Low Entropy big bang , models that explain it

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on various models attempting to explain the low entropy configuration of the universe at the big bang, including the multiverse concept from the Caroll/Chen model, the cyclic universe theory from the CCC model, and a hybrid approach from the Baum/Frampton model. There is skepticism regarding the CCC model, as it relies on assumptions that do not effectively explain low entropy and has faced challenges with observational compatibility. The dense state of the universe is questioned as an explanation for low entropy, with the argument that a small, compressed universe can still evolve into a larger, high-entropy state. The Caroll and Chen model suggests that a small piece of a high-entropy universe with low entropy density could initiate a new universe, indicating that the early universe's size does not limit the total number of configurations. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity of entropy in cosmological models and the need for further exploration of these theories.
skydivephil
Messages
470
Reaction score
9
Hi
As I understand it there are several attmepts to explain the low entropy configuration of the universe at the big bang.
Is seems to me the choices on the table that I am aware of are a mutliverse as in the Caroll/Chen model . A cyclic universe as in the CCC model or some hybrid of the two as in the Baum/Frmapton model.
Are there any other explanations to this and if so how do they work?

Also why does the dense state of the unvierse not work as an explanation? After all I would have thought if the unvierse is so incredibly compressed then the number of allowed configurations should be less, obviously this is not the case , but why not ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I wouldn't say that CCC attempts to explain the low-entropy big bang. Penrose takes the Weyl curvature hypothesis as an assumption. That means assuming the low-entropy big bang, not explaining it. I also don't think CCC is viable at this point. It predicted nonstandard particle physics, which turned out to be incompatible with observation. (The CMB evidence also turned out to be completely bogus.)
 
skydivephil said:
Also why does the dense state of the unvierse not work as an explanation? After all I would have thought if the unvierse is so incredibly compressed then the number of allowed configurations should be less, obviously this is not the case , but why not ?
Bear in mind that our current universe and the early universe are just two different states of the same system. So if you want to examine the entropy of the situation, you have to consider our current state to be just as relevant a configuration of the system as its early state. The total number of configurations available is not limited by the small size of the early system, because it is possible for such a small system to evolve into a large one like the one we observe.

However, it naively seems like the small size of the early universe must have something to do with the answer, whatever that answer happens to be. Carol and Chen proposed an explanation where a small piece of a large universe which has high entropy but very low entropy density could start off a new universe: it isn't a huge drop in entropy because of the low entropy density of the "parent" universe.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top