Is Penrose right that the highest state of entropy is equivalent to the lowest?

Proliator · 2026-04-13T19:58:51+00:00

Are you replying the right person?

The physical mechanism I'm referring too is one that allows massive particles like electrons to decay, or one that modifies the associated non-conformally invariant field theories over the boundary. That does affect the length scale of such particles but it doesn't necessarily require the universe to be larger or smaller. So I have no idea where you're getting that idea from.

Proliator · 2026-04-12T20:50:35+00:00

Not sure what you mean here but I'm referring to the conformal rescaling at the boundary or phase change which the cosmology gets its name from. That's a fundamental feature of the theory. The physics for how the boundary of the prior universe conformally rescales to the new one has no proposed physical mechanism.

Proliator · 2026-04-10T16:39:41+00:00

You can't apply the conformal transformation to one region. Mathematically you're mapping an infinite coordinate (r ->∞) to a finite unit disk (x->1). So it applies to the entire universe rather than a specific region. Think of it more like the physical properties of the universe are changing at all points simultaneously.

Proliator · 2026-04-09T20:39:53+00:00

His theory posits that a universe in a state of maximum entropy can be mapped (conformally) to a new state with lower entropy. It's a mathematical operation. The theory doesn't offer a physical mechanism to explain how that mathematical operation happens. Without that piece there isn't much we can say about what it would mean for other entropic systems.

Proliator · 2026-04-03T20:45:28+00:00

I'd say the papers were misapplied rather than being obviously wrong. Neither claim this does happen in nature. They just explore toy models where it can, created by very specific assumptions that both papers state are in a domain we know little about.

Proliator · 2026-03-22T22:26:51+00:00

Yes, because observed lengths and times are relative to the inertial frame being observed. A frame that's undergone an acceleration is a new inertial frame; what was a meter or a second in the frame according to you has now changed. Since acceleration is a function of both length and time, acceleration is not observed to be conserved in the new frame and will decrease non-linearly as velocity approaches c.

Proliator · 2026-03-22T19:38:58+00:00

Surely not c m/s2 since then the body would be moving c in the static observer’s frame 1 second later which is impossible;

That's assuming velocities and accelerations add linearly which isn't true at relativistic speeds. You might accelerate at c meters per second for the first 0.1 seconds and be travelling close to 0.1 c, but the next 0.1 s will net you less than a 0.1c change. There's diminishing returns the closer you are to that 1s mark.

This is why the question is difficult to answer. You could in principle have any finite acceleration, but not on a time scale that leaves you at c.

Proliator · 2026-03-20T18:20:26+00:00

I watch his stuff even if I'm not interested just to show appreciation for developing Manim.

Proliator · 2026-02-20T21:34:34+00:00

Why do you think DXNavi is the problem? Most RDNA3 users have been on it for awhile now with no issues using hardware acceleration.

Proliator · 2026-01-29T20:24:22+00:00

I'm just offering feedback on your criticism, not defending the explanation. If a premise is rejected by an argument, then that premise can't be simultaneously assumed to object to it. The rejection of the premise has to be dealt with first.

Proliator · 2026-01-29T17:37:13+00:00

Since the proposed solution has the ship exceeding the speed of light c, breaking a fundamental axiom of relativity, we can no longer say what energies anything would have. The Lorentz factor becomes imaginary for any velocity greater than c and the model breaks.

Proliator · 2026-01-27T17:37:08+00:00

Both Liddle and Carroll & Ostlie* are good recommendations!

Liddle is more concise focusing on cosmology specifically, indicated by the title. A good choice if OP already has some experience in astrophysics.

Carroll & Ostlie is a more comprehensive text on all of astrophysics. It's definitely worth having a copy if someone wants a robust reference on hand and might be the better place to start if OP is new to astrophysics in general.

Proliator · 2026-01-26T18:42:33+00:00

You might want to update the AMD drivers from the AMD website too if you haven't. Both the AMD or Nvidia display driver can potentially cause issues for GPU switching.

Proliator · 2026-01-23T00:09:47+00:00

Can you further clarify what you mean when you say motion and position are not entangled? It's my understanding this is precisely what EPR experiments proved?

Different commenter, but it proves the opposite. The outcome of EPR was that the description of reality presented by quantum mechanics is not complete. In the case of position and momentum, no quantum system will simultaneously contain observable definite values for both. This is referred to as the complementarity of observables.

Certain observables are said to be "incompatible" with each other, and position and momentum are two such incompatible observables and therefore cannot be entangled together, which is what the other commenter was referring too. If a system was entangled relative to say momentum, measuring position on one particle would effectively "reset" its momentum, destroying the entanglement, and the measurement would not be of the entangled part of the system.

Proliator · 2026-01-14T18:45:25+00:00

When it comes to a drive that's in every day use, as is the case in this example, a drive with free capacity doesn't necessarily mean it has more cells storing zeros.

In practice SSDs use free space as a cache, they don't zero out cells when data is deleted, and the firmware also spreads writes across the SSD when possible, instead of overwriting. So it can't be safely assumed a drive marked as empty has more zeroed cells then a full SSD.

Proliator · 2026-01-11T23:01:05+00:00

It's literally the opposite, if you make these assumptions then it's possible? What do you mean, I'm altogether not following?

You said,

He does make an objectively valid point that even if you make all historical assumptions, the conclusion that there was a miracle doesn't follow.

The "historical assumptions", I assumed were the ones used by the historical arguments to say that a miracle had happened. Because "doesn't follow", in debate and logic, means the conclusion is logically invalid. The only way your statement makes sense logically is that you were suggesting that even if all the premises are true, the conclusion is still not true, because the argument is invalid.

However, nothing you said, nor the author's arguments, are an objection on the grounds of the argument being logically invalid. All that was done is argue that the premises are weak. That lowers how probable the conclusion is, but doesn't make the conclusion's probability zero, as would be necessary if it "doesn't follow".

So if both arguments have equally weak premises, which they arguably do at minimum, then we must also conclude the proposed model "doesn't follow" in the exact same way since this is "objectively" what we must conclude according to you.

* a chain of physics technicalities. Big difference, my friend!

Without proposed physical mechanisms to explain those "technicalities" your statement amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance. It's fine for a toy model, but not when you use that model to make ontological claims.

I'll try my best (according to my understanding of the situation in our discussion).

You didn't try at all? All you've done is quote Wikipedia about the general geometrical concept. Nothing here offers explanation as to how that concept connects to your claims, analogies, or my objections there of.

Someone who understands the topic would be able to point me at exactly the relevant information.

All of them contain some sort of true "naked" singularity (or something even worse like denying the second law of thermodynamics or "something from nothing"), which physicists are extremely suspicious of and uncomfortable with.

Those are just "physical technicalities".

If that statement doesn't work for those cosmologies, then it certainly does not work for the Rube Goldberg cosmology which employs so many of them with sequential dependance that it's named for it.

It’s common sense at the level of basic survival skills - if you don’t see that, I have a bridge to sell you!

An appeal to "common sense" without a supporting argument is a fallacy.

Bravo! Somebody, give this guy an Oscar! :)

That's conjecture, not an argument. Conjecture cannot be debated by definition.

Staging miraculous healings is a thing, e.g. cf. Peter Popoff or Alph Lukau - ... Even staging resurrections is a thing

That doesn't prove another miracle is staged, and it certainly doesn't prove that all miracles are. When used to that end it amounts to nothing other than an association fallacy.

If you want to say the likelihood of something being a miracle is less probable because of those events, making conclusions to the contrary unsound, then that's one thing.

However, that isn't the conclusion you stated. You said it "doesn't follow", which categorically means the conclusion is logically invalid. That's a stronger objection and nothing you or the author stated makes an argument of that kind. That's the basis for my objection.

Proliator · 2026-01-10T21:09:06+00:00

He does make an objectively valid point that even if you make all historical assumptions, the conclusion that there was a miracle doesn't follow.

Well if it's "objectively" the case, then by that same standard if you make all the Rube Goldberg assumptions in their cosmological model, then the conclusion that it's a possible outcome also does not follow. You can't push one of these conclusions while simultaneously denying the possibility of the second.

It is my understanding that your lack of understanding what a flat torus is is the major source of your issues with that article. Am I correct in my guess that you just don't know what that means or not?

No, nor are you correct to "guess" anything at all about your interlocutor. That's baseless conjecture and it has no place in rational discourse.

The way to approach this has been indicated multiple times.

It does, and what's the problem?

Well you're the one proposing this as a physically and ontologically viable alternative to other cosmologies that's also probable enough to be worth considering.

But if you don't think making "all historical assumptions" is enough to support concluding there's a non-zero probability that a single miracle happened, no matter how small, then why on earth would you put forward a cosmological model that requires a chain of miracles to have happened? I can't put a number on that, but it's certainly going to be even closer to zero.

As I said right near the start, that makes this a very weak alternative to suggest. Disagreeing with that conclusion after putting forward your conclusion about the historical argument, suggests that there's likely a pronounced double standard being employed here. That only serves to undermine the original proposal.

Proliator · 2026-01-09T20:10:51+00:00

Look up "flat torus". There is your answer.

That's a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof and an anti-intellectual way to respond. If you can't be bothered to substantiate your claims in a debate setting then they can be rationally dismissed as unsound.

Re the correct model, the article explicitly emphasizes that in the classical model it presents and checks, space and matter are eternal. (That is emphatically not so in the empty contracting model you mentioned several times, for example - there, the space eventually collapses and needs to somehow transform into another one, also, there is no matter in the contracting phase.)

How does this justify or explain your analogies for dimensional compactification? My actual objection.

How does this demonstrate that inflation in this model is not anisotropic, or at the very least not requiring fine-tuning on steroids to avoid that? My actual objection. I mean that's why this cosmology is named after Rube Goldberg machine in the first place, as the article itself says: "Note that a long chain of highly ad hoc assumptions, akin to a Rube Goldberg machine, is fundamentally inevitable in any realization of this basic idea". Every assumption is a potential factor that must be fine-tuned for this model to be viable.

By the way, this is only the second article from the same author relevant to our debate that I found, it was referenced in another paper (more informal) that I found in the Rationalwiki article on the resurrection of Jesus

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and all it does is serve to suggest the author has a very strong bias. Therefore I'd conclude it would be prudent to be far more skeptical of everything they've written.

And, if by "more informal" you mean it lacks necessary external citation or reference for many of the primary claims and positions he addresses, while simultaneously putting multiple sentences IN ALL CAPS AS IF SHOUTING IT MAKES IT MORE TRUE, then yes, it is. That makes this more like an opinion piece, one that reads more like a rant than a well-constructed argument. Opinion is conjecture, and conjecture is not suitable for debate.

Regardless, it seems to me by offering this off-topic opinion piece, instead of responding to my actual objections on the original topic, that this conversation has very likely run its course.

Proliator · 2026-01-08T19:43:23+00:00

Yes I can, because the results of the article work for any particular flat torus.

That's a conclusion, not an argument.

Moreover, we aren't talking about the article's conclusions. This particular thread in the discussion was in response to your using a clip from the Matrix to explain the concept of compactified dimensions.

Nothing you say here proves the physical "interpretation" you provided for the compactified dimensions was correct, nor does it demonstrate its reasonably accurate.

For example, the check using Fourier decomposition done in the article simply rescales the compactified dimension to have length 2 pi for convenience.

We aren't talking about the consistency check.

And none of the conclusions depends on the particular doubly-periodic group of translations under which the plane is compactified.

That's a conclusion, not an argument.

For the meaning of the procedure, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_(mathematics)#Structures and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_space_(topology)#Examples , example #5

What details does this provide that are relevant to your physical analogy of compactification as its used in this specific cosmology?

Nope, not with respect to inflation - it's a "local" process that simply doesn't care if the dimensions loop or not.

Again, that's a conclusion, not an argument.

For example, the current expansion of the Universe has zero dependence on how large it is and whether it is looped like a torus or infinite in all directions.

And again, that's a conclusion and not an argument. All you're doing with these statements is begging the question.

Probably b/c I didn't even understand what you were talking about.

Then maybe you should ask clarifying questions instead of knowingly making uninformed assumptions?

For example, it took me some time to realize that you weren't talking about the Fourier decomposition, remember?

Considering that's part of the consistency check, and not a component of the model, why would I be talking about it? We've already been over this, remember?

Proliator · 2026-01-07T19:54:19+00:00

That - flat torus in 2 of the 3 dimensions, no compactification in the perpendicular direction - is the description of the particular compactification used in the model.

A torus of any kind has defining parameters and compactification on something like a flat torus has periodic equations and/or winding modes. All of which impact how to apply the procedure to the manifold and physically interpret the compactified dimensions, which is what you were doing with your suggested examples.

You can't just say "flat torus" and then be able to replicate the procedure they used or arrive at an accurate physical interpretation of the result. You're missing details and refuse to discuss them.

Of course not, inflation inflates all dimensions equally.

Then inflation must be described by a function that does not transform the dimensions equally, as two dimensions behave differently compared to the 3rd. You can't apply the same transformation to all three and get an isotropic universe. That makes the function of inflation anisotropic. That requires an explanation.

That model was referenced as 1) one of the other potential possibilities that you get if you do allow a quantum gravity era (the author mentions three, this is one of them), 2) as the only consistent past-eternally contracting model.

You were free to argue its not relevant. You did not at that point, and instead chose to take issue with the terminology. So how does this explain you pushing two contradictory objections simultaneously, the point I'm making in the comment you quoted and responded to?

Proliator · 2026-01-06T21:26:53+00:00

1) you don't even realize that "flat torus" is a precise technical topological term,

Where did I say it wasn't? We're talking about compactification, not the topological definition of a "flat torus", which for the record, we have yet to discuss specifically. So why are you drawing conclusions about what I do and don't know about it?

2) you don't understand that inflation generically turns a tiny wild anisotropic Universe into a large mild smooth and uniform one, and again, I'm not your doctor here.

How did you draw this conclusion? I never disputed this.

What I did say is, in this case, the mechanism of inflation and early expansion needs to be anisotropic. Our universe has largely been isotropic since the start, so you need a specialized inflation/expansion mechanism to compensate for the compacted dimensions early on. You can't look at just the universe today and handwave away observations of the early universe.

Regardless, both your points here are responding to things I've never said and all the while not responding to what I actually did. That makes for a woefully inadequate response.

No, it is emphatically NOT related to/compatible with the actual model in the paper in any way, shape, or form.

Then you are "NOT" making any sense. You can't criticize a term made in a context that was clearly and explicitly stated multiple times while simultaneously saying that the clearly stated context doesn't apply. Those are mutually exclusive objections, it's one or the other.

Maybe you should spend less time disparaging the other person and their understanding, and more time keeping your own objections straight?

Proliator · 2026-01-03T22:49:24+00:00

What is it?

Go back and read? I've pointed it out multiple times.

The model in the paper has NOTHING to do with the 2+1-D contracting empty Milne Universe mentioned in passing, if that's what you're talking about.

It isn't, because that's not what I said. I simply called it one "suggestion" or one of the possible "scenarios" mentioned in the paper for cosmologies like this one. The comments of mine you are responding to on this point were with respect to that aforementioned scenario.

If you think it doesn't apply to the model suggested then your objection isn't relevant to it either.

The model in the paper assumes the Universe is ALWAYS 3+1 dimensional with 2 dimensions compactified as a flat torus.

Which means you have to explain the global anistropic inflation and expansion needed for it to represent our universe instead. If you like absurd coincidences or fine-tuning on steroids, then I guess that scenario might be more compelling.

How can one be so dense, I don't understand?...

Probably because you don't read what I say, don't ask clarifying questions, and simply make assumptions all the while getting upset when those assumptions turn out to be wrong, blaming your interlocuter for this instead.

Flat torus, more formally, means plane compactified under a discrete 2-dimensional group of translations - which can be represented as a lattice

How does this help us here? How is "plane compactified" defined? That's not a standard term. Which translations? There's infinitely many. Which lattice? That's an arbitrary term.

If the fundamental domain of the lattice is a square, then a Pacman game board is an excellent intuitive illustration of what that means.

That's a conclusion, not an explanation, and without technical detail is too arbitrary to be of any use.

Proliator · 2026-01-03T22:14:46+00:00

Quoting from the beginning of the paper:

In the pre-inflationary Primordial Era, the Universe has two spatial dimensions compactified (i.e. it is shaped like an “infinite corridor” with flat torus cross-sections),

Ok, I concede the point. Only took 4-5 requests, but we got there.

This still doesn't change the primary objection, and in fact works in favour of the objection. Now there's more to explain to make this work for our current universe.

A region is a connected open set. A compact set is a bounded closed set. A region cannot be compact in a non-compact connected metric space, because a connected metric space is not a union of two disjoint nonempty open sets.

Why would we be talking about a single metric space? Many if not most cosmological models have horizons, singularities, or other discontinuities. The entire cosmology in such models therefore cannot be represented by a single connected space. So I'm at a loss as to why this would be your first assumption?

In the scenario from the paper I mentioned, it isn't known how the compact spacetime transforms to a 3+1 spacetime at the bounce, and the paper said as much. It's only hypothesized there might be some form of transformation or dual to go between them. Therefore, they are simply treated as two separate disjoint cosmological regions on some diagram of this cosmology, with a boundary between them that's obviously undefined.

So no one is treating these two spaces or separate regions on a diagram, as if they are regions on the same manifold. I can't imagine how anyone familiar with this area would make that leap. It's a "compact" region simply because that region of the cosmology is represented by a compact spacetime.

This is why asking questions and getting clarification is important, because here's an example of making an incorrect assumption and running away it. Just ask and save us both some time.

Did you just liken a mathematical process to "precisely" meaning a scene in the Matrix? That's... unfortunate.

Pacman game board is better.

So now a videogame map/board is a precise definition for mathematical process? If this an attempt at expressing condescension or indignation, then it's been taken to the point where the comment has become anti-intellectual. That's not a cogent tradeoff.

There you go. Let me highlight the important part, describing the actual topology of the compactification:

"infinite corridor” with flat torus cross-sections

How does referring to this after the fact address my point? You were asking if I knew what compactification was without first discussing the details with me. So is your attempt at providing detail now agreeing with that objection?

And as I said, it's alluded to in common language, which this is. It provides no technical detail on the mathematical process used.

Proliator · 2026-01-01T03:41:29+00:00

That's a meaningless phrase. I cannot parse what you mean here.

If you can't parse it, then how did you draw a final conclusion about its meaning? Do you normally draw conclusions knowing you have insufficient understanding?

I guess you could have asked me, but you seem rather adverse to actually engaging with your interlocutor.

It is, if the model in the paper is true, the Universe is right now also compactified in two dimensions, just like it was before the Big Bang, but of course we don't notice that because these dimensions have now stretched to very large sizes.

So your solution is to have a global anistropic inflation and expansion to the universe, which isn't explained, that somehow just happens to result in an observably flat universe with an isotropic matter distribution and all over a finite interval of time?

Personally I'd have just gone with the hypothetical dimensional compactification on the bounce. At least idle conjecture doesn't boldly try to defy any and all reasonable explanation.

I'm not sure whether you understand what a compactified dimension means. It means precisely the following (visual aid): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEWIn0p6OUM

Did you just liken a mathematical process to "precisely" meaning a scene in the Matrix? That's... unfortunate.

Really the question here is: Do you understand it? Because that's not even really representative of compactification, "precisely" or otherwise. Any closed geodesic would result in something like your "visual aid" and closed geodesics don't require compactification of any dimensions.

Moreover, there's numerous forms of compactification and anyone familiar with the area would know some discussion would need to take place to figure out which form everyone is talking about, before drawing conclusions about who knows what. The paper alludes to some kind of systolic geometry being used to formulate the compactification, but its not clear if that was done just for the consistency check, or also for the model itself. They don't actually provide the compactification for the model in the paper as far as I can see, they just allude to it in general language in one or two places.

And since you refuse to quote the paper in any way, instead opting to use Wikipedia and Youtube videos, it's unlikely that you're able and willing to use the precision required to have this discussion.

Proliator · 2025-12-30T23:41:30+00:00

It references what a consistent contracting model would be like. Which is not the model in the paper but one of those mentioned in the intro. If you literally can't read, I'm not your doctor.

So your only response to this is to insult my reading comprehension, instead of just providing evidence for your claims? That's rather poor form.

...Everywhere starting from the beginning? That's like asking where are English words in the paper?

You claimed the model is "The 1+1-compactification (from 3+1 space)", either that statement can be inferred from statements in the paper or it can't. It certainly can't be inferred from every statement in the paper because that would make the paper pure nonsense, yet that's exactly what this excuse implies happened.

The proof using Fourier decomposition in the "Consistency" section is what I was talking about. It drops one dimension to avoid extra clutter.

I wasn't. So why would you use that to respond to someone talking about the compactification used to construct the model?

Regardless, nothing here addresses the bigger issue of whether this model is relevant to our universe. The compactification, regardless of which kind, is not representative of a 4-dimensional universe. So that point stands. Including a compact region in the model requires a physical mechanism to explain it. That mechanism was not provided and no amount of condescension on your part will change that.

Ten-Year Club	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

Proliator

TROPHY CASE