ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY, How it related to spacetime

ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE

I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.

For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".

THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??

Yes!,... this is where I need your inputs.
jal

Or an imbalance...an imbalance can exist, yet maintain symmetry...it all depends on the shape, as the imbalance can be spread across any number of dimensions...

I don't see the need to break symmetry as such, merely delay it a little, which relativity does quite nicely...

We always come back to the chicken and the egg, nothing within this closed system can account for a "trigger factor" in a single point of creation...that should tell us, no such event ever occured...

Hi!
I should add a bit of information on symmetry.
The broken symmetry can be observed or it can be done by movement.
For more information do a search... or look at...
wallpaper groups

Of course, You knew all of that... However, some might need a refresher.
jal

You are forgetting that symmetry can be maintained by dimensions that cannot be perceived...

"Broken symmetry" could be an illusion of human perception...that would fit well with the fact that it would require "information loss" which the majority will fail to support...including Hawking now...

The jury is still out on this one...

Hi!
....MMC

I think that the current perception is that all information is lost in a black hole and that all the information started at the big bang.
Later, I will want to investigate the validity of those assumptions.
Could we agree if I used the phrase/said, "something different/not as symmetrical"?
jal

.... forgot to say, "information lost=broken symmetry=?" .
We could also look at the ? later.
jal

Hi!
A little more refresher information.
kissing numbers

The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756

The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry.
All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.
jal
ps.
Are there any members interested in adding more information?

Nope...information must be maintained. Hawking's accepted this when he recently agreed that quantum fluctuations would allow information to escape...

ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE
1) The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.

2) If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy and more broken symmetry which results in a greater diffusions of information.

3) All dimensions must be considered when considering entropy, potential energy.
(You cannot fudge by hiding energy (kinetic) in unseen dimensions and pretend that the law of conservation of energy is being followed.)

A) Initial conditions

When entropy is at 0.0% potential energy is at 100.0%. THIS WOULD BE A SOLID. This requires that there not be any freedom of movement. All dimensions are either unreacheable or occupied.
With the reverse situation, entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%, all dimensions are empty and reachable. THIS IS A VOID.
first step

One dimension has 2 degree of freedom. It's not our universe. A string is 1D BUT it could be operating in a higher dimensional environment.

second step
Two dimension has 6 degree of freedom. Would this be enough to make our universe? A string would be able to move in this environment. Lets look closer.

A practical example would be a 2d membrane.
A string could vibrate in a flat configuration and therefore could be making a two dimensional membrane. Therefore, string and m-theories calculations could have a place to start.
A 2D sheet/membrane made up of packed vibrating strings would have to take the configuration of "packed circles." One of these circles would be what Hawkins termed "an instanton." In 2d there would be a sheet of "instantons". Packed circles have 6 kissing points. This is the degree of freedom that a would be permitted. The packing density of circles is 90.69%.

What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 9.31%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 90.69%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?
A SOLID HAD/HAS 100% SYMMETRY. The total amount of possible information. Therefore, there is a lost of information in a 2D configuration. Therefore, there
was a broken symmetry. There only exist the symmetry of packed circle and the information that can be contained in that configuration.

third step
Three dimension
A "true" 3d object is a "solid ball." Our universe is not "solid".
Therefore, to get to a new dimension/equilibrium it is necessary to break the symmetry of 2d.
HOW?... BY OPENING A DOOR/punch a hole in the 2d membrane.
This is accomplished by having one of the instantons/"spot" spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane.

The result would be a cascading of "instantons/spots" into a 3d configuration - spheres. Therefore, what appear to be the beginning from one instantons is really a whole lot of instantons/spots coming from the same area out of 2d space and into 3d configuration. The size of the door only needs to be the size of a "instanton/spot". The term "Big Bang" has been misleading everyone. What we had was the opening of a door from the second dimension. This created what we refer to as inflation.

What happened to ENTROPY?
It went from zero to 25.95%.
What happened to POTENTIAL ENERGY?
It went from 100% to 74.05%.
What happened to SYMMETRY?

Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Therefore, it is possible to use a "spin quantum gravity" and twistor mathematic.

The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
The 3d structure of these "instantons/spots" of spacetime has been in equilibrium for 14 B.L.Y. A very stable configuration.

Anomalies are the result of having some "instantons/spots" failing to take a 3d sphere configurations. There were at 10^80 failures which we call particles. Theses "instantons/spots" that failed to get into the structure of spacetime are causing stress to the 3d spacetime and the spacetime is collapsing back into its 2d configuration which we call....

BLACK HOLES

Black holes are the result of the collapsing of the 3d configuration of space back to its previous 2d configuration. Since Black Holes are recycling 3d space back into the 2d space and since the universe is suppose to be expanding then the conclusion is that there is more 2d space being made into 3d space then what is being recycled to 2d space by the black holes. Not all information is lost.

Your theories can be accommodated into the structure of spacetime. Your theories deal with particles that did not get incorporated into the structure of spacetime.

I have not invented anything new. I have only restated things more clearly from a different prospective.
"IT'S SO-O-O SIMPLE. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT."
HAVE FUN
JAL

If you're looking for the real space dimensionality/entropy curve...

Hi!
Sorry,
This can be treated as a two body problem.
jal

Hi everyone!
I have been avoiding discussing particles in my discussion for a very good reason...someone else has done it before me.
Chris Quigg .... he calls it a double simplex. I assume that everyone can download, in PDF, his published papers.
Chris Quigg
I cannot give you his picture but I found one that might be able to do some justice to his idea.

Here is what he has to say:
QUOTE
The mathematical underpinnings of the double simplex do bring discipline to the questions it elicits. The structure of the double simplex is based on SU(4)
SU(2) SU(2) decomposition of SO(10). A three-dimensional solid (tetrahedron) represents the fundamental 4 representation of SU(4). It is decorated at the vertices with dumbbells representing the SU(2)L and SU(2)R quantum numbers. The vertical coordinate of SU(4) can be read as B − L, the difference of baryon number and lepton number. The group SO(10) is a useful classification symmetry, because its 16-dimensional fundamental representation contains an entire generation of the known quarks and leptons. Using SO(10) as a coordinate system, if you like, carries no implication that it is the symmetry of the world, or that it is the basis of a unified theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.
QUOTE
But the fact is that the electroweak symmetry is broken, so the world without a Higgs mechanism—but with strong-coupling QCD—is a world in which the SU(2)L U(1)Y becomes U(1)em. Because the W and Z have masses, the weak-isospin force, which we might have taken to be a confining force in the absence of symmetry breaking, is not confining.

Einstein came up with spacetime.
Hawkins came up with instanton and the 2d "information" for black holes.
Chris Quigg came up with "a new way to envision particles and interactions" the double simplex.
I found that nature builds a double simplex.
"A SPOT" as the unit particle of spacetime.
This cannot be coincidence.
The "spot" could be the shape that they are searching for to make the topology of spacetime in LQG and M-theories.
Maybe spacetime has a lot more to say in how the universe of particles works than what we could possibly imagine.
Further insight from this forum would be appreciated.
Thank you.
jal

Yin_Yang
One cannot exist without the other.Yin and yang can transform into one another
Most forces in nature can be broken down into their respective yin and yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
Yin Yang is a way of thinking about phenomena, and a way to describe how things function and interact with each other in the Universe.
(Note: If my images do not download it's because my web sit is overloaded. Try later to see the images.)
SPACE AND TIME ARE YIN_YANG.
The two are similar and are one.

A SPACETIME UNIT
PARTICLES FIT INTO SPACETIME LIKE A HAND INTO A GLOVE--YIN_YANG.
jal

Important note for all!....
Do you want to be a "math. kid?"
Read the following pages:
by Gerard 't Hooft

by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard

yep!!! ... We could all be wrong.
Jal

Hi All!
Dark Matter
From where I live, there was a beautifull big moon last night. The atmosphere was doing some "lensing" and making it look bigger.
We all heard that the sun (gravity) does some "lensing". We, also heard about galaxies doing "lensing" and focusing/bringing us light from way back of that galaxie. The "Einstein Cross" is the most famous.
Now, I don't know too much, I don't get invited to the conferences and workshops with the "doctorates".
Therefore, I have never heard any discussion, over a bottle of beer, on the possibility that our own galaxy is doing any "lensing".
Have you heard anything on "lensing" by our galaxy?
Have you seen anything published which would rule out "lensing" by our galaxy as a cause of us not seeing 95% of the sunlight?
Just leave a simple yes or no answer with the reference.
(Otherwise, I'm going to keep believing in something possible?? or impossible and that does not make good science.)
jal