What if microstates increase proportional to universe volume?

Question

I am probably a delusional crank with a lot of crazy, overly speculative conjectures. If I am not delusional, than at the very least I've been ahead of the curve, the last 40 or so years. I was a proponent of M-brane theory before many physicists took string theory seriously.

In 1965, I said von Neumann made a faulty assumption in his mathematical proof that no hidden-variable theory was possible for QM. At the time, very few PhD physicists in the world would have agreed with me. In 1985, I independently discovered Hugh Everett's theory. When I presented it to a dozen PhD physicists, they all said it was silly. Not one informed me that Hugh Everett had proposed it in 1959.

Here are my questions:

Could the number of microstates in a universe increase proportional to the size of a universe? As space-time inflates from a singularity could the number of microstates in the universe increase proportionally? Would this imply entropy increases with space-time inflation, and decreases with space-time deflation? How many microstates are there in a singularity? (With all due respect to Bekenstein radiation. Has Bekenstein radiation ever been proved?)

Hugh Everett -- matter-energy takes every quantum pathway. Hartle and Hawking -- space-time takes every quantum pathway. Max Tegmark -- Matter-Energy and Space-Time takes every possible pathway.

In black holes, temperature-pressure increases, and space-time decreases. What does it mean that time decreases? Time decreasing implies time-reversal. Hawking once thought entropy decreased in black holes. Now he claims that was his greatest blunder. What did Einstein think was his greatest blunder? Was he right?

If the temperature-pressure of all the matter-energy in the universe is increasing, doesn't that imply decreasing entropy. Could inflation be the cause for a cooling universe, the 2LoT, entropy and the arrow of time? Could deflation of space-time be the cause of a hotter universe?

When space-time deflates what happens to matter-energy? Does it change from a gas to a liquid to a solid to a solid that is more dense, more unified, and more compact till it reaches a quantum singularity?

Since when does carrying too much metaphysical baggage disquality a physics theory? Wasn't that the argument the Roman Catholic church had with Galileo's theory that the Sun, not the Earth was at the center of the solar system? Does Hugh Everett's theory really carry more metaphysical baggage than SR, GR, and the CI of QM? Did the straightforward interpretation of GR imply an expanding universe? Did the straightforward interpretation of Dirac's equations predict the positron? Why did Einstein and Dirac not interpret their equations in the most natural way possible?

When Brian Greene first proposed string theory, I said to myself it will eventually become a brane theory. Nothing infinitismal or infinite has ever been observed in the real universe. "Infinitismal" and "infinite" are mathematical abstractions, and Platonic idealizations. They may exist in the real world, but I would not presume they exist, since they have never been observed.

The space-time beyond the event horizon of black holes, and the space-time just following the big bang are just as inaccessible as Everett's other universes. We can't travel into the past and we can't look beyond the event horizon of black holes. Does that mean we can't talk about the time immediately following the BB? Does that mean what exists in beyond the event horizon of black holes will always just be speculative?

Everett's theory not only resolves all the paradoxes of QM, it not only restores QM to classical deterministic theory, it also justifies the anthropic principle.

When I was eight years old I believed Max Tagmark's AUH. I just couldn't believe there was just one universe, or just a limited number of universes. When I was eight my uncle said, if we can never observe those universes they might as well be non-existant. At the time, I accepted what he said. But it turns out that everything in the universe that exists is needed to explain the universe we observe.

There is a wine bottle analogy to explain hidden symmetry. From the top of the wine bottle we can observe hidden symmetry and hidden unity. From a higher plane we can see that the BB singularity is coeval with the present. This explaines entanglement. Einstein was right, there is no spooky action at a distance, because the universe is a branching manifold or tree. From our perspective there can be great space-time distance between two electrons, but from the top of the wine bottle looking down there is zero space-time distance between two electrons. That is why tunneling is possible.

From the perspective of a photon the universe has no width along its axis of travel. It travels no distance, and takes no time to get to its destination. Photons have the perspective of the top of the wine bottle. Everything is entangled because everything is in some sense is still connected and unified in the BB singularity.

Einstein and Edward Tryon both believed in a zero energy universe.

When the average person uses the word energy, they really mean exergy. Exergy is related to entropy. And they are both related to equilibrium, non-equilibrium, and Carnot's cycle. In a universe that is in perfect equilibrium you can't have exergy and you can't have low-entropy, can you?

I believe in a block-time, Eternal universe. What creates the illusion of motion, what creates the illusion of space-time? Our consciousness. Our consciousness is the only thing that moves. We experience space and time because our consciousness can only perceive a fustrum of the whole. It is our consciousness moveing through space-time that produces the illusion of motion. Our consciousness experiences the universe from a single location at the bottom of the wine bottle. Our perspective prevents us from seeing the hidden symmetry, and the hidden unity of the universe. From a higher plane, from a higher dimension looking down on our universe, there is no time, there is a perfect symmetry and a perfect unity.

What does heterotic, bosonic, E8xE8, M-brane theory say about this?

Physics without mathematical equations is nothing, but mathematical equations without interpretation is nothing. Einstein used non-mathematical thought experiments to advance physics. How was that possible if physics is just math?

Light of a certain wavelenth strikes the retina. There an electrical signal travels down the optic nerve to the visual cortex in the brain. Then the brain does something remarkable that physics so far is unable to explain. Our brains create color. The difference between blue light and red light is energy frequency, not color. So many people confuse light of a particular frequency with the effect it produces in human brains. Blue light is not blue. Blue light produces the sensation of blue only in human brains.

Other creatures that can differentiate between different frquency EM radiation may have a completely different sensation than we have when we experience blue light. The thing our brains sense is not light but an electrical signal produced in our retinas. The reality we experience and observe is a virtual reality most likely created by a real external universe. But we should never confuse our experiences and observations with the real universe, which is devoid of color. We see solid objects, but we know the solid objects we see are not solid at all. We just see emitted and reflected EM radition from "electrons" traveling very fast. Perhaps, electrons are just fluxtuations in a complex, multidimensional field, perhaps one that is imaginary.

There is an analogy that explains hidden symmetry by considering the view of from the top of the wine bottle looking down. Sometimes, I think you can actually see that hidden symmetry a lot better looking at the bottom of the wine bottle by looking up through the top of the wine bottle, after you have removed it from your lips.

Cheers, Michael Email: MichaelDWolok@aol.com

PS.

1. Can you resolve this paradox? Let's assume I just created a universe with ten particles in a group in one location, and another ten particles in a group in another location. One group is hotter than the other. The two groups are one light-year apart. The hotter group will emit infrared radiation to the cooler group. How does the hotter group know if the other group is hotter or colder? If the two groups are not in direct contact with each other how does the hotter group know it is hotter?

2. According to the laws of GR, suppose a creature has a lifespan of ten years. Is it theoretically possible for that creature to travel a distance of a eleven lights before his/her death without ever traveling faster than light, without tunneling? 40 years ago, I realized you don't have to travel faster than light to travel great distances, because the faster you travel, the slower time moves for you, and the shorter distance you need to travel. If you travel 165,000 miles/second for one second, then stop, you will have aged one second, but you will find you have traveled 4 times 165,000 miles. When you travel 165,000 miles/sec, the distance to your distination will decreases by 1/2, and your time will pass half as fast the destination you are traveling to (Assuming your destination is stationary with respect to Earth.). Use the Lorentz transformations and do the math.

Tachyons cannot theoretically exist according to GR, not because they travel backwards in time, but rather because they would overshoot the universe. Suppose you were able to travel arbitrarily close to "c" At some speed, the most distant point in the universe would be no more than a foot away. That means you could to the most distant reaches of the universe in less than a second without ever travelling faster than "c," providing of course the universe didn't die first (The faster you travel, the slower your time moves, and the faster the universe you travel through ages. In the limit, the universe ages infinitely fast. Yet, when photons arrive at thier destination, the universe has only aged a finite amount of time. How is this possible? You gain knowledge by resolving paradoxes. You don't really understand GR, until you understand how the paradoxes of GR are resolved.)

Suppose you could go back in time. Suppose you traveled one second back in time. Where would you be? Most likely in the same place you are now. Where would your former self be? Opps. If you traveled backwards in time, there would be two of you occupying the exact same space. What happens when two nuclei occupy the same space? This presumes of course there is just one past. If Hartle and Hawking are right (Hartle & Hawkings NBP), and time starts at the S. Pole of a hypersphere, and ends the the N. Pole of a hypersphere, there are many ways back to the S. Pole from any place on the sphere.

By the way, "white hole" is really a misnomer. The oppose of a black hole is a white projection. Really "black holes" should be called black, imploding, deflating space-time vortexes or drains, and white holes should be called: white, exploding, inflating space-time fountains. Black holes are part of the universes plumbing. They are like drains in a waterfountain leading to a main drain leading to water main leading to a fountain. Black holes lead to a baby universe--our baby universe. I know present observation lead physicists today to claim the inflation of the universe is accelerating, and the universe will experience heat death. I predict by the time all dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity dust settles, physicists will realize our universe will end in a Big Crunch. I've been right about everything else.

Imagine the universe as a heat pump with no external enviroment. Refrigerant (matter-energy) flashes and explodes out of a tiny orifice into an expansion chamber (evaporater) into an expanding universe, into an inflacting space-time. There the hot-condensed refrigerant expands, cools, and undergoes a change of state, it turns from liquid to a gas (in the case of our universe from a hot dense singularity to cooler matter-energy and radiation). It continues to cool until it gets sucked into a compressor, into a deflating, contracting space. Black holes are compressors. They compress matter-energy the exact same way a heat pump compressor compresses refrigerant. Compressors work by confining refrigerant in a smaller and smaller volume. The temperature and pressure of the refrigerant increases as the volume decreases. The refrigerant exits the compressor and travels through a very narrow tube called a capillary tube. You can call the capillary tube a worm hole. Finally the hot, dense liquid refrigerant (matter-energy) exits the capillary tube through a single tiny orifice where it explodes into an expansion, an expanding, inflated chamber.

Since I view the universe as an eternal block time universe, there is no moving refrigerant. I see the universe as a klein bottle, with cold, low temperature, low pressure, diffuse gas in the large chamber, and high temperature, high pressure liquid in the thin handle.

Escher's waterfall is not possible in the three dimensions, but is possible in four geometric dimensions. In many ways, the universe resembles a still of Escher's waterfall, though from our prespective water moves in it, just like from our prespective matter-energy moves through our universe. That is because we see frustums of world-lines, frustums of world-sheets, and frustums of world-branes (world-manifolds).

Is there anyone following me?

Answer 1

... I was a proponent of M-brane theory before many physicists took string theory seriously...

M-theory is not the statement that strings have thickness. The brane theory is interpreting the black hole solutions of supergravity within string theory, and giving different "infinitesimally thin" descriptions of gravity which all are equivalent.

In 1965, I said von Neumann made a faulty assumption in his mathematical proof that no hidden-variable theory was possible...

Is your name Bohm? If not, then it's not due to you. Rediscovery is easier, because ideas are floating around. That's not a knock on you, rediscovery is important, it's just that you don't have to tell people about it, everyone has lots and lots of rediscoveries.

In 1985, I independently discovered Hugh Everett's theory. When I presented it to a dozen PhD physicists, they all said it was silly. Not one informed me that Hugh Everett had proposed it in 1959.

People are ignorant, yes, and a PhD does not make them less so, but if your name isn't Everett, it's not your discovery.

Could the number of microstates in a universe increase proportional to the size of a universe?

This is a great question of extreme current interest. The answer is probably yes, but the scaling is not going to be by volume but by area (this is the holographic principle). For the past decade, Tom Banks has been worrying over the fact that the number of microstates (or rather, it's log) is growing as the square of the radius of the visible universe, but there is no firm consensus as to how that works.

As space-time inflates from a singularity could the number of microstates in the universe increase proportionally? Would this imply entropy increases with space-time inflation, and decreases with space-time deflation? How many microstates are there in a singularity? (With all due respect to Bekenstein radiation. Has Bekenstein radiation ever been proved?)

First, it's justifiably called Hawking radiation--- Hawking calculated the prefactor, and showed how it works in detail and this is important. It's Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, since Bekenstein did the entropy arguments.

The increase and decrease of entropy is by the size of the horizon, not by the volume of the universe, and it's counterintuitive. If the universe starts to shrink, the effect on the horizon is indirect, and the relation is not simple. It is also not clear what the entropy of the universe is. Is it the cosmological horizon area, or the sum of the entropy of the things in the universe? If its the latter, it won't shrink just because the universe starts to shrink, unless you have a big-rip, and you are close to the end, and the universe has emptied out into the cosmological horizon.

In black holes, temperature-pressure increases, and space-time decreases. What does it mean that time decreases? Time decreasing implies time-reversal. Hawking once thought entropy decreased in black holes. Now he claims that was his greatest blunder. What did Einstein think was his greatest blunder? Was he right?

If the temperature-pressure of all the matter-energy in the universe is increasing, doesn't that imply decreasing entropy. Could inflation be the cause for a cooling universe, the 2LoT, entropy and the arrow of time? Could deflation of space-time be the cause of a hotter universe?

The temperature of the universe is decreasing not increasing, but the volume increase compensates, so that the cosmological photon entropy is not increasing by itself--- this is adiabatic expansion of the cosmic background.

Inflation was proposed as the cause of the arrow of time by Davies, and I agree with him, but this is a minority position still (I think).

When space-time deflates what happens to matter-energy? Does it change from a gas to a liquid to a solid to a solid that is more dense, more unified, and more compact till it reaches a quantum singularity?

The contracting universe (don't say deflating), has a temperature that rises fast as the volume contracts, since it is a big bang in reverse. The matter goes to a plasma and contracts while going to insane energies and temperatures. It doesn't solidify.

Since when does carrying too much metaphysical baggage disquality a physics theory? Wasn't that the argument the Roman Catholic church had with Galileo's theory that the Sun, not the Earth was at the center of the solar system? Does Hugh Everett's theory really carry more metaphysical baggage than SR, GR, and the CI of QM? Did the straightforward interpretation of GR imply an expanding universe? Did the straightforward interpretation of Dirac's equations predict the positron? Why did Einstein and Dirac not interpret their equations in the most natural way possible?

Everett is the straightforward interpretation of QM, and many people are comfortable with it today, including myself. The issue is that QM is exponentially huge, this is the many worlds insisting on their contribution, and we don't have direct experimental evidence for exponential computation in nature. This is the subject of recent papers by 'tHooft on determinisic QM, and a lively discussion here about these.

When Brian Greene first proposed string theory, I said to myself it will eventually become a brane theory. Nothing infinitismal or infinite has ever been observed in the real universe. "Infinitismal" and "infinite" are mathematical abstractions, and Platonic idealizations. They may exist in the real world, but I would not presume they exist, since they have never been observed.

You probably are confusing Brian Greene with Michael Green, who was one of the founders of the 1980s superstring.

The strings are not "infinitely thin lines of energy" although this is how they appear perturbatively. When they are in the classical limit, they correspond to line-extended extremal black hole solutions, so that they are carrying a field. Their zero extension is just how their horizon dynamics appears in the limit when they are long and light.

The idea that they have to be extended because nothing is infinitely thin is wrong. The branes are also thin in the same way strings are (except the d9 brane in IIB theory, but that's weird), there is no paradox, because all it is saying is that these extremal black holes can exist in various world-volume dimensions.

It is not true that everything has to be extended. Strings are no more extended today than they ever were, they are just better understood than in the 1980s.

The space-time beyond the event horizon of black holes, and the space-time just following the big bang are just as inaccessible as Everett's other universes. We can't travel into the past and we can't look beyond the event horizon of black holes. Does that mean we can't talk about the time immediately following the BB? Does that mean what exists in beyond the event horizon of black holes will always just be speculative?

This is a valid question that is adressed elsewhere. The issue of interior of black holes, and to what extent it "exists" (whatever that means) is clarified greatly by holography. To the extent it does exist, you can follow what goes on in the interior by only doing measurements on the exterior, and this is a weird idea.

Everett's theory not only resolves all the paradoxes of QM, it not only restores QM to classical deterministic theory, it also justifies the anthropic principle.

Yes, indeed. This is the secret motivation behind many papers, and the reason for the anthropic anti-anthropic split. It's really an Everett/anti-Everett split. The Everett theory is the best theory in my opinion if QM is exact, but this is not settled.

When I was eight years old I believed Max Tagmark's AUH. I just couldn't believe there was just one universe, or just a limited number of universes. When I was eight my uncle said, if we can never observe those universes they might as well be non-existant. At the time, I accepted what he said. But it turns out that everything in the universe that exists is needed to explain the universe we observe.

This is philosophy.

There is a wine bottle analogy to explain hidden symmetry. From the top of the wine bottle we can observe hidden symmetry and hidden unity. From a higher plane we can see that the BB singularity is coeval with the present. This explaines entanglement. Einstein was right, there is no spooky action at a distance, because the universe is a branching manifold or tree. From our perspective there can be great space-time distance between two electrons, but from the top of the wine bottle looking down there is zero space-time distance between two electrons. That is why tunneling is possible.

Everett does make the nonlocal effects in QM more intuitive, because of the splitting. The relation to tunneling is not there--- the tunneling in Everett is like in any other intepretation, it's due to the electron taking a path in a branch which was not classically allowed.

From the perspective of a photon the universe has no width along its axis of travel. It travels no distance, and takes no time to get to its destination. Photons have the perspective of the top of the wine bottle. Everything is entangled because everything is in some sense is still connected and unified in the BB singularity.

This is not good--- the photon still has stuff happen in affine parameter along it's path. For example, two photons can focus as they go through a lens, or a gravitational lens. It is not good to take the physical limit of zero path length. This is adressed by a question here:

Einstein and Edward Tryon both believed in a zero energy universe.

A "zero energy universe" is fine if you include gravitational energy, it's one allowed intepretation of inflation.

When the average person uses the word energy, they really mean exergy. Exergy is related to entropy. And they are both related to equilibrium, non-equilibrium, and Carnot's cycle. In a universe that is in perfect equilibrium you can't have exergy and you can't have low-entropy, can you?

Why not?

I believe in ... our consciousness. Our consciousness...

This part is standard physicist philosphy since the time of Boltzmann, and is consistent with many-worlds, as you say.

What does heterotic, bosonic, E8xE8, M-brane theory say about this?

Nothing new, it's unchanged.

Physics without mathematical equations is nothing, but mathematical equations without interpretation is nothing. Einstein used non-mathematical thought experiments to advance physics. How was that possible if physics is just math?

Physics isn't just math, it's experimental and philosophical and mathematical all at once. But the problem is that there are too many people who don't want to do the math (I don't include you in this group) and want to waste people's time with armchair speculation. So the math is emphasized for political reasons, to shut people up.

Light of a certain wavelenth ... [then] Our brains create color...

Yes, this is the theory of mind you need to make Everett make sense. It is philosophy, but philosophers won't discuss it sensibly. The stuff you write here is well accepted.

There is an analogy that explains hidden symmetry by considering the view of from the top of the wine bottle looking down. Sometimes, I think you can actually see that hidden symmetry a lot better looking at the bottom of the wine bottle by looking up through the top of the wine bottle, after you have removed it from your lips.

This is a very nice sentiment, but it is too long.

Can you resolve this paradox? ... How does the hotter group know if the other group is hotter or colder? If the two groups are not in direct contact with each other how does the hotter group know it is hotter?

They don't--- they emit thermal random radiation, and statistically it heats up the cold ones on average. If you have a few particles, you could have radiation transmit heat from cold to hot by accident.

According to the laws of GR ... If you travel 165,000 miles/second for one second, then stop, you will have aged one second, but you will find you have traveled 4 times 165,000 miles...

Yes, this is Lorentz time-dilation, and it is discussed here ad-nausium on the twin-paradox questions.

Tachyons cannot theoretically exist according to GR, not because they travel backwards in time, but rather because they would overshoot the universe. ... Yet, when photons arrive at thier destination, the universe has only aged a finite amount of time.

The use of affine parameter for photons, and remembering that zero "distance" in SR doesn't mean you are at the same point, resolves these paradoxes.

Suppose you could go back in time... If you traveled backwards in time, there would be two of you occupying the exact same space. What happens when two nuclei occupy the same space

This is speculation, aside from the last part--- the two nuclei would blow up. The back-in-time business is somewhat adressed by Feynman's view of relativistic particles, that they are always zig-zagging through time on the scale of their Compton wavelength. This resolves the issue--- you go into the past, meaning an anti-you annihilates with the old you, and the new you takes its place. It's a little ridiculous to use this language for macroscopic things, it's already cumbersome for nonrelativistic nuclei.

If Hartle and Hawking are right (Hartle & Hawkings NBP), and time starts at the S. Pole of a hypersphere...

Hartle and Hawking are placing these boundaries in imaginary time, they consider the universe to have created itself by tunneling. This is a weird thing, and requires analytic continuation--- it's not a straightforward spherical geometry. The failure of geometry near the big bang made Hawking consider that time might turn imaginary there, but you wouldn't be able to "travel" through this place, since time wouldn't work, and it's so hot anyway, so it's not clear this is a meaningful thing to say.

By the way, "white hole" is really a misnomer.

It's a name. If you don't like it, look up "Axion".

... Really "black holes" should be called black, imploding, deflating space-time vortexes or drains, and white holes should be called: white, exploding, inflating space-time fountains.

Except they both attract matter. You can't tell the difference unless you try to fall in. The quantum theory identifies them as the same object.

Black holes are part of the universes plumbing. They are like drains in a waterfountain leading to a main drain leading to water main leading to a fountain. Black holes lead to a baby universe

... I predict by the time all dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity dust settles, physicists will realize our universe will end in a Big Crunch. I've been right about everything else.

Whether you have been right about everything else is not saying much. Everything is different. In this case, it is unreasonable to say the universe will end in a big-crunch. It is plausible to say that it will end in vacuum decay to another universe, perhaps even undergoing a big-crunch after decay, but the decay itself will be the end of the universe, not the crunch.

Imagine the universe as a heat pump ... Black holes are compressors... Finally the hot, dense liquid refrigerant (matter-energy) exits the capillary tube through a single tiny orifice where it explodes into an expansion...

This is the idea that black holes link to new universes. It was proposed in the 1960s, due to properties of extended black hole solutions. Similar ideas about baby-universes were considered by Coleman and others in the 1980s, and this idea was revived by Smolin as the "fecund universe" idea.

None of these ideas really work, the require information loss to become sensible theories, and as far as we understand, there is no information loss in black holes.

I see the universe as a klein bottle, with cold, low temperature, low pressure, diffuse gas in the large chamber, and high temperature, high pressure liquid in the thin handle.

You are just saying that black hole make new universes, and this idea is ruled out in modern understanding of black holes. The issue of what comes out of black holes is unresolved without a full string theory calculation, and this is a subject of research.

Escher's waterfall is not possible in the three dimensions, but is possible in four geometric dimensions.... frustums of world-lines, frustums of world-sheets, and frustums of world-branes (world-manifolds).

This is assuming that the universe creates another, and another, which comes back and creates this one. This is untestable metaphysics, since we can't observe the other universes, not even using a quantum computer, as one can to give meaning to Everett's other worlds. Since it is untestable, I wouldn't assign it meaning.

Is there anyone following me?

Yes, but it's a little taxing in terms of time. It's best to review the status of the literature before making a mish-mash of ideas, mostly ones that are around, and to separate the philosophy from the physics and only ask about the latter. Please try to do this.