3 ms·

I haven't read the literature, but if what you've said is close to right I don't buy CCC. There's too many alternative explanations that fit the data at least a

by Vecr 2y ago

I haven't read the literature, but if what you've said is close to right I don't buy CCC. There's too many alternative explanations that fit the data at least as well. Infinity is a big number though, if stat mech lets it go through it will go through given enough time. Again, CCC is one of those "feel good" theories in my eyes. It's not better than normal heat death from a prediction standpoint, right now. The universe doesn't end for good, it restarts. Yeah right. Edit: Is CCC on a positive cosmological constant? If so and you accept a few assumptions anything that can go through will. Hawking radiation off the event horizon will get you anything you need to annihilate through nucleation. Edit 2: looking at your history I suppose you know that because it's relevant to Boltzmann brains. I'm confused about your reference to fluctuations 14 days ago though. Nucleation and fluctuation Boltzmann brains aren't the same thing.

raattgift 2y ago
> I don't buy CCC Me neither (to say the least), but my comment was an attempt to fairly characterize CCC in this thread's context. > Is CCC on a positive cosmological constant? AFAIK it's not a requirement of Penrose's approach, but with a positive CC the aeon/future_aeon conformal boundary is spacelike, so you can have global hyperbolicity (and importantly a(t) is always positive and describable by classical EOMs, and the overall structure is just flat de Sitter with a radiation fluid). [For clarity, here I'm the one extrapolating from the radiation fluid, and afair I'm not summarizing someone's attempt to do this rigorously.] > it restarts The conformal rescaling isn't exactly a restart; a Eulerian observer A crossing into its future aeon could encounter a highly similar scaled-up obsever B running much more slowly (and made from fundamental particles with much longer de Broglie wavelengths compared to A's, those having gotten there by freezing out of A's cold sparse ultra-long-wavelength massless boson gas, which to B is B's hot dense ultra-short-wavelength early conditions). > Infinity is a big number though Yeah, I think that's why CCC proponents are OK with past-aeon's (pseudo) heat death managing to be a rescaled future-aeon's low entropy initial conditions. On the other hand, they seem to think in merely large-but-finite timescales when they talk about final BH evaporations leaving a lower-entropy mark on the pseudo heat death that can carry across the boundary (and rescaled to possibly sub-horizon perturbations from B's perspective) be detectable in future aeon's structure formation. > confused Sorry about that. Perhaps I lost some train of thought that if made explicit would have made it clearer why I might have been talking about both nucleated and fluctuated structure. I don't remember and am unlikely to re-check the context.

by Vecr 2y ago

raattgift 2y ago

> I don't buy CCC Me neither (to say the least), but my comment was an attempt to fairly characterize CCC in this thread's context. > Is CCC on a positive cosmological constant? AFAIK it's not a requirement of Penrose's approach, but with a positive CC the aeon/future_aeon conformal boundary is spacelike, so you can have global hyperbolicity (and importantly a(t) is always positive and describable by classical EOMs, and the overall structure is just flat de Sitter with a radiation fluid). [For clarity, here I'm the one extrapolating from the radiation fluid, and afair I'm not summarizing someone's attempt to do this rigorously.] > it restarts The conformal rescaling isn't exactly a restart; a Eulerian observer A crossing into its future aeon could encounter a highly similar scaled-up obsever B running much more slowly (and made from fundamental particles with much longer de Broglie wavelengths compared to A's, those having gotten there by freezing out of A's cold sparse ultra-long-wavelength massless boson gas, which to B is B's hot dense ultra-short-wavelength early conditions). > Infinity is a big number though Yeah, I think that's why CCC proponents are OK with past-aeon's (pseudo) heat death managing to be a rescaled future-aeon's low entropy initial conditions. On the other hand, they seem to think in merely large-but-finite timescales when they talk about final BH evaporations leaving a lower-entropy mark on the pseudo heat death that can carry across the boundary (and rescaled to possibly sub-horizon perturbations from B's perspective) be detectable in future aeon's structure formation. > confused Sorry about that. Perhaps I lost some train of thought that if made explicit would have made it clearer why I might have been talking about both nucleated and fluctuated structure. I don't remember and am unlikely to re-check the context.