It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ASTROPHYSICISTS ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE MYSTERY OF ENTROPHY (from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Two university physisicists are looking at the riddle of entoprhy and how it fits into current models and theorums of our universe's current configurations and state of being. I find this work exceedlingly exiting as they are trying to answer some very basic questions I feel are still unanswered by a plausible explanation in the world of astrophysics such as why time flows in one direction, and why the universe looks the way it does today, which is usually explained in terms of inflation after the big bang event. The article suggests that entophy is an infinte part of our universe, unlike most thoeries, because entrophy is growing and the universe is expanding and becoming emptier. These finding are being brought to light ever since our discovery of the still mysterious Dark energy that effects our universe. for a more detailed explanation please link to the article and then link through to the original peice of posted work online which is linked from the chicago chronicle news page.
 



chronicle.uchicago.edu
The big bang could be a normal event in the natural evolution of the universe that will happen repeatedly over incredibly vast time scales as the universe expands, empties out and cools off, according to two University physicists.

The question about the arrow of time has vexed physicists for a century because “for the most part, the fundamental laws of physics don’t distinguish between past and future. They’re time-symmetric,” Carroll said.

Previous researchers have approached questions about the big bang with the assumption that entropy in the universe is finite. Carroll and Chen take the opposite approach. “We’re postulating that the entropy of the universe is infinite. It could always increase,” Chen said.






Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I have always had a great interest in the flow and nature of time as a constant in our universe and the reason why time flows only in a single direction of forward motion. At the same time as this, Nasa have sent a sattelite with the most perfect manmade gyroscopes in existance to study the effect of the earths own distortion od space and time around us. If time and space can be effected or "dragged" in a way by the rotation of the earth, then this means that time as it is talked about in the above article, may not be as constant as we belive.
If the rules of the flow of time through our universe can me altered by something such as earth, then it goes without saying that there may be all kinds of anomalies arising from the big bang untill present day that may not adhere to our common knowledge of space, time and physics as we know about. I have recently hear from a news article on Space.com that there are holes in our theories of Red-shift time dillation, and that entrophy or the recently discovered dark matter may be a cause for great time imbalances, but as yet the physics, maths and formulae behind this is all based on theory and hypothesis as is much of our basis for the big bang theory itself and cannot to this date be 100% proved to be correct. My point is that if all space and time are linked and it is possible to bend or effect both space and time, then it is theoretically possible to concieve of human scientists being able to reproduce this effect to study it and learn more of the nature of time and space itself. Any comments, opinions or theories of your own regarding this type of research and work are greatfully recieved.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by radiant_obsidian]

[edit on 23-11-2004 by radiant_obsidian]

[edit on 23-11-2004 by radiant_obsidian]




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   
GAH! I can't believe someone posted that junk! Not you personally radiant but the original link to it. It's sophomoric incoherent babbling without a basis in reality or even solid equations to back it up. I fond no basis for the theory and no grounds to support it.

The quote "“for the most part, the fundamental laws of physics don’t distinguish between past and future." Is plainly absurd, it vague it doesn't point out any particular instances of where physics doesn't distinguish between past and future. The fundamental laws of physics have a great intertwinement with time, the laws of gravity (a huge part of physics) is measured in time and those laws are corner stone of physics.

We don't understand how time works, we don't understand how all the matter in the universe got here. The "big bang" in its current form is a jumbled cluster of bad math and as far as sound theory go the best it does is give religion a run for its money. So to go from that non-working theory and make assumptions about the creation and expansion of matter in the universe is a leap of baseless faith.

I think it would be wise for science to show a little humility and start to fix the inconsistencies in their version of creation and the universe before trying to make more bad theories based on more bad math. Once the answer is found the theories that use the current jumbled version of the big bang would be useless.

The quote “We’re postulating that the entropy of the universe is infinite. It could always increase,” implies an infinite power source. Why would you postulate such a thing? What's the basis for such a theory other than "everyone says it's this way so we're going to say the opposite." Some times you do need a leap of faith in math, like integers (there's no such thing as 0 never mind -1) but even with those small leaps of faith (or place holds is the preferred term lol) we have gotten some cool things like computers and cars and have been able to create all sorts of things. This takes more than a leap of faith it takes several hundred of them in a row and I find that to be more up the ally of Christianity and doesn't belong being published unless the results bear some tangible fruit.

That's my 2 cents, well more like 3.



new topics
 
0

log in

join