The Universe: Eternal or no?

[JohnStOnge]

Again, hearsay does not have the weight of of a published document, which would list the observations, which you didn't, and explain the INTERPRETATION.

Ok Ed. Maybe at some point I'll have to find an article published by Hawking or somebody else in a peer review journal positing the idea that the universe has a beginning. For now I will give you some comments by Hawking that are direct quotation of his own words in full context.

The page at 'Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing' by Slashdot - RichardDawkins.net includes the transcript of a lecture delivered by Hawking at Cal Berkeley on March 13, 2007. I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret what he said as reflecting a belief that there is uncertainty over the question of whether or not the universe is eternal. In fact, in my opinion, he operates on the premise that the universe did have a beginning. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

"When Lifshitz and Khalatnikov published their claim, I was a 21—year-old research student, looking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning.

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning, came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space."

I guess you can say that's hearsay because it's what he's said to have said and he's not standing in front of us saying it. But c'mon. We don't need to see a paper of his published in a peer reviewed journal to know what he believes when he says what he believes.

Anyway, again, I think that if you yourself make an honest effort to look into the question of what's believed by those who study such things you'll see that I'm correct. It is not a situation where the community of astronomers and physicists generally considers the idea of an eternal universe as firmly established. In fact, my opinion is that at this time that community leans toward believing it is not.

And as far as I can tell, a critical moment substantially contributing to the current state of belief is described in the article at Evidence mounts that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating - physicsworld.com . My understanding is that, prior to that, it was more generally believed that the universe will expand to a certain point due to the big bang then contract back upon itself then there will be another big bang, another contraction, and so on. That can be an eternal process. But, as I understand it, evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than decelerating cast doubt upon the idea that it will ever contract so doubt was cast upon the eternal oscillating universe model. It hasn't gone away, as you can see in the article at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1138251/posts , but I don't think it's something that's considered relatively definite.

 

[edthecynic]

Again, hearsay does not have the weight of of a published document, which would list the observations, which you didn't, and explain the INTERPRETATION.

Ok Ed. Maybe at some point I'll have to find an article published by Hawking or somebody else in a peer review journal positing the idea that the universe has a beginning. For now I will give you some comments by Hawking that are direct quotation of his own words in full context.

The page at 'Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing' by Slashdot - RichardDawkins.net includes the transcript of a lecture delivered by Hawking at Cal Berkeley on March 13, 2007. I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret what he said as reflecting a belief that there is uncertainty over the question of whether or not the universe is eternal. In fact, in my opinion, he operates on the premise that the universe did have a beginning. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

"When Lifshitz and Khalatnikov published their claim, I was a 21—year-old research student, looking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning.

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning, came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space."

I guess you can say that's hearsay because it's what he's said to have said and he's not standing in front of us saying it. But c'mon. We don't need to see a paper of his published in a peer reviewed journal to know what he believes when he says what he believes.

Anyway, again, I think that if you yourself make an honest effort to look into the question of what's believed by those who study such things you'll see that I'm correct. It is not a situation where the community of astronomers and physicists generally considers the idea of an eternal universe as firmly established. In fact, my opinion is that at this time that community leans toward believing it is not.

And as far as I can tell, a critical moment substantially contributing to the current state of belief is described in the article at Evidence mounts that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating - physicsworld.com . My understanding is that, prior to that, it was more generally believed that the universe will expand to a certain point due to the big bang then contract back upon itself then there will be another big bang, another contraction, and so on. That can be an eternal process. But, as I understand it, evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than decelerating cast doubt upon the idea that it will ever contract so doubt was cast upon the eternal oscillating universe model. It hasn't gone away, as you can see in the article at Scientists Confirm Universe is Expanding at Increasing Rate , but I don't think it's something that's considered relatively definite.

First of all, Hawking says TIME has a beginning, not energy. It is the eternally existing energy that was contracted to a point of infinite density.

And in your Physics World link it says this:
"If the mass of the Universe is large enough, the expansion will eventually decrease and the Universe will then collapse in on itself. However, if the density of matter in the Universe is less than a certain critical density, it will continue to expand for ever."
If the universe expands forever then it also has to exist forever to expand forever. So either way the energy of the universe is eternal.
Get it???

 

[JohnStOnge]

[

If the universe expands forever then it also has to exist forever to expand forever. So either way the energy of the universe is eternal.
Get it???

No, because "eternal" means both no end AND no beginning. One more time ed: Please, do you own Google searches, etc. There is a real question as to whether the universe had a beginning or not. I mean, there is a reality independent of what we know. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. But it's clear that we don't know whether it did or not right now.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing, Ed, you bolded and emphasized certain language from what Hawkins said but did not emphasize some important language that closely followed. Here's what I'm talking about:

"If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning.

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning, came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space."


You emphasized the statement about time having a beginning. But notice he also said that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal.

Now, the fact that Hawkins believes the universe has a beginning doesn't mean he's right. But what I'm trying to get at is that we don't know and that there is question about it. If one says "the universe is eternal," that is not known to be a fact.

 

[edthecynic]

[

If the universe expands forever then it also has to exist forever to expand forever. So either way the energy of the universe is eternal.
Get it???

No, because "eternal" means both no end AND no beginning. One more time ed: Please, do you own Google searches, etc. There is a real question as to whether the universe had a beginning or not. I mean, there is a reality independent of what we know. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. But it's clear that we don't know whether it did or not right now.

OK, and one more time for you, too. It was TIME that had a beginning at the Big Bang. The universe is ENERGY in one form or another. Energy can't be created, so no beginning, and it can't be destroyed, so no end. The Big Bang is the point where the already existing, full energy of the universe began to expand.

Let me try to explain it another way. If you toss a ball straight up in the air it rises to a certain point and no farther and then falls back to its starting point. So it passes every point in its path twice, once up and once down, except one. There is one point at the top, a singularity, where the ball is neither rising or falling. This condition is extremely unstable and lasts only a tiny moment, but for one moment the ball was not moving at all.

Now back to the universe, there is a point, a singularity where all the energy of the universe is compressed into the same point, and for one singular moment the universe is neither expanding nor contracting. For one singular moment there is no movement so for that singular moment TIME does not exist because in physics time exists ONLY in terms of motion. The next moment is the beginning of time at the point of the Big Bang where the movement of expansion starts. So it is TIME that begins at the Big Bang not the energy of the universe.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Ed, I am not even going to attempt to look at all the things Hawking has published. All I can suggest to you is that you look on your own into the question of an eternal universe. I am confident that you will find that there is doubt about it.

Look, there is no way we can know whether or not the universe is eternal or not anyway. All I'm talking about is what's believed. And I think that if you look on your own in any way you wish into the question of what's believed about the concept of an eternal universe you will find that there's a lot of doubt about it.

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

You may want to read up on the second law if you believe that the universe is eternal.

Why draw attention to your prophet?

You say there is no God but God alone, and yet you focus attention on the prophet?

Focus on God, then, and nevermind the man who reminded you.

 

[Kalam]

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

You may want to read up on the second law if you believe that the universe is eternal.

Why draw attention to your prophet?

You say there is no God but God alone, and yet you focus attention on the prophet?

Focus on God, then, and nevermind the man who reminded you.

I'm more interested in the discussion at hand. If I want religious advice, I'll give you a ring...

 

[manu1959]

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes

 

[Kalam]

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[manu1959]

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

the universe existed before you ... it will exist after you.....

 

[Kalam]

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

the universe existed before you ... it will exist after you.....

That doesn't mean that it's always existed and that it will continue to exist infinitely.

 

[edthecynic]

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

You've already pontificated that without proof, parroting it again won't make it any less wrong.
Please explain why it's impossible, according to the SLoT, and without misstating the SLoT or violating the First or Third Laws.
How hard can that be? You seen so sure, so certain.

 

[Kalam]

The Universe: Eternal or no? .....................i say yes

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

You've already pontificated that without proof, parroting it again won't make it any less wrong.
Please explain why it's impossible, according to the SLoT, and without misstating the SLoT or violating the First or Third Laws.
How hard can that be? You seen so sure, so certain.

The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system tends to approach maximum entropy over time. The universe is an isolated system. Therefore, if the universe had always existed, it would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't very complicated.

 

[edthecynic]

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

You've already pontificated that without proof, parroting it again won't make it any less wrong.
Please explain why it's impossible, according to the SLoT, and without misstating the SLoT or violating the First or Third Laws.
How hard can that be? You seen so sure, so certain.

The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system tends to approach maximum entropy over time. The universe is an isolated system. Therefore, if the universe had always existed, it would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't very complicated.

I already stated that the SLoT stated correctly was: "In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy NEVER DECREASES." We seem to be in agreement with the closed system part, but you go off from there, so I'm going to have to pin you down to scientific words. You see my SLoT gives you an equation for the SLoT, but your words seem to give a different equation.

So with the words "tends to approach maximum" seems to imply that the key words I mentioned in an earlier post, "NEVER DECREASES" would have to be "ALWAYS INCREASES' for your "tends to approach maximum" to imply maximum entropy would have occurred an "INFINITE amount of time" (what ever that is, time is not infinite) ago. Are you sure you got that from a credible SCIENTIFIC source? You know statistics has a law of entropy just like yours, but it is not valid in physics and is different from the scientific SLoT I gave. The one you gave is conspicuously not in scientific language.

I can assure you my SLoT is correct and entropy does not ALWAYS INCREASE, if it did, then no matter could exist. If you check a legitimate scientific source you will see it is "never decreases." The Creationists play your word games and use a nonscientific law of entropy as the SLoT.

So I need you to clarify, are you saying the SLoT says entropy is "ALWAYS increasing?"
Do you know the difference between "never decreases" and "always increases" in scientific language. Remember in scientific language there is no such thing as: "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. "Is" means the equal sign and absolutely nothing else but the equal sign. So "never decreases" is a different mathematical sign than "always increases."

If you don't know, why don't you give me your SLoT as the equation it represents and I'll tell you if "tends to approach maximum" is "never decreases" or "always increases." Of course, for you to claim of having already reached max entropy at some unmeasured time in the infinite past, if I understand your point correctly, would require an "always increasing" entropy.
So your finite universe has to exist where there is no matter.
Did you know that?

 

[HUGGY]

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

You've already pontificated that without proof, parroting it again won't make it any less wrong.
Please explain why it's impossible, according to the SLoT, and without misstating the SLoT or violating the First or Third Laws.
How hard can that be? You seen so sure, so certain.

The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system tends to approach maximum entropy over time. The universe is an isolated system. Therefore, if the universe had always existed, it would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't very complicated.

How do you know that the universe is an isolated system? You fundis make too many assumtions. "there is no god but God?" If only you had enough mental steam to see what a rediculous statement that is.

 

[Kalam]

-Rudolf Clausius.

"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."
-Rudolf Clausius.

Did you know that?

Don't take a condescending tone towards me.

 

[edthecynic]

-Rudolf Clausius.

"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."
-Rudolf Clausius.

Did you know that?

Don't take a condescending tone towards me.

And Newton said that a body at rest tends to stay at rest, then along came Einstein and he said there is no such thing as a body at rest.

Never decreases means greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO, and always increases means greater than but NOT EQUAL TO ZERO. What you have tried to do is eliminate the equal to zero part with semantics since it can't be done with math. When entropy equals zero it does NOT tend to a max, it stays the same.
If entropy can't equal zero then no matter can exist.

In an earlier post on this thread I quipped that the universe was a perpetual COMMOTION machine with an entropy of ZERO.

 

[Kalam]

-Rudolf Clausius.

"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."
-Rudolf Clausius.

Did you know that?

Don't take a condescending tone towards me.

And Newton said that a body at rest tends to stay at rest, then along came Einstein and he said there is no such thing as a body at rest.

Never decreases means greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO, and always increases means greater than but NOT EQUAL TO ZERO. What you have tried to do is eliminate the equal to zero part with semantics since it can't be done with math. When entropy equals zero it does NOT tend to a max, it stays the same.
If entropy can't equal zero then no matter can exist.

In an earlier post on this thread I quipped that the universe was a perpetual COMMOTION machine with an entropy of ZERO.

Far be it from me to contradict someone who knows more about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics than the inventor of both concepts.

 

[Kalam]

How do you know that the universe is an isolated system? You fundis make too many assumtions.

Because it fits the definition of isolated system. This is common scientific knowledge, not something I'm assuming or pulling out of my ass.

"there is no god but God?" If only you had enough mental steam to see what a rediculous statement that is.

You misspelled "ridiculous," dipshit. Your "mental steam" pipe must have a couple of leaks...

 

[edthecynic]

-Rudolf Clausius.

"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."
-Rudolf Clausius.


Don't take a condescending tone towards me.

And Newton said that a body at rest tends to stay at rest, then along came Einstein and he said there is no such thing as a body at rest.

Never decreases means greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO, and always increases means greater than but NOT EQUAL TO ZERO. What you have tried to do is eliminate the equal to zero part with semantics since it can't be done with math. When entropy equals zero it does NOT tend to a max, it stays the same.
If entropy can't equal zero then no matter can exist.

In an earlier post on this thread I quipped that the universe was a perpetual COMMOTION machine with an entropy of ZERO.

Far be it from me to contradict someone who knows more about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics than the inventor of both concepts.

So you are saying science has learned nothing since the time of Clausius!!!

The fact remains, the SLoT says Entropy CAN equal zero, and when Entropy equals zero there is NO tendency toward a max. There is no tendency in either direction, the "tendency" is to STAY THE SAME. So the SLoT says entropy can stay the same OR increase but it can't decrease, get it???
So your burden is to prove that matter can exist when entropy can't equal zero, and you haven't and can't meet that burden.