Thermodynamics Suggests Creation

[Job 33:6]

Would Big Bang proponents suggest that matter and energy are eternal?

Suggestions that the universe had a beginning is not equivelant to suggesting that all matter and energy had a beginning. People can say that the big bang occurred and that the universe had a beginning, without simultaneously saying that energy itself had a beginning, or matter.

 

[Tree of Life]

Suggestions that the universe had a beginning is not equivelant to suggesting that all matter and energy had a beginning. People can say that the big bang occurred and that the universe had a beginning, without simultaneously saying that energy itself had a beginning, or matter.

I don't think that this distinction is philosophically viable. "The Universe" is another way of saying "all that exists" which would include matter and energy.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are using your energy to organize what is otherwise slowly descending into chaos. But the energy you expend ultimately comes from the sun. Once the sun goes out then no one will ever make your bed again.

Doesnt matter where I get my energy. The point is that, things exist that can re-organize matter and energy.

From a logical stand point, you cant say that the universe must have reached a heatless death infinitely long ago, unless you simultaneously can rule out the existence of all things that re-organize energy.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think that this distinction is philosophically viable. "The Universe" is another way of saying "all that exists" which would include matter and energy.

This is false. We dont know if the universe is all that exists. It is all that we know exists, but we couldnt know what is beyond what we know.

This is why there are things like...multiverse theories. Not that I necessarily subscribe to this, but what I am pointing out is that, we really dont know much about our universe, not enough to claim that it is all that exists. Nor do we even understand the nature of this universe itself, enough to judge what even exists and doesnt exist.

From a scientific stance that is. From a scientific perspective, there are things right before our eyes that we just are clueless about, in the universe. Dark matter and dark energy for example. We have no idea what they are.

And we dont know that the universe is all that exists. So not only are we blind to what might exist beyond what we know in our universe. We are blind to what might exist even within our universe.

 

[Tree of Life]

Doesnt matter where I get my energy. The point is that, things exist that can re-organize matter and energy.

From a logical stand point, you cant say that the universe must have reached a heatless death infinitely long ago, unless you simultaneously can rule out the existence of all things that re-organize energy.

What reorganizes energy that does not, itself, take and use energy in its reorganizing process?

 

[Tree of Life]

This is false. We dont know if the universe is all that exists. It is all that we know exists, but we couldnt know what is beyond what we know.

This is why there are things like...multiverse theories. Not that I necessarily subscribe to this, but what I am pointing out is that, we really dont know much about our universe, not enough to claim that it is all that exists. Nor do we even understand the nature of this universe itself, enough to judge what even exists and doesnt exist.

I like Marvel Comics as much as the next guy but I'm not really interested in entertaining thoughts about the multiverse here.

 

[Job 33:6]

I like Marvel Comics as much as the next guy but I'm not really interested in entertaining thoughts about the multiverse here.

Im not interested in blindly assuming that we understand the universe and all that exists within it or beyond it.

 

[Job 33:6]

What reorganizes energy that does not, itself, take and use energy in its reorganizing process?

It doesnt matter if it takes and uses energy in the reorganization process. Rain falls and takes water from the oceans that evaporates. But it doesnt mean that the planet will just run out of rain just because the rain draws from another source.

 

[Job 33:6]

From a scientific standpoint, which seems to be what this discussion is about...

We don't know what exists beyond our universe and there is much we don't know about what exists within our universe.

The singularity described in the big bang theory, is a hyper dense pinpoint sized thing of infinite energy, or just a great deal of it.

The big bang theory does not propose that the singularity came out of nothing. Einsteins E=MC squared, which we are all familiar with, suggests that energy is not created nor destroyed, it only changes form and location.

So the question becomes, what forms in the universe (or beyond out universe if there is such a thing) can matter and energy take, which involve the re mobilization of matter and energy?

And the truth is that, from a scientific stance, we have no idea what the limitations of such a thing might be.

And its fine if philosophers want to describe the universe as all that exists. But we're talking about science, not philosophy, and from a scientific stance, we just dont know enough about our own universe or what might be beyond our universe, to claim that nothing in existence (in our universe or beyond) could re organize energy to a higher energy state.

Now i will continue on with a side line rant. Philosophers create great logical arguments. But their logic is dependent upon concepts that are limited by what we understand in the universe. There are concepts in science that logically do not make sense that a philosopher could never make sense of. Only until we discover the unknown, can we really define the boundaries in which philosophy can properly be applied. Especially with respect to something like whether or not something exists beyond our known universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why does everyone keep invoking Einstein's name and theory to something he never accepted as even having a reality apart from the math????

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

"The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

Einstein understood that mathmatical singularities simply meant that the theory was incomplete and missing vital information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

"Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities......

Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, re-normalization, and instability of a hydrogen atom predicted by the Larmor formula."

Einstein tried to tell them he wasn't ready to apply it to the rest of the universe and continued to try to fix his theory until the day he died.....

Er, right. That's why I said:

"The 'singularity' produced by extrapolating back to the start indicates that GR alone is not sufficient to describe this state... It doesn't mean the universe came from nothing, but that we can't yet describe it earlier than those moments."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Suggestions that the universe had a beginning is not equivelant to suggesting that all matter and energy had a beginning. People can say that the big bang occurred and that the universe had a beginning, without simultaneously saying that energy itself had a beginning, or matter.

But we don't say energy had a beginning, only matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

"Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

"This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."

So yes, to all of our understanding we can say energy had no beginning and matter did.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But entropy is not a decrease in net energy.

But we already understand energy can neither be created or destroyed. It isnt the energy that is undergoing entropy, but the matter itself....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are using your energy to organize what is otherwise slowly descending into chaos. But the energy you expend ultimately comes from the sun. Once the sun goes out then no one will ever make your bed again.

But the energy will still continue on into space, it will never cease to exist, while the sun will continue to decay until it is eventually nothing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Er, right. That's why I said:

"The 'singularity' produced by extrapolating back to the start indicates that GR alone is not sufficient to describe this state... It doesn't mean the universe came from nothing, but that we can't yet describe it earlier than those moments."

What singularity? Einstein already proved they can't exist in reality.....

Even if somebody manages to extrapolate back to T +.0000001 with a billion others zeros before the 1, there must still be a cause. Hence we end up with Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Assuming for the briefest second that they are real, there can be no reason that a singularity would ever go bang. It's gravitational forces prevent even light from escaping. No known physical cause could overcome it's force. And back to the metaphysical we go......

There is one force that is 10^36 Powers stronger at subatomic scales (singularity scales), but astronomers and cosmologists ignore this force.......

And why do I need to consider mathematical artifacts or gravity when I can just consider the physics for 99.9% of the universe?

See 2:30 On the timeline.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From everything that we know about matter and how it behaves, this would appear to be impossible. One would have to assume that matter behaved very differently prior to the big bang. The big bang is theoretical enough. Assuming that matter behaved differently prior to the big bang is doubly theoretical.

Current well-tested physical models (e.g. General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, etc.) allow for 'stuff' that behaves quite differently from the matter we're familiar with; and for the spacetime we're familiar with to be just one 'phase' of a metastable background.

It might make some people uncomfortable that these equations, that describe how our universe behaves to such exquisite precision, have solutions that describe other kinds of spacetime that may also be real, but that may just be how nature is - many physicists were uncomfortable with Dirac's suggestion that the relativistic equation for the wavefunction of the electron (the 'Dirac equation') had a solution describing a particle with opposite properties, i.e. an 'anti-particle', until that very particle (the positron) was discovered.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What singularity? Einstein already proved they can't exist in reality.....

The mathematical singularity that results from applying GR to such contexts.

Even if somebody manages to extrapolate back to T +.0000001 with a billion others zeros before the 1, there must still be a cause. Hence we end up with Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Newton's Third Law is an expression of symmetry, not causality, and there is considerable doubt whether causality is fundamental in quantum systems, or emergent. And as Hume suggested, even at macro scales, it's just constant conjunction; i.e. correlation is not causation

Assuming for the briefest second that they are real, there can be no reason that a singularity would ever go bang.

I'd be surprised if many physicists think there are physically real infinities in singularities; it's shorthand for 'here be dragons'.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Current well-tested physical models (e.g. General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, etc.) allow for 'stuff' that behaves quite differently from the matter we're familiar with; and for the spacetime we're familiar with to be just one 'phase' of a metastable background.

That's just the problem in reality isn't it. General relativity which is indeed well tested, Ill go so far as to say with a 99.8% accuracy, needs not a single speck of that differently behaving "stuff" where it has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy. It's only when you then attempt to apply this 99.8% accurate theory to the matter that makes up the other 99.9% of the universe does one need to add 96% of differently behaving stuff. None of the "stuff" was needed where it tested to a 99.8% accuracy......

Don't try to tie quantum theory to GR. There exists no quantum theory of gravity that produces any useful results.....

"QFT was previously believed to be truly fundamental; however, it is now believed, primarily because of the continued failures of quantization of general relativity, to be only a very good low-energy approximation, i.e. an effective field theory, to a more fundamental theory.[4]"


Which fundamental theory will rule out those weird "stuff"......

"The first achievement of quantum field theory, namely quantum electrodynamics (QED), is "still the paradigmatic example of a successful quantum field theory"

It might make some people uncomfortable that these equations, that describe how our universe behaves to such exquisite precision, have solutions that describe other kinds of spacetime that may also be real, but that may just be how nature is - many physicists were uncomfortable with Dirac's suggestion that the relativistic equation for the wavefunction of the electron (the 'Dirac equation') had a solution describing a particle with opposite properties, i.e. an 'anti-particle', until that very particle (the positron) was discovered.

Uncomfortable? No, just not under the delusion that Plasma behaves like solids, liquids and gasses as per every laboratory experiment for the last 200+ years....

That they expect me to believe a theory 99.8% accurate without "stuff" is still the correct theory to use when it is found to be 96% inaccurate, more like unbelievable, not uncomfortable.... One might choose to use the correct physics for the correct states of matter instead..... which does away with the need for that "stuff"....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The mathematical singularity that results from applying GR to such contexts.

Which is simply a missing piece of the theory.....

"Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory,"

So if we ever discover that missing piece, the singularity will go away........

Newton's Third Law is an expression of symmetry, not causality, and there is considerable doubt whether causality is fundamental in quantum systems, or emergent. And as Hume suggested, even at macro scales, it's just constant conjunction; i.e. correlation is not causation

I'd be surprised if many physicists think there are physically real infinities in singularities; it's shorthand for 'here be dragons'.

It's shorthand for "I choose to ignore the electromagnetic force in space......" The missing piece of the cosmological theory...... See video above.....

Agreed, you can correlate all you want, but you still need the cause of the correlations.....

A conjunction ties what went before to what goes after..... If two events ocurr at the same time, then both events had a cause. That our perspective and the delay of light may make them appear to happen simultaneously, does not mean they do as is clearly taught in relativity. it's all relative as to "when" something happens.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I like Marvel Comics as much as the next guy but I'm not really interested in entertaining thoughts about the multiverse here.

A number of different types of multiverse are predicted by the best physical theories of today.

For example, there was a time when the Milky Way galaxy was called the universe; then we discovered there were other galaxies, and they became 'island universes'. Now we have clear evidence that the observable universe is a small part of a very much larger volume. The 'cosmological multiverse' is what this greater volume has been called, because it must contain many other volumes the size of our observable universe, each forever causally isolated.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A number of different types of multiverse are predicted by the best physical theories of today.

For example, there was a time when the Milky Way galaxy was called the universe; then we discovered there were other galaxies, and they became 'island universes'. Now we have clear evidence that the observable universe is a small part of a very much larger volume. The 'cosmological multiverse' is what this greater volume has been called, because it must contain many other volumes the size of our observable universe, each forever causally isolated.

How would they know since it's not part of our "observable" universe????? Oh, you mean they make stuff up to get a paycheck, now i understand. If a theoretical physicists doesn't theorize, then hes kind of out of a job.....