The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[fncceo]

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions. The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way. Hubble's dual discoveries of the actual distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe, will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.

 

[ding]

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions. The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way. Hubble's dual discoveries of the actually distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe, will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.

Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?

 

[fncceo]

Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?

In a closed system, yes.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?

In a closed system, yes.

Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes? Such that usable energy will be lost during each energy to matter or matter to energy transaction?

 

[fncceo]

Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?

Don't confuse mechanical efficiency with natural reactions.

Matter and Energy, in a closed system, are a balanced equation. If we say energy is lost in a reaction, it only means that the energy has been redirected in such a way that it is not useful to us. It doesn't mean the energy is unaccounted for. There must be an accounting of both energy and matter in a closed system.

Based on what we have observed about the increasing speed of universal expansion ... there would seem to be an ever-increasing amount of energy in The Universe that we can't explain. We have labeled this energy as 'Dark Energy' simply because we can't observe it or measure it, we can only observe its effects.

Energy can't increase in a closed system so there must be other factors at work here that we currently can't comprehend.

 

[dblack]

Therefore, Gawd. Got it.

 

[fncceo]

Therefore, Gawd. Got it.

Where do you get G-d from that?

 

[dblack]

Therefore, Gawd. Got it.

Where do you get G-d from that?

It was a ding post. Duh.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?

Don't confuse mechanical efficiency with natural reactions.

Matter and Energy, in a closed system, are a balanced equation. If we say energy is lost in a reaction, it only means that the energy has been redirected in such a way that it is not useful to us. It doesn't mean the energy is unaccounted for. There must be an accounting of both energy and matter in a closed system.

Based on what we have observed about the increasing speed of universal expansion ... there would seem to be an ever-increasing amount of energy in The Universe that we can't explain. We have labeled this energy as 'Dark Energy' simply because we can't observe it or measure it, we can only observe its effects.

Energy can't increase in a closed system so there must be other factors at work here that we currently can't comprehend.

Right, which is why I qualified it as useable energy. The total energy of the system remains the same but the useable energy decreases. It's how a universe can become thermally equilibrated and still not violate the FLoT because no energy/mass has been destroyed. So if the universe were cycled infinitely between a big bang and a big crunch the total energy of the system wouldn't change but the useable energy would. There is no way to get around this without adding energy.

And I haven't even gotten into the problems with the big crunch being able to rebound like a universe which was created from nothing.

The ever increasing energy in the universe (i.e. dark matter/energy) is effectively a fudge factor. It only exists to make their calculations match "apparent" observations. No one can say which particles it is made of, how it is created without violating the FLoT or how it can affect the gravity of other objects but not itself be affected by gravity. But if we want to honor this fudge factor, mind you it exists because the apparent observation has the expansion of the universe accelerating and unable to crunch which means in and of itself the universe was created and has not existed forever which is yet another argument for why the universe has not existed forever.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Before I read the whole thing consider our universe is just one bubble in a vast lava lamp of bubbles. Each bubble is unique. You know the edge of our universe? It’s expanding right? So it’s fluid. It grows. At one time our universe got started. Science thinks a Big Bang happened 13 billion years ago. But what about before that? Is that beyond your comprehension? We don’t know.

 

[ding]

Therefore, Gawd. Got it.

I haven't gotten within a hundred miles of God.

 

[fncceo]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Before I read the whole thing consider our universe is just one bubble in a vast lava lamp of bubbles. Each bubble is unique. You know the edge of our universe? It’s expanding right? So it’s fluid. It grows. At one time our universe got started. Science thinks a Big Bang happened 13 billion years ago. But what about before that? Is that beyond your comprehension? We don’t know.

And if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

You have got to love people who elevate science to a religion but can't be bothered with learning it.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

 

[sealybobo]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

Ever hear think outside the box? Well I’m not putting our universe in a box. There must be something outside the box.

 

[ding]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

I disagree. We know quite a lot about how the universe was created. Being created from nothing is the only plausible explanation. People have to step over quite a bit of evidence to make the kind of statement you guys are making.

But if you really believe you don't know for sure, why are you making comments like you do. If you really don't know then you don't know I am not correct.

 

[ding]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

Ever hear think outside the box? Well I’m not putting our universe in a box. There must be something outside the box.

I suspect radiation exists outside of the box. The radiation left over from universes where the amount of anti-matter and matter honored the symmetry seen in collider experiments and was created with exactly the same amount of each.

 

[Grumblenuts]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

That ding is always hopelessly lost, circling around in a little universe of his own creation, indeed.

 

[fncceo]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

Ever hear think outside the box? Well I’m not putting our universe in a box. There must be something outside the box.

For the entire history of Cosmology, we've just been ever expanding the box. Our Universe keeps getting bigger and bigger. It's impossible to say, at this point, where it will end up.