What Is All This About Entropy, And Saying The Universe Can't Be Infinite?

[OrdinaryClay]

No one working on unifying QM and Gravity is questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We trust the 2nd law for the same reason we trust the conservation laws. Neither have ever been violated despite our very large body of knowledge in physics. Could it be that these fundamental laws are violated somewhere in the universe? Sure, but it would be baseless speculation to think so at the moment.

Two things:

 

1. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. You seem to think the universe is closed, but that is at least contradicted by the expansion of the universe. The problem isn't with the second law, but the misapplication of the second law.

As far as we know the universe is closed thermodynamically. The expansion of space/time just spreads out the matter/energy of the universe.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

 

As far as I have heard, the current thought is that there was a singularity and thus a beginning. Some think it may be cyclical, and thus satisfy the 2nd law while allowing "eternal" matter. But to scientifically argue that the god of the bible preceded it requires evidence, not just a claim. And if on the other hand we use imagination to invent a cause that is outside all known laws, this cause could be anything.

[Ouroboros]

As far as we know the universe is closed thermodynamically. The expansion of space/time just spreads out the matter/energy of the universe.

So why did the mathematical proofs for the finite past of the Universe completely miss 90% (or more) of the total mass of the Universe? The dark matter/dark energy is a joker card in the deck. No one can say for sure what it is, or how much there is, or if it might be effects of brane collisions. That it exists is evident, but what it is and how it works have not been established. To assume that it is according to your belief is not better than to assume that it is to any other belief.

[ContraBardus]

 

As far as 'I' know the universe is closed thermodynamically. The expansion of space/time just spreads out the matter/energy of the universe.

 

Fixed.

 

You seem to be trying to make the evidence fit your beliefs rather than the other way around.

 

That's fine, but there is no reason to assume that the Universe is a closed system, and no evidence to back such a claim.

 

I think you're confusing the existence of the Universe with the existence of it's current state.

 

It's true there's no empirical evidence for the 'Big Crush'. However, there's also no empirical evidence for 'God'. Both are equally speculative, but the 'Big Crush' fits within known evidence and the laws of physics, where as 'Magical being willed all into existence' does not.

 

That's why the 'Big Crush' qualifies as a hypothesis at least, where as 'God did it' does not.

 

The 'Big Crush' is reasonable speculation scientifically speaking. 'God' is not.

 

Interestingly enough, according to what you claim, 'God' violates the laws of thermodynamics. I'm sure you believe that he is 'exempt' from them, but that's just speculation on your part. You have no evidence to back it, and it's just a bald assertion.

 

@ Petrel

 

I don't have a problem with an infinite universe, providing the data supports it. But I think your way of thinking about it is not firmly grounded. The universe is all that there is, all spacetime and all matter and energy within it. If the universe is finite, and you were able to get a spaceship and fly in a straight line, you would eventually return to your starting point. There's not some wall or barrier that marks the end of the universe.

 

So, you believe in 'Mario Physics' then? It's an interesting idea. I'm certainly not going to say it's wrong.

 

I'm not so sure one would end up in the same place if moving in a straight line for long enough. It implies that there would be some sort of teleportation at some point when a 'barrier' is reached. Either that, or that you would be forced into moving in some sort of curve, and that you wouldn't really be traveling in a straight line.

 

If such a barrier exists, it still begs the question of what is on the other side of the barrier?

 

It's interesting to say the least, but we're still left without a clear definition of what exactly constitutes 'The Universe'. If it's all space/time/energy/matter, then if another mass of galaxies and stars exists beyond our own with matter/space/time/energy of it's own, wouldn't that also have to be included in 'The Universe' as a whole? Or would that be a separate Universe of it's own?

 

I don't think we really have a clear enough understanding of existence to really give a clear definition of what constitutes 'The Universe'. The known Univers perhaps, but on the whole, we're only able to see a small part of the mass of galaxies and stars we exist in.

[shockwaves]

Amazing replies, thank you all so far

[Brakeman]

Does anyone else see the Irony of Clay's arguing of astrophysics, when he believes that the Sun "Stood" still for a battle, and that god opens up a firmament for rain and that stars are going to fall to earth?..

 

Now that's funny..

[Petrel]

@ Petrel

 

I don't have a problem with an infinite universe, providing the data supports it. But I think your way of thinking about it is not firmly grounded. The universe is all that there is, all spacetime and all matter and energy within it. If the universe is finite, and you were able to get a spaceship and fly in a straight line, you would eventually return to your starting point. There's not some wall or barrier that marks the end of the universe.

 

So, you believe in 'Mario Physics' then? It's an interesting idea. I'm certainly not going to say it's wrong.

 

I'm not so sure one would end up in the same place if moving in a straight line for long enough. It implies that there would be some sort of teleportation at some point when a 'barrier' is reached. Either that, or that you would be forced into moving in some sort of curve, and that you wouldn't really be traveling in a straight line.

Bingo. Spacetime is curved all over the place, you know, so what is a straight line is really questionable. Some people think that the universe is doughnut shaped, although I'm not sure what the current thought on this is.

 

If such a barrier exists, it still begs the question of what is on the other side of the barrier?

No, it suggests the question (pet peeve). Begging the question is the logical fallacy where you assume your conclusion. At least it used to be, common usage seems more and more to be trending towards "begging the question" == "begging you to ask the question".

 

And the other side of the barrier would be a meaningless question. There are no words to describe what is outside the universe, because the idea is incomprehensible. It has no size or shape or color or temperature. It's just nothing. Not a vast stretch of nothing, because there's no size to it, just nothing. Not like the nothing in The Neverending Story, but nothingness that has no properties.

 

It's interesting to say the least, but we're still left without a clear definition of what exactly constitutes 'The Universe'. If it's all space/time/energy/matter, then if another mass of galaxies and stars exists beyond our own with matter/space/time/energy of it's own, wouldn't that also have to be included in 'The Universe' as a whole? Or would that be a separate Universe of it's own?

Separate, because undetectable from our universe. They pretty much might as well not exist, assuming they do.

[Legion]

Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to God?

God is open to praise and worship. And He gives guidance and mercy. Therefore God is not a closed system.

[Petrel]

stars are going to fall to earth

They'd better get moving, because they've got a long, long way to go.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

stars are going to fall to earth

They'd better get moving, because they've got a long, long way to go.

 

I think the Earth could fall into a star, but... GAH! Why are we trying to make scientific sense of sheepherder stories complete with talking snakes that "eat dust"?

 

Zoab: Gee Achmed, why do snakes tongues do that?

Achmed: Well, Zoab, they were cursed to eat dust after deceiving man to eat the smart fruit.

Zoab: Ah, I see. My heathen biology teacher was way off. He told me "A snake sticks out its tongue to collect data for its Jacobson's Organ, an organ strategically located in front of the roof of the snake's mouth that functions as a chemical receptor. Each and every time the snake flicks out its forked tongue, it snares chemical particles in the air, which latch onto, or dissolve in, the moisture of the snake's tongue. Once the snake reels in its tongue, it inserts the tips of the forked tongue into the two awaiting openings of the Jacobson's organ where the particles, especially those of animal body odors, are identified, analyzed, and acted upon."

Achmed: We should kill his family and burn his house down to prevent this heresy from spreading.

[hereticzero]

The universe will become a proton universe and that universe will be eternal. The universe will not suck itself back into a singularity. Everything in the universe will break down until the remaining energy are protons.

[ContraBardus]

The universe will become a proton universe and that universe will be eternal. The universe will not suck itself back into a singularity. Everything in the universe will break down until the remaining energy are protons.

 

Well, what caused the singularity then?

 

INB4 someone says 'God'.

 

Perhaps it's the spontaneous creation of matter in the void? Enough of it gets 'created' in a space, gets attracted together over time, and there's another boom?

 

I'm to understand it's been confirmed that matter comes from vacuum fluctuations in the void.

 

Perhaps the cycle of a Universe doesn't involve a 'Big Crush', but the expansion of matter into Protons, and then the formation of new matter builds up in a single point to become the next Universe, which may or may not occupy the same space?

 

As the old Universe expands and cools, the new one begins to form in empty space, leading to another one, which may or may not be created before the old one finishes it's cycle?

 

That would also put a pretty big chink in the idea that matter doesn't exist in the 'endless expanse' outside our 'Universe'.

 

Unless of course, that sort of thing only occurs within the confines of the Universe.

 

Again, if you're moving in a curve. You're not really moving in a straight line. So, saying that moving in a straight line will make you end up in the same place is not accurate. It may be that moving in a straight line for infinity is not possible, but even a forced curve is a curve.

 

It does 'beg the question' that if this Universe is shaped like a doughnut then perhaps there is another [relatively] nearby shaped like a giant cup of coffee? Perhaps we even speed towards it at this very moment?

 

I'm of a mind there isn't an actual 'outside the Universe', at least not in a physical sense.

 

The Layers theory is interesting. Where we're one of an infinite number sitting on top of each other in dimensional layers like giant infinitely wide and long blankets stacked on top of each other.

 

Difficult to reconcile with three dimensional space, but interesting none the less. I'd think the Universe would be infinity in every direction. The existence of other dimensions is possible I suppose. Perhaps existing on different wavelengths. The 'layers' are more a figurative example to make understanding the concept easier to understand.

 

Another I've seen is the Bubble theory. Where this universe is like a bubble in a bubble bath, surrounded by other Universes in their own figurative 'bubbles'.

 

There's lots of interesting ideas on the nature of the Universe and it's limits, and boundaries, if there even are any. Not enough evidence to really say with any confidence that one is any more likely than another.

 

To me, infinite expanse makes more sense. After all, when dealing with infinity, and with vacuum fluctuations the probable cause of matter, the state of the Universe as it exist now is inevitable, not improbable in the slightest.

 

Given infinite time and space, and a self generating mechanism, matter will form in every configuration it is possible for it to form in, in every possible quantity it is possible to exist in at some point or another.

 

I liken it to what we call the known Universe is something like a snowflake in a blizzard, swirling about infinite other Universes of all shapes and possibilities. Each one different than the next, though, given infinite time, there may be another that is exactly like this one in every single detail. It's just a matter of time really.

 

Though, the nature of time itself makes that puzzling to think about. Did it exist before whatever caused the big bang? Or is it simply there anyway, and effected by the Universe and it's own laws?

 

I'm of a mind there is no 'beginning of time' but that it exists regardless, yet has properties of it's own that are effected by things like speed. Relativity is proven after all, but does that necessarily mean that time has a 'beginning'?

 

It certainly makes my brain overclock thinking about things like this. Still, that's part of what makes it entertaining.

[Petrel]

Perhaps the cycle of a Universe doesn't involve a 'Big Crush', but the expansion of matter into Protons, and then the formation of new matter builds up in a single point to become the next Universe, which may or may not occupy the same space?

 

As the old Universe expands and cools, the new one begins to form in empty space, leading to another one, which may or may not be created before the old one finishes it's cycle?

 

That would also put a pretty big chink in the idea that matter doesn't exist in the 'endless expanse' outside our 'Universe'.

If I'm reading this right, that's a Big Bang inside our universe? I don't think that works. The universe has to collapse to a singularity before it can produce a Big Bang.

 

Our universe may be doomed to eternal darkness, but that doesn't mean all universes are.

 

Again, if you're moving in a curve. You're not really moving in a straight line. So, saying that moving in a straight line will make you end up in the same place is not accurate. It may be that moving in a straight line for infinity is not possible, but even a forced curve is a curve.

If you like. I'd have to ask someone who does geometry on curved surfaces what the terminology is. All I know is that they say if the universe is curved, we will not be able to tell just by looking, and will have to see what the behavior of seemingly straight lines is. If they intersect in a manner that is impossible on a plane, then the universe is curved.

 

It does 'beg the question' that if this Universe is shaped like a doughnut then perhaps there is another [relatively] nearby shaped like a giant cup of coffee? Perhaps we even speed towards it at this very moment?

Why are you tormenting me!

 

Could be, but can we go towards it? That implies our universe is in some matrix moving from one place to another, and that is contradictory to my understanding of things. I don't know if universes collide or not, I understand some think it's a possibility. If so it will be because some variable fluctuates and BOOM! there you go, not because they're cruising like icebergs through a sea of nothingness.

 

Though, the nature of time itself makes that puzzling to think about. Did it exist before whatever caused the big bang? Or is it simply there anyway, and effected by the Universe and it's own laws?

 

I'm of a mind there is no 'beginning of time' but that it exists regardless, yet has properties of it's own that are effected by things like speed. Relativity is proven after all, but does that necessarily mean that time has a 'beginning'?

Time is a property of spacetime. Before spacetime exists, there is no time. Inside a singularity there is no time. Thanks to Google books I can link a couple pages of Black Holes and Time Warps that talk about this.

[OrdinaryClay]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

 

As far as I have heard, the current thought is that there was a singularity and thus a beginning. Some think it may be cyclical, and thus satisfy the 2nd law while allowing "eternal" matter. But to scientifically argue that the god of the bible preceded it requires evidence, not just a claim. And if on the other hand we use imagination to invent a cause that is outside all known laws, this cause could be anything.

There is scientific evidence for a beginning. As I stated there is no scientific evidence for a "big crunch". So current science supports the universe as closed under the 2nd law.

 

The Cosmological argument can not argue for the God of the Bible per se. It can strongly argue for a supernatural event, and a personal God as the efficient cause of that event. The evidence for the properties of the creator can be reasoned logically. The cause must be transcendent(beyond the natural) since we know of nothing natural that is self caused. This transcendent cause must be personal because the universe was created at some distinct point else there is no way to explain why we are not still in the singularity, we are not already in heat death or any point in-between. If the cause were a result of laws and necessity the caused event happens with no special notion of "when". It happens necessarily.

 

The KCA is used as a base in natural theology from which to build a larger argument for the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and ultimately Christ. There are a progression of arguments that all standalone yet compliment each other.

[OrdinaryClay]

As far as we know the universe is closed thermodynamically. The expansion of space/time just spreads out the matter/energy of the universe.

So why did the mathematical proofs for the finite past of the Universe completely miss 90% (or more) of the total mass of the Universe? The dark matter/dark energy is a joker card in the deck. No one can say for sure what it is, or how much there is, or if it might be effects of brane collisions. That it exists is evident, but what it is and how it works have not been established. To assume that it is according to your belief is not better than to assume that it is to any other belief.

Borde, Guth, Vilenkin published a paper on the past boundaries of inflationary spacetimes. They demonstrated that such topologies can not be past eternal. Translated this means the universe must have had a beginning. What makes you think Dark Matter/Dark Energy has any relevance with the past boundary of an inflationary universe? As far as I know at the moment neither are thought to be relevant to the paper published by Borde, Guth, Vilenkin. If you have some information that you would care to share tying these together please do so. I would like to read it.

 

True, Dark Matter/Dark Energy are perplexing modern Cosmology, but I would point out that Dark Energy is just another name for Einstein's Cosmological Constant which he added because no one could explain why in the world the universe was accelerating as it expanded. This was counter intuitive and could only be accounted for by adding a constant no one liked. Dark Energy is an argument against any idea of a "Bug Crunch". Dark Matter was introduced because astronomers could not explain some very large scale gravitational effects in galaxies. Here is a discussion on Dark Energy that is pretty good. Very fascinating stuff!

[OrdinaryClay]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to God?

God is supernatural. The 2nd law is a characteristic of the natural. So, no offense, the question does not make sense. What is north of the north pole?

[OrdinaryClay]

... There are no words to describe what is outside the universe, because the idea is incomprehensible. It has no size or shape or color or temperature. It's just nothing. Not a vast stretch of nothing, because there's no size to it, just nothing. Not like the nothing in The Neverending Story, but nothingness that has no properties.

Well said.

[Vigile]

It can strongly argue for a supernatural event, and a personal God as the efficient cause of that event. The evidence for the properties of the creator can be reasoned logically.

 

You really are full of yourself. This kind of spin may work on the rubes at church but we aren't buying bald claims to the effect without evidence.

 

The cause must be transcendent(beyond the natural) since we know of nothing natural that is self caused.

 

Using this same definition, how are crystals not self-caused and thus supernatural?

This transcendent cause must be personal because the universe was created at some distinct point else there is no way to explain why we are not still in the singularity, we are not already in heat death or any point in-between.

 

Does the phrase 'does not follow' ring a bell? Non sequitur if you rather.

[Ouroboros]

Borde, Guth, Vilenkin published a paper on the past boundaries of inflationary spacetimes. They demonstrated that such topologies can not be past eternal. Translated this means the universe must have had a beginning.

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

So what's your view on following comments by Guth: (one of the guys you mention above)

So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

 

And

What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.

 

So are we the First Universe, or are we just a universe spawned from another universe?

 

What makes you think Dark Matter/Dark Energy has any relevance with the past boundary of an inflationary universe? As far as I know at the moment neither are thought to be relevant to the paper published by Borde, Guth, Vilenkin. If you have some information that you would care to share tying these together please do so. I would like to read it.

I believe the dark matter is the dark horse in the whole question about how the universe came to be. That's all I will say.

 

 

True, Dark Matter/Dark Energy are perplexing modern Cosmology, but I would point out that Dark Energy is just another name for Einstein's Cosmological Constant which he added because no one could explain why in the world the universe was accelerating as it expanded. This was counter intuitive and could only be accounted for by adding a constant no one liked. Dark Energy is an argument against any idea of a "Bug Crunch". Dark Matter was introduced because astronomers could not explain some very large scale gravitational effects in galaxies. Here is a discussion on Dark Energy that is pretty good. Very fascinating stuff!

Either it exists and it's hard to explain how it exists or what it is.

 

Or it doesn't exist and our models are wrong.

[Shyone]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to God?

God is supernatural. The 2nd law is a characteristic of the natural. So, no offense, the question does not make sense. What is north of the north pole?

Exactly. God doesn't make sense. The "abode" of God is north of the north pole - outside of physics - yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Shyone]

... There are no words to describe what is outside the universe, because the idea is incomprehensible. It has no size or shape or color or temperature. It's just nothing. Not a vast stretch of nothing, because there's no size to it, just nothing. Not like the nothing in The Neverending Story, but nothingness that has no properties.

Well said.

I agree. God is incomprehensible, with no properties. "It's just nothing." Nothingness that has no properties.

 

God and his "home" are nonsensical.

[Ouroboros]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to God?

God is supernatural. The 2nd law is a characteristic of the natural. So, no offense, the question does not make sense. What is north of the north pole?

Wow.

 

I get that kind of answer a lot. When apologists can't answer, they avoiding the question by accusing me of presenting a false question. How devious and asinine. Their supercilious and pretentious attitude clearly comes through when they're doing it.

 

Obviously you're not at all interested in truth. It's evident that you are not believing because you ask all questions. You stop the questions when they become difficult. It's a very dishonest position.

 

But since you're going that route. The question "Is God omnipotent" would fall into the same category. The same for "First Cause" or any of your questions you present. All of them are false questions. Does God have power? "The question does not make sense. What is north of the north pole?"

 

So what is north of the north pole? Well, it seems like the answer is not God.

[OrdinaryClay]

The cause must be transcendent(beyond the natural) since we know of nothing natural that is self caused.

 

Using this same definition, how are crystals not self-caused and thus supernatural?

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

This transcendent cause must be personal because the universe was created at some distinct point else there is no way to explain why we are not still in the singularity, we are not already in heat death or any point in-between.

 

Does the phrase 'does not follow' ring a bell? Non sequitur if you rather.

You need to read the entire sentence. If it were via some law of nature(i.e. through necessity) then how can you explain why we are exactly at the current moment in time?

[Shyone]

So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

 

Ideas are changing to accommodate data that doesn't fit the current cosmological model. When I wrote that OrdinaryClay only knows "one model", this type of controversy and discussion is what I was referring to.

 

It appears that the models are slowly being adjusted to account for the things that are missing that should be in the Big Bang model and to account for things that are present that shouldn't be in the Big Bang Model.

 

For the heck of it and for the purpose of attracting as much ridicule as possible, I think I'll post my own "theory." It fits the data, is falsifiable, and also incorporates much of the theories regarding the nature of the universe. The key is that the current models have inflation as a precipitating event for the creation of mass. I think that this may have some implications because the universe is still inflating. This inflation takes place between the galaxy clusters.

 

Anyway, I'll post it when I get home. Probably in the off-topic section.

[Ouroboros]

For the heck of it and for the purpose of attracting as much ridicule as possible, I think I'll post my own "theory." It fits the data, is falsifiable, and also incorporates much of the theories regarding the nature of the universe. The key is that the current models have inflation as a precipitating event for the creation of mass. I think that this may have some implications because the universe is still inflating. This inflation takes place between the galaxy clusters.

I suspect your idea might be similar to mine.