Tuesday, February 9, 2016
SPACE-TIME AND THE BIG-BANG PARADOX
MORE ABOUT SPACE-TIME
In a previous post I pointed out that the new paradigm, TDVP, the paradigm that includes consciousness as an integral part of reality, agrees with Einstein’s view that space-time is not something that has an existence of its own. This is a radically different understanding of space and time, very different from the concepts we operate under in our daily lives: Largely because of the limitations of our physical senses, we are under the illusion that space-time exists like an empty field through which things move. With the inclusion of consciousness as a participating part of reality, of importance at least equal to mass and energy, like Einstein, we see that space and time are extensions of the substance of reality, and while reality is dynamic, the substance of reality is neither created nor destroyed. Thus the universal law of conservation of mass and energy is incorporated into a broader law of conservation of the substance of Reality, and there is no beginning or end, only change. This requires a new look at concepts like entropy and complexity, as they have been defined by physicists.
Entropy is defined as the inverse of organization and structure. The highly structured and mathematically ordered universe we see now, is a state of low entropy. But, according to the latest information from the Hubble telescope, the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate toward maximum entropy, where maximum entropy is defined as the complete lack of structure. As the substance of the universe dissipates as the universe expands, entropy increases. This is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics which says that physical systems always tend to disintegrate, or ‘run down’, over time, explosion or no explosion.
To measure the complexity of the universe, physicists and cosmologists use Kolmogorov complexity. This measure of complexity is defined as low when the universe can be described simply, and greater when it requires more detail to describe the universe. For example, a universe consisting of nothing but expanding plasma, or nothing but a quark soup, would be one of low complexity, while a universe consisting of many elements, compounds and organisms would be one of a much higher complexity.
ENTROPY vs COMPLEXITY
So entropy is the inverse of complexity: high entropy means low complexity, and low entropy means high complexity. This works looking into the future of the expanding universe: From this point of low entropy and high complexity on, entropy will increase and complexity will decrease as the universe expands and complex structures break down. But looking back toward the big bang, we have a problem.
THE BIG-BANG EXPANDING UNIVERSE PARADOX
In the standard model, running the clock backwards conceptually, cosmologists conclude that the universe began with the explosion of an extremely hot, dense mass about13.7 billion years ago. An explosion with its subsequent expanding debris field never creates order and complexity in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics; to the contrary, an explosion always creates disorder and chaos. So the complexity of the universe should have been maximum just after the big bang, decreasing ever since. The problem is that the standard model has no explanation for the low entropy and high level of complexity we find in the current universe. In fact, the standard model cannot explain why there is even one stable atom, or for that matter, why there is a universe at all.
With the discovery of gimmel and the development of TRUE unit analysis, we have, for the first time in the history of modern science, the explanation. In the standard model, consciousness is considered to be an accidental consequence emerging from the random occurrence of self-organizing structures. But there is no explanation of how the second law of thermodynamics was overcome, or what the mechanism of self-organization might be. We have shown that gimmel, the third form of the substance of reality, has to be a part of atomic structure, from quarks to the simplest triadic combination, the hydrogen atom, to provide the stability necessary to sustain the physical universe. But gimmel is not an emergent feature, it had to be there before the first stable particle could form.
So space-time has no existence apart from mass, energy and gimmel, which, in accordance with the conservation of the substance of reality, the mathematical geometrical logic of the calculus of distinctions, and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics have no meaningful existence until irreversibly registered in the consciousness of an observer. As Einstein said: “Reality (as we know it) is an illusion”. The question now becomes: to what extent are we free to consciously shape the nature of reality, present, past and future, within the logic of the conscious primary substrate?