Thermodynamics and The Universe

Chiroptera writes:So even in a classical universe existing for a finite amount of time, there is no violation of the law of conservation of energy: there was no point in time when the energy content of the universe was different.

Chiroptera writes:That is why I say that the universe simply exists.

HA writes:with the 'creation' of the universe here (since this would be on topic)? As has been mentioned there are very good reasons why Thermodynamics is unapplicable to t=0, it isn't just claimed for convenience. Thermodynamics is an emergent property from a large system including staggering numbers of particles. A gas consisting of 10 atoms would not display the same properties as a gas consisting of a molar quantity. From my understanding of current theories there were no atoms (or particles of any kind) in existence anywhere near to t=0 (speaking in relative terms), so what exactly would Thermodynamics be acting upon?

HA writes:Not really on topic, but why does a universe 'with no beginning or end' have to be infinite?

Jar writes:But there is evidence that the universe exists.
Do you have evidence that your creator designer exists?

blog exerpts writes:In the beginning there was the bit . . and after that came the rest of the weird world, says Hans Christian von Baeyer"NOBODY understands quantum mechanics," lamented Richard Feynman. But Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna aims to prove him wrong. His research group has demonstrated the futuristic phenomena of quantum teleportation and quantum encryption, and these successes have encouraged Zeilinger to search for the essence of quantum mechanics-the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. He believes that he has found it. If he is right, all the mysteries of the quantum world will turn out to be inescapable consequences of a single, simple ideaQuantum theory describes the world with astonishing precision, whether applied to elementary particles a hundred thousand times smaller than atoms or to currents in superconducting rings a billion times larger. And yet it seems to present a catalogue of intertwined conundrums. The most fundamental is quantisation, the notion that energy, spin and other quantities only come in discrete steps. Another enigma is the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, at odds with the classical world of definite physical properties. Then there is entanglement, the profound connectedness of objects and processes across large distances, and superposition, the astonishing proposition that an electron can be both here and there, a current can flow simultaneously clockwise and anticlockwise, and a cat can be both dead and alive, until you look to see which.Physicists have anxiously devised one philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics after another.The many-worlds interpretation insists that all possible outcomes of an experiment actually occur in as many parallel universes, but as we only occupy a single branch of the hydra-headed multiverse, we experience only one outcome. Or, if you prefer, there's the guiding wave interpretation, which assigns an undetectable "pilot wave" to each particle to steer it along a perfectly determined path. Altogether there are at least eight serious and reputable interpretations of the theory, which implies that no single one is convincing.None of these theories suffer from the confusions of quantum mechanics.
Not forgetting that touchstone of quantum mechanics, the two-slit experiment (see "Two becomes one").Less obviously, Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world.This gives us a natural explanation for one of the most fundamental and puzzling features of quantum mechanics-entanglement.
Zeilinger's single, simple principle leads to these three cornerstones of quantum mechanics: quantisation, uncertainty and entanglement.Physicists use Schrodinger's equation to work out how a particle will behave in a given situation.
It governs the evolution of things called wave functions, inside a bizarre abstract arena called Hilbert space. Because Hilbert space makes use of imaginary numbers, based on the square root of minus one, these numbers-the amplitudes of the wave functions-have to be squared to produce a real, observable quantity, such as the probability of a particle being in a given place. It is not an intuitively obvious way of describing things.
Zeilinger and Brukner discard it.Any quantum system has to describe how states change over time, so the point in information space has to move. It seemed natural to Zeilinger and Brukner to have the point move as if it were a real, classical object. So they used the mechanical equation that governs the motion of bullets and billiard balls. When translated back into its equivalent form in Hilbert space, it turns out to be none other than Schrodinger's equation.A qubit is simply an elementary system such as an electron spin. Because a qubit can be in a superposition of 1 and 0, it must hold not only classical information, but some more elusive quantum kind of information too. Many practitioners feel that ordinary information theory must be contained in quantum information theory.

Son Goku writes:In fact the third law, Entropy tends to zero as temperture tends to zero kelvin (Which has the immediate consequence that specific heat decreases as you lower temperture), can only be explained by Quantum Mechanics.

SonGoku writes:I still don't understand how QM undermines thermodynamics. I appreciate what you're saying about it running counter to intuition, but I fail to see its conflict with Thermodynamics.

cavediver writes:Of course we do not know what happens at t=0, but to the interested layman this should be irrelevant. Considering and understanding the various bizarre possibilities is key to appreciating what GR, quantum gravity, and by association string theory, loop gravity, etc. are really all about. T=0 is about stretching your understanding so you can appreciate what the issues really are.

Rick writes:My knowledge of physics is rudimentry at best, so I choose to read and learn. Why not do the same?

Percy writes:But QM also obfuscates the subjective so that mysterious interpretations relate to the paintings. Comparing science to decreased entropy applies QM to the earth's quantity and explains the solar system.