And we know that much.

Are you suggesting there is a problem with the second law?

Outside of all of the observable evidence that the early universe was low entropy

You can use your own reason to understand that the early universe was low entropy

If you believe in the second law, and how could you not

than every earlier time was less entropic

so it's not a matter of *whether* the early universe was less entropic, but by how much

And all evidence points to *extremely low entropy*

I just honestly don't undestand what you're saying in real terms, sorry.

@OneTrueGod that's now it works

there is no place where the big-bang happened 😄

you're there

Exactly

every part of space is "where the big bang happened"

the big bang was simply when where you are was the same place as every other place

to put it a bit simply 🙂

link?

Looks like it has to do with the amount of iron in the star

There is an uncertainty based on how far the star is

So if they detect lensing or other effects which would explain a disparity in distance

It will resolve the apparent age discrepency

cool though I didn't know about that

i don't think this is strong evidence that the big bang didn't happen

much less that the early universe wasn't extremely non-entropic

the premise is that the star is older than the projected age of the universe

if the evidence of the age of the start itself is flimsy then the premise can be disregarded as evidence for the premise

yes, the evidence that this start is *actually* older than the universe is disputed

by the people who wrote the paper themselves

they say all we need is a way to explain that our estimation of the star's distance is not correct

we have a lot of evidence that the early universe was not very entropic, not sure why you're against that

as it fits in with much else of our cosmology

to refute the arrow of time I guess 🙂

no, they could discover a dark galaxy infront of the start causing lensing or any other thing...

it is more likely that our measurement of this single star is wrong, than all the other observations that point to a low-entropy early universe

no idea what cascade means

what does it mean for "lower dimensions to cascade directly" in real terms?

I'm familiar with n-dimensional spaces

you can just say 1 dimensional vector

this is a very software engineering way to think of n-dimensional spaces

like an array of nested arrays I think you're getting at?

There's n-dimensional vectors and fields

you mean vector

[] [,] [,,], etc

what does?

you've lost me

can we just talk in terms of vectors and fields? they're simple objects, and the ones relevant to theroetical physics

i understand the concepts of identity and isomorphism, but still struggling to follow

I have no idea what meaning your formula is supposed to convey, and therefore justify time as an emergent property

(not that i'm contesting time's emergent characteristics)

@Uksio <#669679112683651082> ?

i don't understand what cascade means

I can fully understand multiple dimensions by just taking a vector

@ManAnimal let's just talk about QFT for a second

it's much easier to illustrate with words fields and vectors

take a field

a field a very simple structure

for each point in space, there is a value

that's it, that's the full description of a field

so now we just ask what are the values

let's say each value in the field is a vector of n-dimensions

different values can utilize vectors of differing counts of dimensions

so now at each point in space, we have n-values

these are the fundamental substrates of quantum field theory, like the higgs field and so on

at each point in space, the field provides n-values, a vector

this is also how gravity is classically conceptualized

as a universal field of vectors

like

one of the problems early on with gravity

was how does the sun know the earth is nearby in order to pull on it

it was the first example of spooky action at a distance

but as soon as you understand there being a vector field between the sun and the earth

then you can conceptualize a force that unites them

@ManAnimal I just have no knowledge of how you express a vector as some kind of functional composition

I've never heard of any kind of concept like this when studying any related field

Is there a mathematical term for expressing vectors via function composition?

That I can look up?

@ManAnimal mind if I change the subject slightly?

You say that, but what is the name of this equivalence?

Anyway, maybe you can figure it out sometime and bring it up again -- but I wanted to talk about a really cool idea in QFT

OK, so when you first start learning about QFT it's explained as these fields that permeate space. "When I wave my hand, I'm waving it through the higgs field."

A field that permeates space and at each point there is a vector value.

And you learn that there are multiple fields, and they overlap.

And not only do they overlap, but they also interact.

Yes.

A particle as we understand it more classically, is really just some non-zero (or more accurately non-vaccum) state at some point in the field

Right, when you have some values in one field, it creates behaviors in other fields creating magnetic field lines and so on

OK so it seems like you have a pretty good grasp on those concepts

Here's the cool bit

The illustration most people have, of imagining space as we perceive it, and the fields being like invisible, pervading, volumes that overlap like photoshop layers *is totally wrong*

When in actuality, you must think of the fields as totally abstract structures, who's topological relations are totally independent. And that there are functions which map points from one field to the other.

And so how they actually overlap is totally not structured like 3D space or whatever

they're arbitrary fields, with specific mappings between them, functions which map from one to another

And so locality has a complete non-intuitive meaning

Here's the slightly crazier bit

The function mapping between some fields, take the state of other fields as an input

So how the fields are actually mapped to each other, and so how their constitutent states interact, can depend on what's going on in some *other third field*

*mind splode*

think about the entangled electrons at a distance

there's absolutely *nothing spookky* going on

when you consider that the fields that make up the properties of particles in the universe have arbitrary mappings