Brian Cox's Death of the Universe....

[Qualia]

I was watching Brian Cox's first chapter of Wonders of the Universe for the first time this evening (my brother has sent me a box collection) and it got me thinking. In the chapter he was talking about time, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and ultimately the death of the universe. I'll play out the thought in argument form so it should be easier to follow (P stands for premise, C for conclusion).

P1: The universe could be spatially infinite. (An alternative is that the universe is finite but unbounded but for arguement's sake, I'll leave this idea out).

P2: If the universe is spatially infinite, anything with a possibility of happening will happen, not once or twice but an infinite number of times.

P3: The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) always increases in a closed system but being a scientific law, it is not a law in the sense of a directive, but a statistical law.

P4: Because there are so many more ways for a system to be disordered rather than ordered (as Mr. Cox explained with his sand castle), it follows that we should expect to see disorder in a closed system increasing over time.

P4: A spatially infinite universe is by definition closed, no outside energy source can influence it. So in an infinite universe entropy will be reversed an infinite number of times in an infinite number of locations. This would be the probability seeing that the second law is a statistical statement. For sure, the range of times and locations at which entropy increases will always be much greater than the range in which it decreases, but regardless, both are infinite.

C1: It follows that the Death of the Universe is a statistical probability but due to the statistical probability of entropy reversal it will be an unlikely event.

Final thought....

Because of random quantum fluctuations and the chance of atoms just bumping together, in an infinite universe an infinite number of objects will pop into existence; a cosmos with the potential of being filled with any kind of entity beyond our craziest LSD induced dreams. These could include floating rose-buds with absolute perception, a stinking trash can with the wisdom of a dolphin, an electrically charged chain-smoking spoon that senses the cosmic wailings of dieing stars and brains that carry a complete and coherent but fully illusory memory of the history of the world; those memories will include the illusion of a personal history, a world of science, of physical laws, knowledge, politics, evolution, and so on. These brains might be ourselves who have just had the memory that they've just read a bizarre post unaware that this memory - like all their memories - is merely illusory.

[Kevin Eaves]

Good point.

[ronin]

P1 by your own definition is irrelevant. it has no purpose.

Not sure of P2, it requires at least infinite time, and we haven't had that. Also why not something being impossible? By your arguement that also has to be a possibility.

P3 and P4 look the same, not sure why p3 is not a law.

in an infinite universe an infinite number of objects will pop into existence

That is selective for whatever purpose you want, could equally argue that an infinite number of objects will pop out of existance.

Because of random quantum fluctuations and the chance of atoms just bumping together, in an infinite universe an infinite number of objects will pop into existence

You are using quantum scale for popping into existance then macro scale for what pops into existance. A planet, whale or aspidistra will not pop into existance, a partical might (not even atom they are too big and too complex), but most likely something smaller, but could equally pop out. You seem to be trying to apply small scale quantum ideas to large scale macro situations.

Atoms do not bump into one another, to get them to bump into one another we have had to build the LHC, the other place they bump into one another is in the core of a star. So the chance of 2 atoms bumping into one another is very likely one of the impossible events outside these situations. They do not have the energy required to overcome the massive repulsive forces involved.

All the lights are going to go out, last estimate was 100 trillion years and the last star will cease to shine. Then we will have truely dark skies, just nothing to see.

[majapala]

I like the bit about the chain smoking spoon, because of course, you're right!

[Qualia]

Thanks for the reply, Ronin. I'll deal with just the argument for obviously the ultimate part of the post is just a bit of nonsense ramblings with not much of a premise orconclusion.

P1 by your own definition is irrelevant. it has no purpose.

I guess its usage was to establish a conditional argument and a charitable reading would just see it flowing into P2.

Not sure of P2, it requires at least infinite time, and we haven't had that.

That's a good point but I don't unserstand how it invalidates P2. Perhaps it does, but then is the argument invalidated? Or again, does a spatially inifinte universe necessarily require inifinte time to render P2 valid? And if so, why? Couldn't one conjure in mind an infinte universe of time and space in which still nothing happens?

Also why not something being impossible? By your arguement that also has to be a possibility.

No, I don't agree. An impossible event has a possibility of zero, It's just that, zero possibility.

P3 and P4 look the same, not sure why p3 is not a law.

Not sure what the first part means, but P3 refers to a law, a scientific law. As such, it is limited to empirical statements which grounded upon repeated experimental observations is rendered a probabilistic and ultimately statistical theorem.

As such the conclusion still stands

Was Brian Cox correct to assume the universe would necessarily terminate? His argument was grounded on statistical probability but due to the statistical probability of entropy reversal it could well be an unlikely event.

The only way I figure this can be rendered an invalid argument is to demolish P4, and maybe P2.

[ollypenrice]

Is it true that in infinite time all possibilities will occur? The idea that infinite monkeys would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare has been discredited (so I'm told!) by the chaos theorists.

Olly

[Macavity]

What kind of worries me is the RELISH with which some scientists describe

the(se) ultimate end(s). Almost like some latter day apocalypticist(?)...

I think I had some rather good science teachers. But two things stick out as: "Things I never really understood". Firstly, the general introduction to quantum mechanics - Double slit diffraction etc. And Secondly (appropriately?), the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Richard Feynman was right re. his comments on the crucial nature of (1). I'm less sure (so are others) re. Brian Cox on (2). But, like most average / typical persons of scientific ilk, I simply... "Kept calm and carried on" (with the homework, the experiments etc.)

I think it no accident - but perhaps ironic (symptomatic, pathological?), these two ideas are among the most common topics for "popular" science programs. Often with "revolutionary" new treatment, and the assertion that such things are "quite simple really" - So much so, that entire subjects (the world, the future) can often be encapsulated into ONE equation. And I always worry about that one...

As ever, via Wikipedia, I ended up with something less troubling: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9701131v1.pdf

Detailed and comprehensive? With some serious application, the (A-Level?) Maths might be approachable?

The Philosophy and the Second law of Thermodynamics only makes it to "Appendix D" - To "remain open"? 

Hardly scientific, but I do like the idea that the universe will continue to "tick over" at some microscopic level.

[JamesF]

Is it true that in infinite time all possibilities will occur? The idea that infinite monkeys would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare has been discredited (so I'm told!) by the chaos theorists.

Olly

Isn't that because they can never be bothered to do Timon of Athens?

James

[Timbo32]

You are using quantum scale for popping into existance then macro scale for what pops into existance. A planet, whale or aspidistra will not pop into existance, a partical might (not even atom they are too big and too complex), but most likely something smaller, but could equally pop out. You seem to be trying to apply small scale quantum ideas to large scale macro situations

is there no hope for a unified theory then

[Big Jim Slade]

Isn't that because they can never be bothered to do Timon of Athens?

James

It's currently looking like even Shakespeare couldn't be bothered to finish Timon of Athens, and Thomas Middleton had to do it for him.

[Paul M]

Things seem to have moved on since Freeman Dyson postulated our Universes "Heat Death".

It was suggested that eventually there would be a thermodynamic equilibrium where there was no energy potential/gradient left in the universe. All there would be remaining would be something akin to the 3k background radiation but much "hotter".

I don't know where all this newfangled Quantum Fluctuations stuff fits in with that? Other than making my brain hurt on the day I sat a 3 hour written exam on Activated Sludge

[Jessun]

The idea that infinite monkeys would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare has been discredited (so I'm told!) by the chaos theorists.

And by my mate's mother, when he tried to explain this line of thought. She first argued that monkeys can't write, and my mate stressed that precisely that was the point. The mum then finished the discussion with 'what nonsense, the monkeys will eat the paper!'

/Jesper

[Macavity]

Probably drink all the tea - Through the spout too. Every time I read "Brian Cox's Death..."

I shudder inwardly for an instant. We may differ a bit "philosophically", but a tad harsh...

[Qualia]

Every time I read "Brian Cox's Death..." I shudder inwardly for an instant. We may differ a bit "philosophically", but a tad harsh...

That's a fair point and I really hope no one here has been offended, nor think I was playing some kind of silly game with words. The title was written in the thread's allocation and it was simply referring to the idea referenced in the TV series (which I'm watching for the first time). Only later - a lot later - did I realise that from the boards - for a brief second (before the preposition and article are noticed) - it looks like a silly game is being played. But hopefully from the perceived sincerity of the original OP and the intelligent reponses offered such shudderings now come only from the pleasure of free thought and enquiry Again, I'm really sorry if anyone here has been offended and if the thread should be retitled I think that is a legitimate move.

[jetstream]

Kind of off topic,but I wish someone would explain Quantum Entanglement to me and excactly how it works......ummmm is the speed of light being broken with this "Spooky action at a distance"?It might have a bearing on things(?)

[Macavity]

That's a fair point and I really hope no one here has been offended...

Not me. Mostly amused at the way which the (my) mind sometimes responds to the screen word.

I can try for ages for "perfection", which is instantly destroyed by the... independent observer?

[Earl]

I have difficulty relating information loss and expansion, which is sort of related to this, if a thing has moved out of the intractable range, yes it still is in existence but at the same time it is lost forever, beyond this point we are unable to say exactly where, what and even when the object is, we can only guess a future for it based upon its last known conditions, these could change but we would never know

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[George Jones]

Kind of off topic,but I wish someone would explain Quantum Entanglement to me and excactly how it works......ummmm is the speed of light being broken with this "Spooky action at a distance"?It might have a bearing on things(?)

Some folks think that the spirit of relativity is violated by quantum entanglement, but not the letter. In standard linear quantum mechanics, entanglement cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light. Some physicists, including Weinberg, have played around with non-linear versions of quantum mechanics. Polchinski, however, has shown that in non-linear quantum mechanics, entanglement can be used to send signals faster than the speed of light. Presently, there is no *experimental* evidence that we have to move beyond standard linear quantum mechanics.

I have difficulty relating information loss and expansion, which is sort of related to this, if a thing has moved out of the intractable range, yes it still is in existence but at the same time it is lost forever, beyond this point we are unable to say exactly where, what and even when the object is, we can only guess a future for it based upon its last known conditions, these could change but we would never know

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

I am not sure what you mean. More stuff (galaxies) is constantly moving from outside our observable universe to inside our observable universe, i.e., from outside the cosmological horizon to inside the cosmological horizon. Once in our observable universe, stuff never leaves our observable universe.

[jetstream]

Some folks think that the spirit of relativity is violated by quantum entanglement, but not the letter. In standard linear quantum mechanics, entanglement cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light. Some physicists, including Weinberg, have played around with non-linear versions of quantum mechanics. Polchinski, however, has shown that in non-linear quantum mechanics, entanglement can be used to send signals faster than the speed of light. Presently, there is no *experimental* evidence that we have to move beyond standard linear quantum mechanics.

Thanks George,I love waiting to here of experiments proving or disproving theories and solving observations.What amazes me is that even if this is an anomaly and its real,what are the statistical chances of similar anomalies occuring.I mean Cosmologists/Physicists try to predict events and guess the odds of occurrence on theoretical events-before observation and this one is measureable to some degree.The Higgs boson stuff "glues me to the screen" too....I wonder if they are still gonna try to shoot entangled photon(s) to the ISS?I'm thinking small pieces of a VERY large puzzle....maybe Quantum computer development can help things along the way

[jetstream]

Hmmm....maybe the photons are connected,but through what & by what?Or maybe they are pretty quick...I think I like Guth's Inflation theory

[rjc404]

Maybe slightly off topic from the thread title but if you want to read a good article that will make your head hurt on the possibility of macro objects materializing out of quantum fluctuations as muted in some of the posts above then have a read of this free article about The Higgs Boson and Boltzmann Brains! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/10/31/the-higgs-boltzmann-brains-and-monkeys-typing-hamlet/#.Ukm3a4a-1Bl

(Hopefully posting this link isn't breaking any t&cs)

Rob