Models and theories about the origins of the universe or greater cosmos.

[shunyadragon]

What are you taking about Shuny? Certainly Vilenkin, did not mention any viable open system in your link. And again Shuny, there is zero evidence that this universe is part of an open system. Even if we are part of a larger multiverse that too must be a closed system.

Please document this highlighted above by citing a scientific reference, not personal opinion. You tend to selectively 'cherry pick' Guth to justify your view, but neglect that the Multiverse and the BGV theory on the beginning of universes is intimately linked. By any possible definition of entropy the BGV theory and all other related multiverse theories and models are open systems by definition. The cyclic models, long rejected in the past are like closed systems.

[shunyadragon]

Jim this is the bottom line. The only energy we know of is subject to entropy. And if your greater universe was at its maximum state of equilibrium then where would the energy come from to produce these smaller universes?

The matrix from which all possible universes from in a multiverse system.

No unbalanced potentials, driving forces, within the system. Which would be needed to drive the creation of these smaller universes.

This conjecture does not make sense in terms of science. Again can you cite a contemporary physicist and Cosmologist that supports this, and not the personal opinion of a layman. The best you can do is scientists consider these issues to be a great extent to be unknowns. You cannot logically nor scientifically make conclusive conclusions on unknowns.

[seer]

Please document this highlighted above by citing a scientific reference, not personal opinion. You tend to selectively 'cherry pick' Guth to justify your view, but neglect that the Multiverse and the BGV theory on the beginning of universes is intimately linked. By any possible definition of entropy the BGV theory and all other related multiverse theories and models are open systems by definition. The cyclic models, long rejected in the past are like closed systems.

Shuny, the burden is on you. I, unlike you, did not cherry pick your Vilenkin link. Where in that link did Vilenkin speak of an open system - or any evidence of such an open system? If you have a universe that is not a close system then it must be getting energy from outside itself - where would that energy come from?

[seer]

The matrix from which all possible universes from in a multiverse system.


This conjecture does not make sense in terms of science. Again can you cite a contemporary physicist and Cosmologist that supports this, and not the personal opinion of a layman. The best you can do is scientists consider these issues to be a great extent to be unknowns. You cannot logically nor scientifically make conclusive conclusions on unknowns.

Really Shuny you are so devious! My quote came from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermod...on-equilibrium

But again, it is on you to show that this universe is an open system or that your greater universe is an open system and if it/they are where does this energy that feeds them come from.

[JimL]

Jim the bottom line is that there no energy source we know of that is not subject to entropy. So if there a type of energy that is not subject to entropy it is not like the energy we presently see.

That doesn't answer my thought though seer. Lets say that our universe is a closed system and that its expansion comes to an end when it is then in a state of maximum entropy or thermal equalibrium. That wouldn't mean that energy is no longer subject to entropy, it just means that it is now in a state of thermal equalibrium wherein entropy can no longer increase. It can't increase because there is no place for it to continue in its increase. Then lets say that this same condition, i.e. thermal equlibrium, applies to the greater cosmos. What then happens within that cosmos? I think that the uncertainty principle of quantum dynamics, at least as well as i understand it, says that such a condition is subject to fluctuations which could account for patches of lower entropy within that cosmos wherein that patch of space is again subject to increasing entropy. Entropy within a system can only continue increasing if the volume of that system also increases, but it can decrease due to the uncertainty principle. I'm not sure, do I have it wrong?

[shunyadragon]

What are you taking about Shuny? Certainly Vilenkin, did not mention any viable open system in your link. And again Shuny, there is zero evidence that this universe is part of an open system. Even if we are part of a larger multiverse that too must be a closed system.

Support the highlighted. Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny you are so devious! My quote came from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermod...on-equilibrium

But again, it is on you to show that this universe is an open system or that your greater universe is an open system and if it/they are where does this energy that feeds them come from.

Alexander Vilenkin

A quantum measure of the multiverse

Alexander Vilenkin

(Submitted on 3 Dec 2013 (v1), last revised 11 Dec 2013 (this version, v2)

It has been recently suggested that probabilities of different events in the multiverse are given by the frequencies at which these events are encountered along the worldline of a geodesic observer (the "watcher"). Here I discuss an extension of this probability measure to quantum theory. The proposed extension is gauge-invariant, as is the classical version of this measure. Observations of the watcher are described by a reduced density matrix, and the frequencies of events can be found using the decoherent histories formalism of Quantum Mechanics (adapted to open systems). The quantum watcher measure makes predictions in agreement with the standard Born rule of QM.

[seer]

Alexander Vilenkin

A quantum measure of the multiverse

Alexander http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0682

What are you taking about? This says nothing about the universe being an open system. Where does Vilenkin say that this universe is an open system? And remember, everything we know about QM is what we know about QM within this universe. We have no idea if the quantum would does or did exist outside of this universe or gave rise to this universe.

[seer]

Support the highlighted. Still waiting . . .

Shuny go back and read your own link! SHEESH!See what Vilenkin says about multiverse - that it too would be subject to entropy.

[seer]

That doesn't answer my thought though seer. Lets say that our universe is a closed system and that its expansion comes to an end when it is then in a state of maximum entropy or thermal equalibrium. That wouldn't mean that energy is no longer subject to entropy, it just means that it is now in a state of thermal equalibrium wherein entropy can no longer increase. It can't increase because there is no place for it to continue in its increase. Then lets say that this same condition, i.e. thermal equlibrium, applies to the greater cosmos. What then happens within that cosmos? I think that the uncertainty principle of quantum dynamics, at least as well as i understand it, says that such a condition is subject to fluctuations which could account for patches of lower entropy within that cosmos wherein that patch of space is again subject to increasing entropy. Entropy within a system can only continue increasing if the volume of that system also increases, but it can decrease due to the uncertainty principle. I'm not sure, do I have it wrong?

No Jim, I believe that is incorrect. From everything I read when we get to maximum entropy there is no transfer of energy - anywhere. There can't be, the universe is essentially dead - energy wise. That is what the definition I quoted said:

Equilibrium means a state of balance. In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system.

And Jim if your greater cosmos has reached maximum thermal equilibrium, doesn't that mean that it once wasn't at maximum equilibrium? And therefore finite?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny go back and read your own link! SHEESH!See what Vilenkin says about multiverse - that it too would be subject to entropy.

An open system of multiverses would not be subject to entropy as I cited Vilenkin in his December 2013 article. Read the link I cited.

Quote Originally Posted by http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0682

(Submitted on 3 Dec 2013 (v1), last revised 11 Dec 2013 (this version, v2)

It has been recently suggested that probabilities of different events in the multiverse are given by the frequencies at which these events are encountered along the worldline of a geodesic observer (the "watcher"). Here I discuss an extension of this probability measure to quantum theory. The proposed extension is gauge-invariant, as is the classical version of this measure. Observations of the watcher are described by a reduced density matrix, and the frequencies of events can be found using the decoherent histories formalism of Quantum Mechanics (adapted to open systems). The quantum watcher measure makes predictions in agreement with the standard Born rule of QM.

What are you taking about Shuny? Certainly Vilenkin, did not mention any viable open system in your link. And again Shuny, there is zero evidence that this universe is part of an open system. Even if we are part of a larger multiverse that too must be a closed system.

You say the larger multiverse must be a closed system. Still waithing . . .

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, I believe that is incorrect. From everything I read when we get to maximum entropy there is no transfer of energy - anywhere. There can't be, the universe is essentially dead - energy wise. That is what the definition I quoted said:
And Jim if your greater cosmos has reached maximum thermal equilibrium, doesn't that mean that it once wasn't at maximum equilibrium? And therefore finite?

Only for a closed system. Sill waiting . . .

[seer]

An open system of multiverses would not be subject to entropy as I cited Vilenkin in his December 2013 article. Read the link I cited.

Shuny I know that an open universe would not be subject to entropy! The question is can you demostrate that this is an open universe, or that your multiverse is open. And if your multiverse is open that means it must be getting energy from outside itself - WHERE IS THAT ENERGY COMING FROM SHUNY?

You say the larger multiverse must be a closed system. Still waithing . . .

Stop being a complete idiot Shuny. I never said every universe MUST be closed. But that the the universes that Vilenkin was speaking of in YOUR LINK were closed.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny I know that an open universe would not be subject to entropy! The question is can you demostrate that this is an open universe, or that your multiverse is open. And if your multiverse is open that means it must be getting energy from outside itself - WHERE IS THAT ENERGY COMING FROM SHUNY?

To accept BGV's theory and models that every possible universe has a beginning, would be to accept their multiverse model of an open system as Vilenkin describes, where entropy would not apply. It is unethical to accept only that every possible universe has a beginning without accept the whole consequence of BGV.

The Energy is coming from the system as whole, as in the First Law energy and Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It has always existed and may change forms as Leucreteus proposed over 2000 years ago.

Stop being a complete idiot Shuny. I never said every universe MUST be closed. But that the the universes that Vilenkin was speaking of in YOUR LINK were closed.

Name calling only and not responding to your claims demeans your credibility

Vilenkin absolutely made no statement that any possible universe nor the multiverse system was closed. In fact by my reference his models describe an open multiverse system.

Closed universe systems are cyclic and bounce systems with are no longer accepted.

You stated the multiverse system must be closed, an that is the problem. Still waiting. . .

[seer]

To accept BGV's theory and models that every possible universe has a beginning, would be to accept their multiverse model of an open system as Vilenkin describes, where entropy would not apply. It is unethical to accept only that every possible universe has a beginning without accept the whole consequence of BGV.

This is nonsense Shuny. The inflation model is not an open model, i.e. that it is getting energy from outside itself. Second, it still needs a beginning, even if eternal into the future.

The Energy is coming from the system as whole, as in the First Law energy and Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It has always existed and may change forms as Leucreteus proposed over 2000 years ago.

More nonsense. The second law of thermal dynamics is just as certain as as the first law. Energy is not lost with entropy it just becomes useless. And that is exactly what is happening in this universe. And there is no evidence that any energy, universe or multiverse acts any differently. There may be elegant theories, like inflation or string, but none so far are making any serious predictions that track with reality.

Vilenkin absolutely made no statement that any possible universe nor the multiverse system was closed. In fact by my reference his models describe an open multiverse system.

You are being an idiot Shuny. This debate jumped off of your link after you posted it. And in this link Vilenkin stated that the multiverse did have a beginning and that a cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics - And your second link is meaningless and out of context as usual.

And if you are posing an open universe Shuny, it is on you to demonstrate it. And where the energy to feed this open system comes from... I will be waiting...