"Two things to keep in mind A time will come when your thought you had to overtake and whether your thinking you will not get ahead"
Tuesday 14 February 2017
Monday 13 February 2017
Sunday 12 February 2017
Entropy paradox
The Entropy Paradox
Mainstream cosmology tries to avoid this puzzling pitfall. The topic is rather embarrassing. The truth of the matter is that both the open and the flat BB universes (these are the versions that have the universe expanding forever) are based on a paradox —actually a double paradox. And what is so embarrassing is that it is the worst kind of paradox one could have in any theory —thermodynamic law violation.
It is useful to understand the basic fact that heat energy is disordered energy and is therefore the highest entropy form of energy. And we all know that at the primordial big-bang-moment things were hot —really, really hot! In theory, the temperature was at its maximum. Naturally we should be able to assert that entropy was also highest at that moment at the birth of the BB universe. Now if entropy is maximum in the early big bang, then how can entropy increase as it is supposed to during the subsequent evolution of the universe? Entropy is already at maximum! How can it increase further? And yet thermodynamic law says it must increase! ... A paradox.
Recall that the primordial fireball was a thermal state—a hot gas in expanding thermal equilibrium. Recall, also, that the term ‘thermal equilibrium’ refers to a state of maximum entropy. However, the second law demands that in its initial state, the entropy of [the BB] universe was at some sort of minimum, not a maximum!
What has gone wrong? –Roger Penrose [Penrose 1990, p328]
What is more, the open/flat universe (this includes the currently popular accelerating version), by definition, expands forever. As it expands its regional average temperature becomes colder and colder. In time, stars die, galaxies collapse, black holes evaporate. Left-over radiation is relentlessly redshifted (a consequence of universal space expansion). The temperature —the measure of the weakening radiation— drops. The temperature in all regions of the universe approaches the ultimate low of absolute zero. And in tandem, entropy approaches its ultimate low value. By definition a system at absolute zero has zero entropy. So the universe ends up having an ultimately low entropy when it is supposed to end up (according to proven physical law) in a maximum state of disorder (i.e., high entropy).
And we are left wondering: How can it be that entropy decrease in this supposedly natural and closed system —the BB-expanding-universe system? The second law is clear, entropy must only increase or remain constant! Again, a paradox.
Mainstream cosmology tries to avoid this puzzling pitfall. The topic is rather embarrassing. The truth of the matter is that both the open and the flat BB universes (these are the versions that have the universe expanding forever) are based on a paradox —actually a double paradox. And what is so embarrassing is that it is the worst kind of paradox one could have in any theory —thermodynamic law violation.
It is useful to understand the basic fact that heat energy is disordered energy and is therefore the highest entropy form of energy. And we all know that at the primordial big-bang-moment things were hot —really, really hot! In theory, the temperature was at its maximum. Naturally we should be able to assert that entropy was also highest at that moment at the birth of the BB universe. Now if entropy is maximum in the early big bang, then how can entropy increase as it is supposed to during the subsequent evolution of the universe? Entropy is already at maximum! How can it increase further? And yet thermodynamic law says it must increase! ... A paradox.
Recall that the primordial fireball was a thermal state—a hot gas in expanding thermal equilibrium. Recall, also, that the term ‘thermal equilibrium’ refers to a state of maximum entropy. However, the second law demands that in its initial state, the entropy of [the BB] universe was at some sort of minimum, not a maximum!
What has gone wrong? –Roger Penrose [Penrose 1990, p328]
What is more, the open/flat universe (this includes the currently popular accelerating version), by definition, expands forever. As it expands its regional average temperature becomes colder and colder. In time, stars die, galaxies collapse, black holes evaporate. Left-over radiation is relentlessly redshifted (a consequence of universal space expansion). The temperature —the measure of the weakening radiation— drops. The temperature in all regions of the universe approaches the ultimate low of absolute zero. And in tandem, entropy approaches its ultimate low value. By definition a system at absolute zero has zero entropy. So the universe ends up having an ultimately low entropy when it is supposed to end up (according to proven physical law) in a maximum state of disorder (i.e., high entropy).
And we are left wondering: How can it be that entropy decrease in this supposedly natural and closed system —the BB-expanding-universe system? The second law is clear, entropy must only increase or remain constant! Again, a paradox.
Gravitational waves -Again Einstein
1.G-waves are ripples in the curvature of space time that propagates as wave at the speed of light Generated in gravitational interaction that propagate outward from the source.
2 .G-waves transport energy as a gravitational radiations similar to electromagnetic radiations
3.Advanced LIGO began observation in September 2015 and on Feb 11,2016 LIGO announced the detection of G-waves.
2 .G-waves transport energy as a gravitational radiations similar to electromagnetic radiations
3.Advanced LIGO began observation in September 2015 and on Feb 11,2016 LIGO announced the detection of G-waves.
Mystery in Cosmology
One of the world’s most famous astronomers (and unquestionably the world’s expert on peculiar galaxies), Halton Arp, has collected the evidence over many years and —personally as well as professionally— maintains that extragalactic redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. In taking such a contrarian stand, this distinguished Professor is denying the very foundation of all big bang (BB) models! If the universe does not expand then obviously it does not constitute any sort of big explosion. No big bang! [Arp 1998]
Halton Arp recognizes the crisis in his field, knows it is on the wrong path, and struggles, in his words, “to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track.”
I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects and the new insights into the workings of the universe ---all the primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information. –Halton Arp [Arp 1998, Preface]
One famous physicist/cosmologist, Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995) —a Nobel Laureate (plasma physics 1970) no less— came to recognize and boldly reject the implausible. He was not about to waste time on a road going nowhere. And neither was he going to waste words. To him it was patently evident that the big bang never happened !
There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being either four thousand years ago or twenty billion years ago. –Hannes Alfvén as in [Lerner 1988]
What did happen is that those early pioneers, confronted with convincing evidence that cosmic space expands and presented with sound theory that space (the vacuum) must expand, wisely concluded that space indeed expands. But then some of those pioneers got carried away; they decided that the entire Universe must be expanding!
The astronomers had their redshift measurements of apparently receding galaxies and the relativist theorists had their mathematical magic ... and the rest is history. The Big Bang was adopted as a result of an overzealous utilization of history’s grandest unscientific extrapolation.
Problem was, and still is, that the extrapolation won’t work. There are serious problems with space-expansion extrapolation (think cosmic-edge paradox) as well as with temporal extrapolation (think beginning-of-universe paradox).
The problem with Big Bang theorists, Alfvén argues, is that they try to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories rather than from laboratory phenomena ... –Eric J. Lerner [Lerner 1988]
Now for some of the details of the treacherous road of obstacles and pitfalls that impede the advancement of space science in general and cosmology in particular. The obstacles are the mysteries and unanswered questions that have led to a state of crisis. For the most part they are the direct consequences of the invalid BB cosmology. Most are simply unresolvable within a universal-expansion paradigm. The following compilation is not in any particular order, except that it begins with the Big Bang’s primordial speck-of-almost-nothing and culminates with the devastating Crisis of 1998.
Halton Arp recognizes the crisis in his field, knows it is on the wrong path, and struggles, in his words, “to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track.”
I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects and the new insights into the workings of the universe ---all the primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information. –Halton Arp [Arp 1998, Preface]
One famous physicist/cosmologist, Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995) —a Nobel Laureate (plasma physics 1970) no less— came to recognize and boldly reject the implausible. He was not about to waste time on a road going nowhere. And neither was he going to waste words. To him it was patently evident that the big bang never happened !
There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being either four thousand years ago or twenty billion years ago. –Hannes Alfvén as in [Lerner 1988]
What did happen is that those early pioneers, confronted with convincing evidence that cosmic space expands and presented with sound theory that space (the vacuum) must expand, wisely concluded that space indeed expands. But then some of those pioneers got carried away; they decided that the entire Universe must be expanding!
The astronomers had their redshift measurements of apparently receding galaxies and the relativist theorists had their mathematical magic ... and the rest is history. The Big Bang was adopted as a result of an overzealous utilization of history’s grandest unscientific extrapolation.
Problem was, and still is, that the extrapolation won’t work. There are serious problems with space-expansion extrapolation (think cosmic-edge paradox) as well as with temporal extrapolation (think beginning-of-universe paradox).
The problem with Big Bang theorists, Alfvén argues, is that they try to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories rather than from laboratory phenomena ... –Eric J. Lerner [Lerner 1988]
Now for some of the details of the treacherous road of obstacles and pitfalls that impede the advancement of space science in general and cosmology in particular. The obstacles are the mysteries and unanswered questions that have led to a state of crisis. For the most part they are the direct consequences of the invalid BB cosmology. Most are simply unresolvable within a universal-expansion paradigm. The following compilation is not in any particular order, except that it begins with the Big Bang’s primordial speck-of-almost-nothing and culminates with the devastating Crisis of 1998.
Theoretical Framework For New theory
Big Bang is just a series of explosions. ...
Before Big Bang there were Matter and Antimatter already in existence which anhillates give rise to Huge amount of Energy along with space-time and by product of this anhillation is electrons/Proton and then life's begins and other Galaxies and Universes. If can say that Big Bang is series of explosion means in future may be this type of explosion will occur as 13.8 billion years ago one Big Bang has been already completed which condenses to Form our present Universe and Galaxies.
Before Big Bang there were Matter and Antimatter already in existence which anhillates give rise to Huge amount of Energy along with space-time and by product of this anhillation is electrons/Proton and then life's begins and other Galaxies and Universes. If can say that Big Bang is series of explosion means in future may be this type of explosion will occur as 13.8 billion years ago one Big Bang has been already completed which condenses to Form our present Universe and Galaxies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)