[QUOTE=xilman;364880]Ok, so you posit a process which violates the third law of thermodynamics. Yet another point of departure from the views of essentially all physicists.

It would be nice to see observational / experimental evidence of such a process.[/QUOTE]

As I said, star formation seems to be creating order out of
randomness.

Also, the total number of states possible in the Universe is
uncountably infinite, not finite as you suggested. Even
though there are at any time only a finite number of particles,
the continuity of space allows for a continuum of configurations.

[QUOTE=davar55;364968]As I said, star formation seems to be creating order out of
randomness.[/QUOTE]It may seem that way to you. To every other physicist, gravitational collapse of matter to form stars increases the entropy of the universe. I suggest that you find out why they have that belief and report back in this thread.
[QUOTE=davar55;364968]
Also, the total number of states possible in the Universe is
uncountably infinite, not finite as you suggested. Even
though there are at any time only a finite number of particles,
the continuity of space allows for a continuum of configurations.[/QUOTE]The founders of statistical thermodynamics, such as the great Boltzmann himself, believed firmly in continuity of space. All modern physical theories for which there is at least half-way decent experimental / observational support, including special and general relativity, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electrodynamics, quantum electrodynamics, electro-weak unification, the Higgs mechanism, and quantum chromodynamics are based on the concept that space and time are continuous quantiies.

A little homework assignment for you: Write a report on the [b]classical [/b] description of the entropy of a closed finite system in terms of statistical mechanics. For the avoidance of doubt, closed in this sense means that matter and energy neither enter nor leave the system. Resources found through Wikipedia and your search engine of choice will be easily

[QUOTE=xilman;364969]
The founders of statistical thermodynamics, such as the great Boltzmann himself, believed firmly in continuity of space. All modern physical theories for which there is at least half-way decent experimental / observational support, including special and general relativity, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electrodynamics, quantum electrodynamics, electro-weak unification, the Higgs mechanism, and quantum chromodynamics are based on the concept that space and time are continuous quantiies.[/QUOTE]

Certainly, and I was saying just that in my post.
That's why the number of states is uncountably infinite.

[QUOTE=davar55;365019]Certainly, and I was saying just that in my post.
That's why the number of states is uncountably infinite.[/QUOTE]

Crash and burn....

[QUOTE=davar55;364859]In comparison with a topological ball, which, depending on the
topological space, may be open or closed or open-closed,
I think the Universe is an open-closed 4-ball with radius R
in the 3 dimensions and width S in the skin dimension.[/QUOTE]

I don't even know what "closed" and "open" could mean in a quantized system.

Ignoring that wrinkle, a 4-ball is defined by just one parameter, its radius. If you're giving it radius in three dimensions and width in another you must not be talking about a 4-ball.

It sounds to me like we've found two shapes you [i]don't[/i] have.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;365037]I don't even know what "closed" and "open" could mean in a quantized system.

Ignoring that wrinkle, a 4-ball is defined by just one parameter, its radius. If you're giving it radius in three dimensions and width in another you must not be talking about a 4-ball.

It sounds to me like we've found two shapes you [I]don't[/I] have.[/QUOTE]

As I said, it wasn't I who called space or time quantized. The
monograph specifically argues that both space and time are
continuous. Hence open and closed can be defined topologically.

And the name I gave was "super-hyper-sphere", referring to
the 3 regular spatial dimensions, the fourth skin dimension, and
the fifth time dimension. The introduction of the term 4-ball iin
this thread was not originally mine. However, I did say that by
scaling the skin dimension, we could get a 4-ball.

[QUOTE=davar55;365045]And the name I gave was "super-hyper-sphere", referring to
the 3 regular spatial dimensions, the fourth skin dimension, and
the fifth time dimension. The introduction of the term 4-ball iin
this thread was not originally mine. However, I did say that by
scaling the skin dimension, we could get a 4-ball.[/QUOTE]

So what shape is it, really?

There was a mathematician named Hall,
Who had a remarkable 4-ball.
The cube of its weight
Times the square root of eight
Was four-fifths of five-eighths of f***-all.

[Apologies to the compilers of the limerick book my HS girlfriend bought me way back when.]

[QUOTE=chalsall;365021]Crash and burn....[/QUOTE]

I shall endeavor to answer all reasonable relevant questions that I can.
When I can.
But inexplicit comments like the above are essentially pointless.
Say what you disagree with, or support.
Is there literally nothing new in the monograph that you find of value?
Then maybe you (generic you) haven't read it.

[QUOTE=davar55;366141]I shall endeavor to answer all reasonable relevant questions that I can.[/QUOTE]

Consider this situation: toilet paper (AKA moon floss) on a roll. It either flows over the top and down, or under the bottom and down, from the dispenser.

Which option, in your opinion, is the most hygienic? (That's meant to be serious, and funny, at the same time.) :wink:

[QUOTE=davar55;366141]I shall endeavor to answer all reasonable relevant questions that I can.[/QUOTE]

Was my question deemed unreasonable or irrelevant, I wonder?

[QUOTE=davar55;366141]Is there literally nothing new in the monograph that you find of value?
Then maybe you (generic you) haven't read it.[/QUOTE]

I saw nothing of value. It seemed "not even wrong" in the sense of Woit. If you were more precise then I might be able to ask more interesting questions and have a better idea of whether your work was right or wrong. As it stands it's just mush, bandying about with words without putting meaning behind them. (Silverman likes to call this "word salad".)

I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you express your ideas poorly, or I could withhold it and say that you don't have sensible ideas here.