Can a random system produce an ordered system?

[Fishteacher73]

1) Information load- You said the Big Bang had no information load. Were you hypothesiizing that there was no load until after the BB, or were you offering a definition (i.e., a postulate) that BB assumes all information was subsequent to BB. I have never heard this before, and I wanted you to clarify.

 

Pehaps I'm just a minimalist, but it seems that there is always someone trying to establish some sort of intelligence outside our own biologically evolved sense to things. To argue whether or not there was an "information load" involved in/before/after the big bang is putting a design on purely natural events. We do not think about whether that rock ponders what kind of noise it will make when it sploshes in the lake nor dreams about becoming a metamorphic rock. That ancient hydrogen atom did not "decide" that it would eventually be part of the molecules of a nose hair, nor did anything else. The results are not random, but there is no design to it other than the natural laws.

[Tormod]

1) Tell me how the Big Bang didn't have the information, but it showed up an instant later. Is this by definition?

 

You keep asking for backup on this. However, the Big Bang theory does not try to explain what caused the Big Bang. For all practical purposes, within the Big Bang theory, there was no information stored in it. Anything that happened later was a direct result of the Big Bang.

 

I think that is what Linda is talking about when she says there was almost no information in the Big Bang - the information from the BB followed after the BB.

 

You should ask a string theorist what they think about the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. They have a different answer because they try to avoid the singularity and the quantum fluctuation, so for them the BB did not happen at T=0.

[Biochemist]

For all practical purposes, within the Big Bang theory, there was no information stored in it. Anything that happened later was a direct result of the Big Bang...the information from the BB followed after the BB.

So, you are saying that the information self-generated?

 

You should ask a string theorist what they think about the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. They have a different answer because they try to avoid the singularity and the quantum fluctuation, so for them the BB did not happen at T=0.

Thanks tormod- I will pull out some books.

[Biochemist]

...it seems that there is always someone trying to establish some sort of intelligence outside our own biologically evolved sense to things. To argue whether or not there was an "information load" involved in/before/after the big bang is putting a design on purely natural events.

FT- I think this is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but it sure seems like a postulate. No natural event has ever been demonstrated to accrue its own information load. That is (essentially) the definition of determinism. The other opinion would involve some sort of Big Guy. I contend that either position (based on the scientific method) is a postulate.

[TeleMad]

You should ask a string theorist what they think about the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. They have a different answer because they try to avoid the singularity and the quantum fluctuation, so for them the BB did not happen at T=0.

 

I'm not sure, but I thought superstring theorists simply avoided singularities by claiming they can't exist: according to them, a string is the smallest possible thing and even as unimaginably small as one is, it is still larger than the Planck length (it's not until lengths would get smaller than the Planck length that general relativity and quantum mechanics collide head on).

[lindagarrette]

I'm not sure, but I thought superstring theorists simply avoided singularities by claiming they can't exist: according to them, a string is the smallest possible thing and even as unimaginably small as one is, it is still larger than the Planck length (it's not until lengths would get smaller than the Planck length that general relativity and quantum mechanics collide head on).

It is my understanding that the string has no dimensions. And it is not quantized. It may be represented mathematically as a physical object but it isn't.

[infamous]

It is my understanding that the string has no dimensions. And it is not quantized. It may be represented mathematically as a physical object but it isn't.

This begs an answer to another question. If a mathematical construct can not be defined as a physical object, is it then not proper to determine that it only an illusion? A mathematical ghost which has no reality or significant place in the real world. We then will need to also define the term physical won't we.

[TeleMad]

It is my understanding that the string has no dimensions. And it is not quantized. It may be represented mathematically as a physical object but it isn't.

 

 

I've read "The Elegant Universe" in the past. I'm not sure if this is the definitive quote on the matter, but it does seem like an excellent match.

 

"... attempts to incorporate gravity into its quantum-mechanical framework have failed due to the violent fluctuations in the spatial fabric that appear at ultramicroscopic distances - that is, distances shorter than the Planck length. ... the standard model views the elementary constituents of the universe as pointlike ingredients with no internal structure. ... According to string theory, the elementary ingredients of the universe are not point particles. Rather, they are tiny, one-dimensional filaments somewhat like infinitely thing rubber bands, vibrating to and fro. ... The strings of string theory are so small - on average they are about as long as the Planck length - that they appear pointlike even when examined with the most powerful equipment.

 

... First and foremost, string theory appears to resolve the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics." (italics in original, bold emphasis added, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, Vintage Books, 1999, p135-136)

[lindagarrette]

I've read "The Elegant Universe" in the past. I'm not sure if this is the definitive quote on the matter, but it does seem like an excellent match.

I'm sure Brian Greene knows much more than I do about string theory but that doesn't mean he is correct in saying that strings are planck-length filaments. As I understand it, the mathematics describe them as energy fluctuations at the planck scale (since that's as small as any energy can interact) but having only one dimension within a 10 or 11 dimension domain. The filament nomenclature is used to represent the closed and open loop effect of the vibrations. The math is way over my head, though so I'll just stop here.

[UncleAl]

Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction: an initially homogeneous isotropic dilute aqueous solution spontaneously orders in time and space. Mix it up with vigor and it reorders when it settles down. All that is required for any spontaneous ordering is an energetic system with positive feedback.

 

Google

"Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction" 6840 hits

 

Liquid crystals or pairs of semi-miscible polymers vs. temp undergo vastly rich phase diagrams of extended ordered structure. Add aluminum flake pigment to glycerin and stir. You can never get it to even out. Soap on water spontaneously orders - Langmuir-Blodgett films. Homogeneous isotorpic solutions deposit crystals. Are these spontaneously ordered crystals big enough for you?

 

http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/03-00/ws.htm

http://www.minerali.it/biggestcrystals.htm

http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/indexneu.htm

 

Not getting spontaneous ordering would require a god/gods/committee of cosmic muffins (with or without blueberries) to prevent it from happening.

[Biochemist]

Not getting spontaneous ordering would require a...committee of cosmic muffins....

I am pretty sure one of these folks sat next to me on an airplane once.