Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

It all began with an end - New theory on origin and future of the universe

  1. Nov 16, 2007 #1
    The universe’s clock has neither a start nor finish, yet time is finite according to a New Zealand theorist. The theory, which tackles the age-old mystery of the origin of the universe, along with several other problems and paradoxes in cosmology, calls for a new take on our concept of time – one that has more in common with the “cyclic” views of time held by ancient thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle and Leonardo da Vinci, than the Christian Calender and Bible-influenced belief in “linear” time now so deeply imbedded in modern western thinking.

    Following its initial publication on the arXiv physics archive at Cornell University earlier this year [url: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612053], the author of the theory, Peter Lynds, presented a second paper about it at the International Conference on Complex Systems in Boston on November 1 [url: http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225]. Another group also presented a conference paper about the theory.

    Lynds’ theory involves the second law of thermodynamics, a bedrock of physics and the explanation behind why we only ever experience events evolving in one time direction in nature. This law is related to the fact that heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a function of heat’s ability to disperse, hot flows to cold. Because of this, natural processes that involve energy transfer tend to have one direction and to be irreversible. However, what would happen if, due to certain extreme physical conditions, heat was unable to flow to cold and was forced to flow to hotter?

    In his theory, Lynds posits that rather than this inevitably happen and the second law of the thermodynamics be breached just before the universe gravitationally collapses to a big crunch or matter reaches the centre of a black hole, the order of events should reverse direction. As all of the laws of physics – with the exception of the second law of thermodynamics – are time reversible and work equally well in opposing directions, Lynds asserts that no laws of physics would be contravened by such a reversal, while it would also allow the second law of thermodynamics to continue to hold. This is contrast to previous theories involving thermodynamic time reversal, including those by Thomas Gold in the 1960s and Stephen Hawking in the 1980s, which all involve the second law of thermodynamics being breached. Such theories have generally been dismissed by physicists because of contradictions directly resulting from such a second law violation – contradictions that Lynds says his theory avoids.

    Lynds asserts that if many billions of years from now the universe stops expanding and contracts to a big crunch, such a revised conception of thermodynamic time reversal leads to a coherent picture of the cosmos in which there is no differentiation between past and future, and the so-called beginning of the universe, the big bang, can equally be said to be in the past or future of the big crunch. This means that the big bang and the big crunch can also equally be said to cause one another, therefore providing an answer to that most intractable of questions: what caused the big bang?

    Furthermore, because events are always evolving away, rather than ever towards one, there are no gravitational “singularities” – hypothesized points where gravity and heat become infinite and the laws of physics break down. Aside from proposed avoidance mechanisms in theories such as String theory and Loop quantum gravity, singularities have been a troublesome but inescapable feature of mathematical physics ever since the 1960s when work by Sir Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking showed that they must result at the big bang, the big crunch, and inside black holes – provided Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is correct and some basic assumptions are met. One of the assumptions underlying the Penrose and Hawking singularity theorems is that events and times converge towards a singularity. In Lynds’ theory, events and times are always diverging or evolving away from a potential singularity, so none are encountered. “The reversal of the order of events so that the second law of thermodynamics can continue to hold, would appear to be a very good way on Nature’s part of avoiding singularities, while also guaranteeing that the universe can remain continuous and without causal contradiction,” says Lynds.

    Significantly, the theory also addresses a famous paradox posed by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, which concludes that the idea of the universe extending back infinitely in time is contradictory, while its antithesis – the idea that the universe began at some finite time in the past – also results in contradiction. Kant asked that if the universe did have a beginning, what happened beforehand to cause it? And what before that? Kant noted that there would always be an infinite number of “what before that’s.” On the other hand, if time extended back forever, there would be an infinite period of time before any event – something that Kant also considered absurd. “With a universe that stretches back infinitely in time and has no starting point, it would also be impossible for the universe to evolve forward, not only to where it is today, but at all,” says Lynds. Because his theory asserts that the universe is finite, but yet also has no beginning or first cause (because the big bang is caused by the big crunch, which would normally be thought of as being in the future of the big bang), Kant’s paradox disappears. “A universe in which time is cyclic is really the only possible answer to a paradox such as Kant’s,” says Lynds. “In relation to how telling it is, I do not think that people have generally realised just what a perfect paradox Kant put forward. It shows that there is something very much going wrong with our regular assumptions regarding time, cause and cosmology.”

    Lynds says that in this theory, “it is simply the order of events that reverse – something that would be immediate – and not a case of time ‘flowing backwards.’” Unlike models of the universe where the universe is said to “bounce” and expand again after a big crunch, Lynds says that his model also does not breach any conservation of energy laws, while it rules out the possibility of time travel. “In a little way, it does have some connection to the words ‘back to the future’ though,” says Lynds. “Just without flux capacitors, DeLorians and time travel.”

    A further implication of Lynds’ theory involves another notoriously stubborn problem in cosmology. If the initial conditions of the universe at the big bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago had been even slightly different – say, if the ratio of electrons to protons had been different by one part in 1037 – the evolution of the universe from the big bang through to today would have been impossible. A similar point can be made about numerous physical constants and values, including the weak and strong nuclear force constants, the gravitational constant, and the level of entropy – the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter within a system. Surely such apparent cosmological “fine-tuning” needs explanation; why were conditions at the big bang seemingly so “special”?

    “Such a question comes down to a question of initial conditions determining later or final ones––in this case, the big bang and the universe as we know it today,” says Lynds. “But if initial and final, past and future, are equally exchangeable, such a question becomes meaningless. That is, in light of the model, if the big crunch or the universe today could equally be said to determine conditions at the big bang (as the former could just as much be said to be in the past of the big bang as the future of it), one could equally ask why conditions at the big crunch or today are so special. As such, other than perhaps positing that if it were different, the universe would not exist (and neither would we to ask questions about it), because no objective causal order to events or conditions in the universe exists, conditions at the big bang (and today and at the big crunch) just are, and can have no causal explanation.” Lynds continues, “This does not explain why the universe exists at all (rather than not), nor do I think that it takes away at all from its mystery and the impression of it being extraordinarily well-designed. Indeed, that the universe can be the way it is, and yet not have any causal explanation, would suggest that Nature is even more deserving of our incredulity.”

    Lynds says that the most profound implication of his theory is a purely philosophical one. “Although if properly taking into account what is happening in respect to time in the model, there are no past or future cycles of the universe, if the past and future are thought of in the regular way, with a meaningful differentiation being made between them, then the universe can be interpreted as repeating over, exactly, an infinite number of times. As well as meaning that everything is determined and that our sense of having free will is an illusion, it also means that, when someone dies, many billions of years later, they will live their lives again. As a person would be dead and non-conscious during this period, however, for them anyway, such life after death might as well be immediate. Furthermore, because the model means that all different times (those represented by a clock) share equal reality, as does the “block” view of time provided by general relativity, there is an equal sense in which a person is 1, 20, 60 or any other age they might reach. Lynds continues, “The prospect of having to repeat one’s life over may seem a disturbing prospect for some, but I do not think it should, as with no possible memory of any previous cycle, it might as well just be the once. Once, but with the additional consideration that, when one dies, it will not be final. I personally find genuine comfort in this idea.”

    However, Lynds has some caveats for his theory. “It is reliant on the universe being closed and eventually collapsing,” says Lynds. “At the moment, it is very uncertain whether there is enough mass in the universe to cause it to eventually collapse, or if it will continue expanding forever. If the universe isn’t closed, my theory is wrong. The detail behind what causes the reversal is also non-quantitative and speculative, while the paper in general is a bit awkward, it sitting somewhere between physics and philosophy, and moving over some different areas. It is a bit of an ugly duckling, in that it doesn’t neatly fit anywhere.”

    From a historical perspective, Lynds notes the idea that time might be cyclic is an old one and was very popular in ancient times. “In relation to it being an old idea, the saying “there is nothing new under the sun” is itself actually from a passage about cyclicity in the book of Ecclesiastes circa 250BC,” says Lynds. “It wasn’t until the Middle Ages when Christianity really took hold in Europe and the Christian Calendar became firmly established, that the view of time being linear and going in a straight line, the one we are all now so familiar with in modern western society, actually became prominent. Indeed, around this period, a belief in time being cyclic was actually outlawed by the Catholic Church and chargeable as blasphemy, as it was opposed to the unique chronology of events described in the Bible; a drama that, according to scripture, takes place only once.”

    Lynds says he is expecting his theory to be controversial – a theory that he has only now begun to pursue after it came to him one night in 1998 while laying in bed. Lynds, a 31-year-old who is without university qualification, is familiar with controversy, with another theory causing waves in 2003. That theory also involved questioning long-held assumptions about time and physics – the existence of instants in time and of time in general – and another famous problem, Zeno’s paradox. “I doubt that people who believe the universe was created will like it as it leaves no place for a Creator, while due to its nature and some of the questions involved, I feel it will probably invite cynicism from some as well. It is also very counterintuitive, requiring one to see beyond a number of deeply imbedded intuitions and assumptions regarding time. For the moment, I’m more just happy to get it out there.”

    About Lynds’ theory, Dr. Paul Frampton, Louis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says, “I enjoyed reading Lynds’ article about an endless and beginningless universe, especially as I have myself worked on such a model recently (Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 071301, 2007). Lynds addresses the key issue of the second law of thermodynamics in a novel way and I'll be curious to see how far he can take it.”

    Dr. Jonathan Vos Post, a former Professor of Astronomy at Cyprus, College. California, and Professor of Mathematics at Woodbury University, California, says, “I consider Peter Lynds's arXiv paper to be a bold and magnificent speculation. Those who attack him are misguided, in that Peter Lynds’ arguments need to be put in proper historical context, which is apparently outside the educational background of those who prematurely dismiss the subtleties of Peter Lynds insights. Let me refer back to an 1895 paper by the immortal [Ludwig] Boltzmann, which has recently attracted attention in the controversy over so-called "Boltzmann Brains.” The reference is Nature 51, 413 (1895). [Long quote by Ludwig Boltzmann concerning the second law of thermodynamics and the possibility of universe later returning to its present state]. Peter is cursed with having brilliant theories that his detractors falsely assume are based on ignorance. His startling re-analyses of (1) Zeno's paradox, (2) the nature of Time, and (3) the nature of consciousness, have been spuriously opposed by naive critics who claim that Peter does not know (1) Calculus, (2) Relativity, (3) Psychology. To the contrary, I hold that his ability to ask "simple" questions, and give extraordinary answers, is close in many ways to the genius of Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Paul Erdos, John Wheeler, Stephen Wolfram, and Frank Zappa.”

    Dr. Werner Israel, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a Fellow at Canada’s Institute for Advanced Study Cosmology and Gravity Programme, says, “I found Peter Lynds' ideas on possible reversals of time's arrow interesting, in part because I have entertained less bold but not dissimilar ideas myself. In 1991 I co-authored a note in Nature which speculated on the possibility that the growth of entropy near a big crunch might be, not reversed exactly, but enormously diluted by a process called mass inflation at the inner horizons of coalescing black holes. This would make a transition to an expanding phase very nearly reversible thermodynamically.”

    Sir. Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, says, “Whereas he seems to be quite knowledgeable on many of the relevant issues, his own proposal is actually very difficult to make sense of. He seems to be arguing for a picture in which one's time-sense somehow reverses in the circumstance of approaching a future singularity, such as that inside a black hole. I am not enthusiastic about his scheme, in so far as I can actually understand it---and that's because I consider that his scheme really does not make sense, not because I am too wedded to conventional ideas to be able to accept revolutionary new ideas! Of course he might well take the opposite view!”

    Dr. Gabriel Chardin, a Professor at the Department of Astrophysics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Associated Instrumentation (DAPNIA) at the Saclay Laboratory of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in France, says, “I am sympathetic with the general idea Lynds develops. On the other hand, his paper, dealing with important and real questions in cosmology, is using only partially the tools that I would expect to find in such a study. In particular, entropy in a cosmological context should be given in my opinion a large importance to define the arrow of time, using for example the holographic principle.”
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 17, 2007 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Rich,
    my take on Lynd's idea of time run backwards is skeptical along the lines of what you quote from Penrose at the end of your post:

    I will fetch the arxiv abstract of the 2006 paper you linked, in case anyone wants to inspect it.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612053
    On a finite universe with no beginning or end
    Peter Lynds
    17 pages, 2 figures, 48 references
    (Submitted on 6 Dec 2006 (v1), last revised 2 Jan 2007 (this version, v3))

    "Based on the conjecture that rather than the second law of thermodynamics inevitably be breached as matter approaches a big crunch or a black hole singularity, the order of events should reverse, a model of the universe that resolves a number of longstanding problems and paradoxes in cosmology is presented. A universe that has no beginning (and no need for one), no ending, but yet is finite, is without singularities, precludes time travel, in which events are neither determined by initial or final conditions, and problems such as why the universe has a low entropy past, or conditions at the big bang appear to be so 'special,' require no causal explanation, is the result. This model also has some profound philosophical implications."

    We may have had earlier PF discussions about this paper, or about Lynds' idea of time going backwards. I don't recall. If so, the moderators may want do something like merge this with some other thread, or request discussion go to the earlier thread. But I don't know about that. I havent followed Lynds' stuff here much.

    Personally I think there are two gaping holes in his reasoning here.

    1) his discussion of collapse refers to old work, mostly 1990s and earlier. To study what goes on in gravitational collapse you really need quantum gravity and the most successful quantum cosmology models have been developed since 2001 and especially since 2005. He argues in generalities and does not use a particular mathematical model.

    His thinking seems mainly philosophical and classical about what happens during collapse (besides referring to outdated work of others.) There are no equations.

    2) the whole argument depends on applying the SECOND LAW but the second law depends on an observer who defines a map of the macroscopic states in PHASE SPACE. When one talks in generalities there is a danger that one will throw around ideas like entropy without specifying WHOSE entropy. Who is measuring it? Where is the observer located?

    Others may see the flaws in Lynds' arguments differently---that's just how I see them. I looked thru the PDF and couldn't find anything that I thought needed to be taken seriously.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  4. Nov 17, 2007 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Rich,
    in case you want to check out some professional work in quantum cosmology since 2005, I will get a paper or two.
    I will post the ABSTRACT html link so you can look at that and decide if you want to download the pdf.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3565
    On the robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology
    Abhay Ashtekar, Alejandro Corichi, Parampreet Singh
    28 pages, 1 figure
    (Submitted on 18 Oct 2007)

    "A small simplification based on well motivated approximations is shown to make loop quantum cosmology of the k=0 FRW model (with a massless scalar field) exactly soluble. Analytical methods are then used i) to show that the quantum bounce is generic; ii) to establish that the matter density has an absolute upper bound which, furthermore, equals the critical density that first emerged in numerical simulations and effective equations; iii) to bring out the precise sense in which the Wheeler DeWitt theory approximates loop quantum cosmology and the sense in which this approximation fails; and iv) to show that discreteness underlying LQC is fundamental. Finally, the model is compared to analogous discussions in the literature and it is pointed out that some of their expectations do not survive a more careful examination. An effort has been made to make the underlying structure transparent also to those who are not familiar with details of loop quantum gravity."

    This paper has up-to-date references---the bibliography points to other very recent work. Not the case so much with Lynds.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  5. Nov 17, 2007 #4

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Our PF Guidelines state in part:

    It appears based on inputs from some of our posters and published articles such as This wired.com article that Lynd's paper does not meet our standards. Lynd's paper is not only not published in a peer reviewed journal, it was (apparently) rejected from physical review letters.

    Unless I receive some evidence that the wired.com article is in factual error regarding this rejection by PRL, I am therefore going to lock this thread in accordance with our guidelines.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  6. Nov 19, 2007 #5

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Apparently Lynds *has* been published in Foundations of Physics Letters

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/jg62q7w551677126/?p=4417738b71454a029c24992df29a2d46&pi=2

    I think that this puts him within the scope of the PF guideliines. At any rate, I'd rather err on the side of inclusion than exclusion, so I'm reopening the thread. Unfortunately, there is some possibility for confusion here about what part of Lynd's work has been peer-reviewed and what hasn't.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
  7. Nov 19, 2007 #6
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5046

    Comparative Quantum Cosmology: Causality, Singularity, and Boundary Conditions

    In this review article we compare the recent work of Peter Lynds, "On a finite universe with no beginning or end", with that of Stephen Hawking, primarily "Quantum Cosmology, M-Theory, and the Anthropic Principle", and two foundational works by Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen, "Does Inflation Provide Natural Conditions for the Universe" and "Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time", in order to evaluate their comparative treatments of the nature and role of causality, time ordering, thermodynamic reversibility, singularities and boundary conditions in the formation of the early universe. We briefly reference Smolin and Kauffman's recent arguments with respect to possible processes of "evolutionary selection" in early universe formation as an alternative explanation to key elements of Hawking's earlier "M-Theory", and its attendant anthropic principle. We also briefly excerpt a short section of Smolin's recent work on topology in quantum loop gravity, simply as an illustrative example of the type of complex quantum topological transformation which he offers as a theoretical alternative to string theory in quantum cosmology.
     
  8. Nov 19, 2007 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I view it as a plausible, but speculative idea. I sympathize with marcus's objection to the lack of mathematical footings. Logic is a useful tool - and has often preceeded the math - but a workable mathematical model is ultimately required.
     
  9. Nov 20, 2007 #8
    The irony is that his latest ideas seem much more original than the work which was published. (See my comments on his earlier paper in Peter Lynds and Zeno's Paradox). His latest work might be compared to the speculation about black holes having an entropy before Hawking's paper, although Lynd's is clearly not as knowledgable in physics as Bekenstein for instance (and yet we still talk about Hawking radiation and not Bekenstein radiation).
     
  10. Nov 20, 2007 #9

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Perhaps Lynds is to be known in part by the company he keeps. This paper could be taken as a warning sign. the authors are P. Fellman and Jonathan Vos Post, together with what appear to be Jonathan's wife and son. None of the four authors are regularly published in physics, judging by arxiv.

    I think Vos Post may have been involved in science fiction and in writing popularization books, or a biography of a famous physicist. I have some impression of him from a few self-descriptive posts on Woit's blog and I consider him highly intelligent and articulate. But I would not necessarily trust his word on anything concerning physics. Not really his line, I think.

    On arxiv in physics, the authors have only one paper by Post and Fellman, plus this one. This one is just a contributed paper to a "complex systems" conference. I doubt that it is publishable. So that is two arxiv papers for the four of them. Maybe they write papers in computer science or mathematics--I didn't check.

    The citations in the present paper, by the four authors, raise doubts. Sean Carroll's paper for Nature was not actually published by Nature. Several of the papers cited may not be publishable. One suspects the authors may be dealing in generalities and drawing comparisons between things that are not really comparable. They call it a "survey" paper but from the abstract it isn't clear to me what field of research it is surveying.

    I don't want to get into a serious consideration of the present paper (Fellman, Post and family, I assume) because I expect it would be a waste of time. But it looks suspicious. It doesn't make me want to take any more time with Peter Lynds' writing.

    Just my two cents.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2007
  11. Dec 15, 2007 #10
    speed of light

    how can this be
     
  12. Dec 15, 2007 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Hi Andrew, You evidently have questions about that paper of Ashtekar.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3565
    On the robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology
    Abhay Ashtekar, Alejandro Corichi, Parampreet Singh
    28 pages, 1 figure
    (Submitted on 18 Oct 2007)

    I'm not sure what your questions are, and also it probably would not be fair to use this thread, which Richard started about Peter Lynds' ideas, to discuss other approaches to quantum cosmology.

    Would you like to start a separate thread, to explore what your questions are related to that paper? That would be fine with me, if you want.

    The reason I called Richard's attention to that paper is to make sure that he knows there is OTHER quantum cosmology work currently in progress besides Lynds'.
    It is an active field and one can try to identify the more prominent people---who are writing most of the recent research papers that get most of the citations. Ashtekar is one of the leading people.

    My feeling is that there is no need for anyone to believe in what the top people of any given field are doing, but when you go into a subject it is good to at least know about the mainstream directions of research.

    So I called Richard's attention to that paper as an example. but if you want to discuss some of the issues, probably we should start or find a different thread for that purpose.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: It all began with an end - New theory on origin and future of the universe
Loading...