time, matter and energy just came from not existing to existing.

So universes just spontaneously "come into existence"? And it must not need any source to happen, it just manifests itself like herpes  !

But let me ask you, how do you see the law of entropy as valid if there is continuous creation of matter?
And where is this matter created then? Do you, beside the reasoning you have shown, have any reason to
conclude matter is continually created?
And why do you feel our universe should have been at a state of balance long ago? What reasons do you have to
conclude this?

Well, I'm not sure I have enough weed to answer these questions, but I'll try.  I'm just kidding, I don't really smoke the marijuana.  It is not good to do. 

Now firstly, I didn't say there was a continuous creation of matter, I said energy can be created - whether or not that energy takes the form of matter I don't know.  I would think it would lean more toward coming out as electromagnetic fields, whether these be radiation (aka light) or just the fields themselves (90 degrees out of phase, also known as non-radiating light or standing waves) I don't know.

As for entropy, this is basically the randomizing of an ordered state.  If there was no way to "re-order" things, then there would be no reason for space, time, matter, and energy (matter and energy being the same thing) to ever exist.  Because, like it or not, something must be ordered first, before it can return to disorder.  The creation of the universe by whatever means (being a big bang or whatever) is basically an anti-entropy phenomenon.  Thus, there MUST be a counter to entropy - everything in nature has a counterpart - surely entropy must too or we would not be here. 

To me, the answer to the counter-entropy is the creation of energy.  I'm still working on this part, but if energy is being created (aka the universe is re-ordering itself somewhere) entropy is trying to destroy that order.  I have a theory.  If two force fields of the same type (two gravity fields, two magnetic fields, etc.) are placed in proper geometry 90 degrees spatially apart from one another, and balance is maintained, they can influence outside bodies without the outside bodies influencing them.  They basically become independent of, yet can still influence, outside forces. 

There is a restriction to the types of fields one can use.  The field must radiate outward and return to itself - this really narrows it down! Electric fields only flow in one direction, gravity fields only flow in one direction, nuclear forces possibly only flow in one direction (not really sure about nuclear forces).  The only force that radiates outward yet returns to itself is a magnetic field.  The internal direction of flux is opposite from the external direction - all other force fields go in a single direction both internally and externally.

Its still really early, and I don't like talking about things that are only partially done, but I have been able to setup an arrangement of magnets where the prime mover is mostly unaffected by external magnetic fields (only in a very specific region though).  It produces a 260 Gauss change when spinning the prime mover. 

Entropy is clearly present, universal expansion too, slow cooling of the universe
as well, so what is the anomaly that makes you question the standard interpretation? I don't see the anomaly.

The problem with the expanding universe is that just because the sky glows at 160GHz (aka the background radiation) does not mean it is not glowing at other frequencies.  In fact, if you look up at the sky with an X-ray telescope, you'll see that it glows at X-ray frequencies as well.  It just so happens that 160GHz was close enough to be picked up by radio antennas in the 50's and people jumped on it as "the proof" of the big bang.  It is also unfortunate that Nasa did alot of infrared spectroscopy on stars and also discovered this 160GHz signal as a red shift (things getting more red as they extend outward).  I wonder if you used an X-ray or gamma-ray detector if those far out galaxy spectra would still look red shifted - I bet they wouldn't.... I bet they would be blue shifted.... 

If we all had one ore, and paddled our canoes on the left side, great men would claim canoes can only go in circles, and laws would be written.  Damned to any who tried to use 2 ores, or alternated sides! 

[Charlie_V]

Holy crap that was a long post.  Sorry for the length, it won't happen again!!!

[Koen1]

So universes just spontaneously "come into existence"? And it must not need any source to happen, it just manifests itself like herpes  !

Rofl like herpes hehehe
But seriously, yes, that seems to be the most accepted cosmological view: for some totally unknown reason the universe with everything that it
involves, including time, space, energy and matter, just sort of "popped" out of a situation where it was not present... As to whether or not it needs
a source, I don't think there are any good answers to that question as the entire concept of even time and space not being here is so terribly
unintuitive and unnatural to us that we can't really say anything about the higher dimensional physics that might be involved without diving head-first
into the realm of pure speculation.
It's a bit like some applied studies in relativistic physics, those can already become quite confusing and "feel" very unnatural when for example two
objects at large speed difference experience a different rate of time; and that's in a situation where time and space still do hold, and already it
feels unintuitive and unnatural.
And hey, it may indeed be that there is something amiss in the theory and in fact there never was a phase where time and space and everything in them
did not exist. But that will need some good explanations to account for the redshift etc.

Well, I'm not sure I have enough weed to answer these questions, but I'll try.  I'm just kidding, I don't really smoke the marijuana.  It is not good to do. 

Yeah you're better off eating it.

Now firstly, I didn't say there was a continuous creation of matter, I said energy can be created - whether or not that energy takes the form of matter I don't know.  I would think it would lean more toward coming out as electromagnetic fields, whether these be radiation (aka light) or just the fields themselves (90 degrees out of phase, also known as non-radiating light or standing waves) I don't know.

ok sorry, I turned it into matter. My mistake.

As for entropy, this is basically the randomizing of an ordered state.  If there was no way to "re-order" things, then there would be no reason for space, time, matter, and energy (matter and energy being the same thing) to ever exist.  Because, like it or not, something must be ordered first, before it can return to disorder.  The creation of the universe by whatever means (being a big bang or whatever) is basically an anti-entropy phenomenon.  Thus, there MUST be a counter to entropy - everything in nature has a counterpart - surely entropy must too or we would not be here.

Well that depends on your interpretation a bit, I think. Entropy is indeed often said to be the increase of disorder in a system. Another way to look at it is as
an increase of freedom in the system: the parts of the system gain more freedom to go their own way, instead of remaining rigidly in check. Diffusion of gases
for example is pure entropy: the atoms move away from eachother untill the ultimate degree of free movement is obtained. In most cases there is indeed some
form of ordering and/or concentration and/or compression present in a system and entropy causes that to dissipate, decreasing order, increasing freedom of movement.
Perhaps it would be usefull to use a story one of my physics teachers used to illustrate how entropy does not contradict our existence:
Our human bodies undergo entropy all the time. Since we start out quite small, it seems illogical that we can actually gain any mass or energy by expending
the little energy we are born with. After all, the energy contained in our bodies at birth is very little compared to that contained in them at death. It would seem
there is a negative entropy taking place during life. What happens is that we consume matter in a low entropic state, and we allow entropy to increase
its entropic state, thereby basically giving our entropy increase to the food, which experiences more entropy than it would otherwise in the same period of time,
and thus we gain valuable time. We're "cheating" entropy by quickly giving it to our food, thereby allowing our own low entropy state to persist.
Now that sounds good for biological systems, but it also applies to physical systems of energy and matter exchange.
Of course that does not eliminate your main question of where this original low entropy state of the universe came from.
It's a good question and I don't think there's a good answer for it at present.
 

To me, the answer to the counter-entropy is the creation of energy.  I'm still working on this part, but if energy is being created (aka the universe is re-ordering itself somewhere) entropy is trying to destroy that order.  I have a theory.  If two force fields of the same type (two gravity fields, two magnetic fields, etc.) are placed in proper geometry 90 degrees spatially apart from one another, and balance is maintained, they can influence outside bodies without the outside bodies influencing them.  They basically become independent of, yet can still influence, outside forces.

and how does that add energy that was not there before, in your view?  After all, and if I understand correctly, you're saying that two identical type force fields at a 90 degree angle can exchange energy with other fields without exchanging energy
with those fields? What energy is being exchanged then, if the energy in the original 2 fields does not decrease?

There is a restriction to the types of fields one can use.  The field must radiate outward and return to itself - this really narrows it down! Electric fields only flow in one direction, gravity fields only flow in one direction, nuclear forces possibly only flow in one direction (not really sure about nuclear forces).  The only force that radiates outward yet returns to itself is a magnetic field.

I'm afraid that is not true. In open vacuum (space) pure electrical fields have a similar form as magnetic fields. If you make a wire loop and have current flow through it, it will generate a magnetic field which has an opposite orientation inside the loop to that outside the loop, and these "fold" at the "poles" to form the magnetic field you're talking about. Same thing the other way around: if you make a looped magnetic field, you'll see a similarly
shaped electric field with opposite orientation inside and outside the loop, which "folds" at the "poles".

The internal direction of flux is opposite from the external direction - all other force fields go in a single direction both internally and externally.

See above. Also, if you look at the electric field lines of a capacitor, you should see that these do not only run straight from the one plate through the dielectric
layer to the next plate, but also from the one plate in opposite direction, then 'fold', run along the outside, and into the next plate from the opposite direction as well.
Just to show that the electric fields in a two-plate capacitor also run both directions at each plate, and not merely in one direction.

Its still really early, and I don't like talking about things that are only partially done, but I have been able to setup an arrangement of magnets where the prime mover is mostly unaffected by external magnetic fields (only in a very specific region though).  It produces a 260 Gauss change when spinning the prime mover.

Interesting A prime mover? That's a nice old concept I haven't heard much lately.  

The problem with the expanding universe is that just because the sky glows at 160GHz (aka the background radiation) does not mean it is not glowing at other frequencies.  In fact, if you look up at the sky with an X-ray telescope, you'll see that it glows at X-ray frequencies as well.  It just so happens that 160GHz was close enough to be picked up by radio antennas in the 50's and people jumped on it as "the proof" of the big bang.  It is also unfortunate that Nasa did alot of infrared spectroscopy on stars and also discovered this 160GHz signal as a red shift (things getting more red as they extend outward).  I wonder if you used an X-ray or gamma-ray detector if those far out galaxy spectra would still look red shifted - I bet they wouldn't.... I bet they would be blue shifted.... 

Well if we are to believe our professional stargazers there is a seriously unbalanced situation where we clearly see more red shift than blue shift.
The red shift, by the way, does not mean all radiation we observe must be at a specific frequency. It's about the frequency shift. So we look at stars and
measure their frequencies, and what we see is that over the years the light of most of the stars we can see has shifted slightly toward the red end of the spectrum.
So stars emitting higher frequencies (lets say blue for example) still emit higher frequencies, but the frequency is just a tiny bit lower (a tiny bit less blue).
And in fact there are a very small number of blue shifted stars in the sky. It is hypothesised that they are moving toward us in the galactic disc.
But then again, that's just what most of our cosmologists think at the moment, and untill we've actually studied a number of other start up close
I don't think we can really say much more than that we currently like to think there's a red shift.
And even if there is, there are a number of possible models for our universe and some seem to indicate the entire arrow of time is a subjective thing,
and in fact the system did not originate magically from nothing to expand and die a horrible cold death as the arrow of time progresses, but
instead it may be a closed loop of which we can only experience one "side" or "direction". I've read some pretty convincing theories in that area.
One of such views basically suggests there is a simultaneous BigBang+expansion and contraction+GnabGib going on, it is just us poor monkeys
bound to our limited 3 dimensions and unidirectional time arrow that can't see it because it falls outside of our ability to observe. In such a situation,
we would see exactly what we see: an expanding redshifted universe.
Really, cosmology is the business of coming up with far-out explanations for things that we don't really understand anyway. And using billion dollar
equipment to do so, and act really cocky about it.

If we all had one ore, and paddled our canoes on the left side, great men would claim canoes can only go in circles, and laws would be written.  Damned to any who tried to use 2 ores, or alternated sides! 

Lol nice one

[GeoscienceStudent]

"If we all had one ore, and paddled our canoes on the left side, great men would claim canoes can only go in circles, and laws would be written.  D----d to any who tried to use 2 ores, or alternated sides!  "

Or even worse, if someone used an engine.

I'm finding this discussion interesting, but where in this entropy/anti-entropy does matter/antimatter fall in?  Or is it basically in the same idea?

And doesn't the BB theory involve that eventually the universe goes back to a non-dimensional state then start all over again?  I was under the impression that it keeps going back and forth, like a circle in phases. 

By the way, Koen, I got the CD from ITER and it was interesting to see we (USA) had pulled our support last century but got back involved in it in 2003.  We should never have pulled out.  It looks promising.  There's even movies in the CD showing the plasma moving within the JET and some other systems they've had.  They are using each phase and applying former ones with further technology, and it's getting better each time.  It stated that the half-life of the waste products is so low that within a 100 years, we would not have to worry about the storage (better than present waste products of fission) and it puts out only a small amount of kg of helium a year compared to millions of CO2 wastes from gas and petroleum.  Also basically you need water (dueterium)and lithium (triterium...sorry if I mispelled them)  for making of the fuel so we have plenty for years to come.  I don't understand why the US would pull out of this study.  Because you have to continually feed it fuel to have fusion, there is no danger of accident like in fission where there are chain reactions after the reactions of split atoms.  Then there is the waste problem with fission. 

If anyone is interested in this CD you can e-mail a request to
To: Hay Jennifer <Jennifer.Hay@iter.org>
There is something interesting about electromagnetic fields and how it holds the plasma within the field which keeps it from moving outward or hitting the sides and cooling down so it maintains its heat and energy. 
Beck

PS.  The CD is made simple enough for dummies like me to understand.   

[Koen1]

I'm finding this discussion interesting, but where in this entropy/anti-entropy does matter/antimatter fall in?  Or is it basically in the same idea?

Well the entropy point made by Charlie is basically that the coming into existence of the universe including all the matter and energy in it, seems
to contradict the "law" of conservation of energy (and matter). Since energy (and matter) cannot be destroyed (or created) according to that "law",
that in itself contradicts the universe coming into existence from nothing.
Entropy comes into play as the increse of disorder in the system, in other words the expansion of the universe and the dispersal of the energy and matter
in the universe over its volume. Logically there must have been a situation with much less disorder where everything was more concentrated. But where
did that situation come from and how could it have been, if entropy is always present? The ultimate point of origin should have been a perfectly ordered
and very concentrated situation, but how can such a situation arise if entropy is always in action?
So basically it's two ways of looking at the same contradiction. I think.

And doesn't the BB theory involve that eventually the universe goes back to a non-dimensional state then start all over again?  I was under the impression that it keeps going back and forth, like a circle in phases.

Well yes, that's one of the views. I think this is what is often referred to as the "Big Bounce" theory:
the universe is in a cycle of expansion and contraction and keeps doing so. There's no proof for it, but there's also no proof against it. There's a number of these possible views. It's mostly speculative. It's a lot like debating what type of cheese the moon is made of.  

By the way, Koen, I got the CD from ITER and it was interesting to see we (USA) had pulled our support last century but got back involved in it in 2003.  We should never have pulled out.  It looks promising.  There's even movies in the CD showing the plasma moving within the JET and some other systems they've had.  They are using each phase and applying former ones with further technology, and it's getting better each time.  It stated that the half-life of the waste products is so low that within a 100 years, we would not have to worry about the storage (better than present waste products of fission) and it puts out only a small amount of kg of helium a year compared to millions of CO2 wastes from gas and petroleum.  Also basically you need water (dueterium)and lithium (triterium...sorry if I mispelled them)  for making of the fuel so we have plenty for years to come.  I don't understand why the US would pull out of this study.  Because you have to continually feed it fuel to have fusion, there is no danger of accident like in fission where there are chain reactions after the reactions of split atoms.  Then there is the waste problem with fission. 

Good of you to actually order the CD
Cool stuff eh, that fusion?
I just want to add that recent developments in the nuclear fission field have also given us some other interesting possibilities.
It just happens that in recent years research has been done on liquid metal nuclear reactor technology. This is a slightly
different form of fission technology then the "classic" reactors. Very high temperature liquid metals such as liquid sodium
are used as heat exchange medium, and well it's too much to type here but basically what happens is the radioactive material
is completely worked down to non-radioactive atoms, all radioactivity is converted into heat, and this is turned into usable
energy using classical methods. Advantages: no nuclear waste, higher output, and as extra bonus we can use existing nuclear
waste as fuel. Disadvantages: uses extremely high temp sodium and you don't want to think about what happens if that
comes into contact with water or oxygen, it still needs transport of radioacive material to it as fuel, and it is only experimental
so even with heavy funding it will take about 20 years at least before a first version is active.
And if you're going to have to fund it for 20 years before anything can come of it, you're just as well off funding a fusion plant.

There is something interesting about electromagnetic fields and how it holds the plasma within the field which keeps it from moving outward or hitting the sides and cooling down so it maintains its heat and energy. 

tokamak plasma containment you mean? Yeah, that's pretty nifty.