<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
>> A single state with no other states to compare it to has zero<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>energy and entropy.</blockquote></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
><font size="4"> I would<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>say in that situation energy and entropy would be undefined not zero. </font></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The entropy of a state with a probability of 1 is ln(1)<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>or precisely zero<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>in both Boltzmann and Shannon formulations. I didn't know this was even<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>controversial.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the number of </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">ways previous micro-states could have produced the present macro-state, but if at the start of time the universe was in one state there were no previous </div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">micro-states<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">, or previous anything.</div></span></font></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>if the universe has a single age that all observers can agree upon,<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">But they don't agree, some observers will say the universe is older than others.</font></div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>then there must be a universal proper time from which time-symmetry could<br>
be introduced.</blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">There is no universal time everybody can agree on. If a traveling observer goes from point A to point B the </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Proper T</div>ime <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">of that </div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> journey is the time measured by the observers own stopwatch and using the traveling observer's definition of simultaneity to decide when to start and stop the stopwatch. But there is no universal agreement, some observers will say the stopwatch is running too slow, others will say it is too fast, and they will say the traveling observer started and stopped the watch at the wrong time.</font></div></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>So Noether's theorem and Einstein's equations could both be satisfied<br>
given the correct boundary conditions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Noether's theorem says that if the laws of physics tell a system to behave in a certain way at one time and the system behaves the same way at any other time then energy is conserved, but it won't behave the same way at a different time because spacetime is accelerating.</div> </font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">></div> consider all the photons in interstellar space, as<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>space expands with time the number of photons remains the same but each individual photon is redshifted and thus has less energy than it did before.</font></blockquote>
<br>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Yes but in that process the particles that emitted those photons and the<br>
particles that absorbed of those photons would have gained a proportionate<br>
amount of kinetic energy relative to one another by way of their relative<br>
Hubble velocities. The energy lost by the photon should be gained by its<br>
terminal particles.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">We call it Cosmic </font></div><font size="4"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Microwave Radiation but when those photons were created 380,000 years after the Big Bang they were not microwave photons they were visible light photons but due to the expansion of the universe they have been stretched out into far less energetic microwave photons. The ancient particles that emitted those photons emitted light, the modern particles that absorb those same photons absorb microwaves, the energy in those 2 things are not equal. </div></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>the curvature of the universe as a whole has been bounded to be<br>
within +/- 0.004 which causes the flatness problem. The FLRW metric<br>
implies that if the universe has so little curvature now, in the beginning<br>
it would have to have had way less curvature, on the order of 10^−62. That<br>
is so infintesimally small that the probability of such an arrangement so<br>
close to zero, without actually being zero, is vanishingly small.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I don't know how you could even assign a probability to something like that. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If the universe is infinitely large and negatively curved you'd expect the local curvature to be </div>vanishingly small<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">. Even if the universe is finite the local curvature would still be unmeasurably small if the universe were big enough. But is the universe big enough? I can't even make a guess about that.</div></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>And in a flat universe, GR conserves total energy at least according to<br>
the Friedmann equations and my potential field equations.</blockquote><div> </div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If </div>spacetime<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> is not evolving then energy is conserved, but we now know something Friedmann did not ; spacetime is evolving, not only is it expanding it's accelerating. </div></font><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">From Sean Carroll at:</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/" target="_blank">http://www.preposterousuniver<wbr>se.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-<wbr>is-not-conserved/</a></div> </div><div><br></div><i><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div>It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div></font></i><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div> as the density approaches an assymptote at located at twice thecritical density</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> Dc = 3H^2/(8*pi*G),</blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">The equation is correct but keep in mind </font></div><font size="4">H, the Hubble parameter<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div> is not a constant <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">but is </div>decreasing with time. And the value of Dc is not just determined by the mass of matter in a unit of space, pressure and tension are also part of it. </font><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">></div> The energy required is not the issue, gravity<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>waves don't travel faster than light, and sending messages into the past<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>creates logical contradictions. Even quantum entanglement won't let you communicate faster than light. </font></blockquote>
<br>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Here you are trying to eat your cake and have it too.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>You say that quantum<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>entanglement doesn't allow "me" to communicate FTL but the particles<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>themselves MUST comunicate FTL ergo the meaning of non-local.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>No, communicating is not the same thing as influencing, communicating involves transferring Shannon style information and<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>entanglement<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>can't do that faster than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than light. </font></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away. I flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do the same thing. We both think our sequences look completely random as they pass all known tests for randomness. You then get into your spaceship that moves at 99.9% the speed of light and visit me. After 2 million years you arrive on Earth and we compare the notes we took on our two sequences and find that all 100 flips are identical. Clearly my coin influenced your coin 2 million light years away and did so in just one hour, but there is no way I can use that to send a message. All it does is change one apparently random sequence to another apparently random sequence, the fact that there is something funny going on and things aren't as random as they appear can only be discovered when the 2 sequences are placed side by side, and that can only be done at the speed of light or less. </font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The universe's "internal memos" are either FTL and off-limits to us or<br>
they are not. You can't have it both ways.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">We don't have it both ways, it's off limits to us period.</div> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>My point is that you *can't* use it to send messages into the past. Only<br>
the universe can. It's like a private communications channel between<br>
particles to exchange quantum information like position and momentum.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">OK that might be true, it sounds rather like John Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics; but I have to say backward causality makes me nervous even though<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>nothing<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Shannon<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>would recognize as information is sent into the past and so <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">no </div>paradoxes<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>are<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>produced.</font><br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Let me put it another way. How is the mass of a black hole distributed? Is<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it spread out all over the event horizon?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font size="4">Nobody knows. General Relativity says all it's mass is concentrated at a mathematical point at the center that has infinite density but that is probably wrong because it doesn't take quantum mechanics into account and in physics if your equation produces infinity in something it's reaching the limit of its usefulness and it's time to start looking for a new equation. But externally it doesn't matter, the gravitational field would be identical if all the mass were at the center or if all the mass were distributed evenly over the event horizon surface. </font><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Damn, I wish LIGO would catch a binary neutron star merger with optical<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>back up already.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">It may have already done so, the LIGO people can be pretty secretive. The next few months should be interesting.</font></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I know it is unintuitive that gravity could be both an attractive and a<br>
repulsive force based on density rather than something like charge.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Einstein says density isn't the only thing that makes a gravitational field, pressure and tension do too, and tension (negative pressure) makes gravity repulsive if the tension is strong enough. And<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Dark Energy isn't made of matter so it doesn't become less dense as space expands instead it is a property of space itself<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div> so the density of Dark Energy remains constant regardless of how much space expands. Because Dark energy is persistent it gives a constant push to the universe, and if you push on something with a constant force it will accelerate.</font></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>BTW, as a testable prediction my theory predicts that objects inside an<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>evacuated hollow spherical shell at zero G, should very slowly gravitate<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> t</div>o the closest part of the hollow sphere unless they were in the exact<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>center.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>This is in direct contradiction to what Newton's shell theorem predicts by<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>purely attractive gravity.</blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">It seems to me that is pretty good evidence your theory must be wrong.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>A simple corollary to<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Newton's shell theory<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>states that externally the sun's gravitational field behave<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">s</div> as if all it's mass were concentrated at it's center point, if this were not true the orbits of the planets would be quite different from what we have observed and would have been noticed centuries ago.</font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark</div><br></font><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></div></div></div>