0

As we know the universe is moving towards an equilibrium, or high state of entropy. From what I understand, we call this the flow of time.

When google announced their time crystal, they call it "time going backwards" because the entropy decreases.

We're seeing an acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and I'm assuming therefore also the state of high entropy.

Charts that I've seen show this as a constant upward line, towards high entropy.

Could it be that the trend towards entropy is in fact sinusoidal, and we're simply on the rising side? That afterwards, the universe actually starts going backwards in time, decreasing entropy?

What problems does this theory have?

(Please keep in mind, my understanding of this subject is only slightly above average, so below average for this "forum")

Daniël van den Berg
  • 131

1 Answers1

2

That's what Hawking once thought. That when the universe enters a contracting phase all other motion would reverse along with it. He later considered it wrong but it only goes to show you're in good company.

Current theory says it's possible that the state of the universe ends up in an increasingly fast expanding space with only photons in it who will loose all energy.

The big mystery is why the start of the universe lies at the highly ordered state around the initial singularity. Its a fact that irreversible processes are uni-directional and that these processes in principle can go in a backward time direction. To truly reverse time you have to reverse all motion though, so in practice this is impossible. But why time didn't take of at the end is still a mystery. It could be that there isn't truly a point in the future from where to take off in reverse.

Gerald
  • 490
  • 1
    Could you elaborate on why Hawking figured it was wrong?

    To me it doesn't really sound like a mystery, if the flow of time itself slows down and starts reversing, to me it would make sense that all directions are inverted. Even though relative to time it will still go in the same direction? What am I missing? (as in, velocity * 'time, obviously if 'time is negative it'll be negative?)

     – Daniël van den Berg Jul 29 '22 at 18:06