- #1
Jimster41
- 783
- 82
Is there agreement here regarding the relationship between expansion of the universe from its initial conditions, entropy (2nd law), time, (and more tenuously perhaps) "evolution"?
I asked a question awhile back that was too specific I think that tried to tie the constant of expansion to the "cause" of entropy.
This is related to this Chaisson's (Harvard/Tufts) recent discourse on the "Rise of Complexity in Cosmic Evolution". My original question, I now realize was due to stewing on his fundamental natural association of these things - which I encountered in an earlier discourse, and was strongly influenced by. I had assumed that there was a deep and detailed physical, theoretical underpinning to his argument. Partly why Verlinde's Entropic Gravity seemed so compelling. I thought that was sort of it-ish.
I'm rechecking, rewording my original, to just find out how fringe or mainstream Chaisson's ideas are. So "of course" or "obviously", or "yeah, if only we knew what it was", or "whatever gave you that crazy idea", or "yeah, that guy is a crackpot" is the kindof thing I'm after, since it is clearly a wide landscape.
I can understand if some might feel this borders on the philosophy, but my estimate is that it surely must be on the appropriate side. If the answer here is, "that's not about physics", then that is also useful information.
I asked a question awhile back that was too specific I think that tried to tie the constant of expansion to the "cause" of entropy.
This is related to this Chaisson's (Harvard/Tufts) recent discourse on the "Rise of Complexity in Cosmic Evolution". My original question, I now realize was due to stewing on his fundamental natural association of these things - which I encountered in an earlier discourse, and was strongly influenced by. I had assumed that there was a deep and detailed physical, theoretical underpinning to his argument. Partly why Verlinde's Entropic Gravity seemed so compelling. I thought that was sort of it-ish.
I'm rechecking, rewording my original, to just find out how fringe or mainstream Chaisson's ideas are. So "of course" or "obviously", or "yeah, if only we knew what it was", or "whatever gave you that crazy idea", or "yeah, that guy is a crackpot" is the kindof thing I'm after, since it is clearly a wide landscape.
I can understand if some might feel this borders on the philosophy, but my estimate is that it surely must be on the appropriate side. If the answer here is, "that's not about physics", then that is also useful information.